Attachment to Places
Sep. 30th, 2020 03:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This article talks about attachment to places, and the lack thereof. The more people move around, the harder it gets to form and maintain attachments, both to places and to people. Without attachments, there is little incentive to take care of anyone or anything. If they stop being fun, you can just leave and find another. Then everyone wonders why they feel unfulfilled.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-09-30 10:39 am (UTC)The behavior scheme "if something doesn't suit you, just cancel everything/give up and try the same in another place" is actually something that should be concerned in why do the younger generations throw in the towel so quickly, if they don't succeed in an instant or don't get that what they want from a subject.
It's something which they don't get born with, it's something they learn.
On the other hand, regarding this subject, I know it so very much myself if you don't feel like home anywhere. But that's not necessarily due to changing locations a lot.
It's rather... finding no-one to rely and to lean on. It's "you're not important enough to anybody so that he voluntarily skips something of his life to (even) just look after you". It's the constant absence of someone reaching out for you - and not just a facade or something you can do for them or a habit because someone might be related by blood to you and "families ought to stick together" (such forced nonsense).
I think inside a part of me aches from that for more than half my whole timespan of existence already.
Thoughts
Date: 2020-09-30 10:48 am (UTC)Exactly.
>> It's something which they don't get born with, it's something they learn.<<
They learn it, because it's forced on them. It doesn't matter if someone wants to put down roots when their parents can rip them away from home at whim, or when a boss can fire them and make them unable to afford staying. Even if you manage to stay in one place and you reach out to other people, so many of them are moving around, it's very difficult to form long-term relationships. And it's getting harder all the time, because younger people aren't learning the skills for doing that, because they don't have the opportunity.
>> On the other hand, regarding this subject, I know it so very much myself if you don't feel like home anywhere. But that's not necessarily due to changing locations a lot.
It's rather... finding no-one to rely and to lean on. <<
That's also true.
>> It's "you're not important enough to anybody so that he voluntarily skips something of his life to (even) just look after you". It's the constant absence of someone reaching out for you - and not just a facade or something you can do for them or a habit because someone might be related by blood to you and "families ought to stick together" (such forced nonsense).<<
My standard is that families are groups who choose to move through life together. They might or might not be related. A functional family makes life easier; a dysfunctional one makes life harder.
>> I think inside a part of me aches from that for more than half my whole timespan of existence already.<<
I'm sorry to hear that.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-09-30 12:48 pm (UTC)By that standard, I know I am on my own. Totally on my own.
'Cause - those people which show signs of "bond" to me, it seems to me like they do that just because of practical reasons (like living together) and then just because of relation by blood. I know for myself how unwelcome I'd be if I'd be really open with a lot of things of my life and my thinking. (I even notice it myself that their talking and thinking isn't really good for me...)
I for myself define "family" similarly like you said it here; it's the people who I choose to be with and it's the people who chose me to be part of their life - not from habit, not from sharing genes, but just because they want me and I want them.
And in this point, there is no-one there. There's just a big void.
...It's not like my brain doesn't know that kind of existence from the school period, but one thing about it is: If you're a school kid, you hope, wish and expect it to become different once you're grown up.
But if that doesn't happen and as an adult you're still as on you own as you were since then, then...
...then you get quite asking what the heck is there still to look up to in life. If things just keep going on as they always did.
I have to say it like that.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-09-30 11:25 pm (UTC)Alas! :( I think more and more people are in that situation.
>> 'Cause - those people which show signs of "bond" to me, it seems to me like they do that just because of practical reasons (like living together) and then just because of relation by blood. <<
Yyyyyeah. Not fun.
>> I know for myself how unwelcome I'd be if I'd be really open with a lot of things of my life and my thinking. <<
Certainly there are relatives who purport to love me and want me around, but hate pretty much everything I am or stand for. It's like they have a little puppet of me in their heads that is totally different from the real me. Very creepy. I prefer to avoid them as much as possible.
>> (I even notice it myself that their talking and thinking isn't really good for me...) <<
It is good that you notice that! Bad that they are spewing bad input, but at least if you reject it, you're less likely to acquire it as bad tape.
>> I for myself define "family" similarly like you said it here; it's the people who I choose to be with and it's the people who chose me to be part of their life - not from habit, not from sharing genes, but just because they want me and I want them.<<
That is a good way to put it.
>> And in this point, there is no-one there. There's just a big void.<<
Sad situation, but increasingly common.
>> ...It's not like my brain doesn't know that kind of existence from the school period, but one thing about it is: If you're a school kid, you hope, wish and expect it to become different once you're grown up. <<
Often true.
Me, I didn't really believe most of what adults said about that. Instead, I looked around and made my own observations. College did not seem to be much different from other schools, other than charging a lot of money for slightly more complex material; and when I got there, my expectations were much more accurate than adult hype. I also noticed that many adults were unhappy in their lives. On the bright side, this helped me avoid many of the mistakes they had made.
But "It gets better" remains vicious advice. Sometimes it gets better; sometimes it stays the same; sometimes it gets worse. Nobody knows the future, but you can use things like history, statistics, and sociology to make pretty robust estimations. That is not usually how people do it, and when they do, others tend to whine about how grim the results are.
>> But if that doesn't happen and as an adult you're still as on you own as you were since then, then...
...then you get quite asking what the heck is there still to look up to in life. If things just keep going on as they always did.
I have to say it like that. <<
I'm pleased to see someone else acknowledging that. Most people just don't want to. Then they are shocked to see skyrocketing rates of things like suicide and shutins who refuse to swim in the social sewer. The problem with forcing most people into detachment is that, if they don't like their life, they're much more inclined to dump it or dump society because they don't have several dozen anchors holding them back.
On the bright side, other people's response to society sucking is to make their own better options. Hence intentional community, and closer to the mainstream, things like Strong Towns and Transition Towns that refute the dogma of detachment.
You do have to keep an eye on probabilities, though. Society will push false hope for all its worth. Depression and anxiety can make your feelings lie to you. So consider what is the source of your unhappiness, and is that a rock problem or a clay problem? If it is a rock problem, bailing is much more justified; if it is a clay problem, the appropriate thing to do is punch that clay into a more pleasing shape. People often do not do this step either, which leads to poor selection of problem-solving techniques.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 12:43 am (UTC)That certainly is so throughout my whole existence...
I'd like to get away from that 'cause I notice how toxic it is, but I fear of being not able to make it. As I'm completely on my own then, with physically fucked up health from chronic disease on top of it...
It wasn't an advice from other people back then. Already then it was the individual hope to create oneself a reason to stick to life. To believe there is a way out and a different kind of life.
People who think like the first sentence can't be saved anyway... They are just minded like that to run around with their eyes shut or their sight blinded by a lot of pseudo-happy crap. And to refuse what darkness exists throughout the world right beside them. Some of them maybe even need to protect themselves from something in their own life which they think they couldn't cope with.
The second sentence - I have a very idea in mind what it means...
At the end of my school time, my former life (that's why it's called "former") already ended up in such a final stop. Back then, it was called that.
So, if you wanna say so... my brain already knows a form of "bottom" in this context.
Frankly, I think I got too many rock problems present all at once.
And the "feeling no attachment" is something which I find it could be fixed only to a very limited extent - because this zeitgeist and people themselves are so much full of shit, so much full of US-SJW-ideology and the categories and terms US-sexual-minority-scene, including turning it all into the exact opposite; there's like no space for people who are factually positioned fully inside this spectrum, but disagree with this way to structure the world because they are no Americans and see the world functioning differently from that.
There's... literally no space for you, if you say, for example: "Mental sex isn't changeable or formable. And "gender" is something different than the neuropsychological embodiment of one's sex inside one's brain." - even if you harbor that position from being affected yourself. All over the place, it's just "gender" here and "gender" there... But "gender" isn't one's mental sex. And one's mental sex isn't something to play around with like some (I think: inexperienced) people want to make believe.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 02:05 am (UTC)Alas!
>> I'd like to get away from that 'cause I notice how toxic it is, but I fear of being not able to make it. As I'm completely on my own then, with physically fucked up health from chronic disease on top of it... <<
Yes, it is much more difficult for disabled people to survive and thrive, due to limited opportunities. The abuse rate is much higher for people with disabilities, around 90%, because it is harder for them to defend themselves and/or escape from abusers.
>>Already then it was the individual hope to create oneself a reason to stick to life. To believe there is a way out and a different kind of life.<<
That can be a good hope.
>> Frankly, I think I got too many rock problems present all at once.<<
That sucks.
>> And the "feeling no attachment" is something which I find it could be fixed only to a very limited extent - because this zeitgeist and people themselves are so much full of shit, so much full of US-SJW-ideology and the categories and terms US-sexual-minority-scene, including turning it all into the exact opposite; there's like no space for people who are factually positioned fully inside this spectrum, but disagree with this way to structure the world because they are no Americans and see the world functioning differently from that.<<
Yyyyyeah.
There's an aspect to the loneliness issue that average people can't experience. That is, if an average person goes to an event with 25 people, most or all of those people would be generally compatible and thus potential friends. But if someone is atypical, the potential list is much shorter.
Take sexuality. A heterosexual person has about 50% of the population as sexually relevant. That's about 12 out of 25 people, although not all may be unattached or interested. A homosexual person has only about 5% (because 10% is homosexual, divided about half and half by sex). That means probably 1 person out of 25.
Intelligence is another. Most people prefer to associate with people who are within about 20-30 IQ points in either direction. This is no problem for average people; they are surrounded with others like them, and most who are somewhat more or less intelligent will also be in range. But for someone on the fringes, it means very few people are potentially compatible, and also that dealing with average people is more work often for very little benefit. I was breaking tests in gradeschool, measuring in the top 1% far beyond my grade level. So realistically, the most generous estimate is that 1 in 100 people are on my level -- say, close enough to get along comfortably. More realistically, it's more like 1 in 1,000 or 10,000 are actually a match. I would have to dredge through at least 4 parties to find even one person who might be compatible, and probably far more than that. Because average people want to talk about things like which celebrity is fucking whom, and I want to talk about the latest exoplanet discovery. This makes it challenging to form relationships, not because my skills are poor, but for lack of appropriate potential partners and an unwillingness to settle for unsatisfying relationships. On the bright side, the internet enables me to connect with many friends online who share my fascination with esoteric topics and eagerly assist me in working at higher levels. \o/
Average people don't see that signal-to-noise issue, because for them it does not exist. They think everyone's experience of socializing is similar -- if you go, you'll make new friends -- when it really is not. But it's hard to argue with lived experiences, so large gulfs in that area usually mean people can't communicate effectively. Especially since they don't want to discuss the math.
>> There's... literally no space for you, if you say, for example: "Mental sex isn't changeable or formable. <<
In my observation, matters of sex and gender are static for most people but malleable for some. This statement almost always starts an argument no matter which group I'm with at the time.
>> And "gender" is something different than the neuropsychological embodiment of one's sex inside one's brain." - even if you harbor that position from being affected yourself. All over the place, it's just "gender" here and "gender" there... But "gender" isn't one's mental sex. And one's mental sex isn't something to play around with like some (I think: inexperienced) people want to make believe. <<
Well, sex/gender stuff is complicated, because there are so many variables. Since most of those variables tend to manifest together in a limited number of patterns most of the time, people tend to conflate them. You have to read very widely to encounter examples where they diverge and can be distinguished. I would be interested in hearing your definitions in this area, especially the distinction between mental sex and gender.
Based on my explorations:
Physical sex actually breaks down into a bunch of things that usually but not always align: chromosomes, hormones, brain configuration, genitals, etc. Disagreements among these aspects can create unexpected or ambiguous body shapes and feelings.
Gender is an innate identity, which is somewhat but not wholly influenced by the various aspects of body and also by society, personality, in some cases otherlife memories, and so on.
Mostly people clump together and have similar experiences. But some are uncommon or unique, and that's okay. It is not okay for people to pick on someone for having different identity or experiences.
See, this is the kind of conversation I like to get into while other people are talking about television or whatever.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 09:30 am (UTC)In that point, I wouldn't have so many concerns as I'm not the one to decline the invitation to a dance (call that "old instincts").
But things you got on your radar are finances, logistics and so on - and possible future logistics that may emerge along the timeline, like having to go to a new specialist.
Ts... Those two are already problems in my case.
And not just the only two.
Very recently, I wrote a piece in my journal on that topic: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/262809.html
The TL;DR-Version: There's physical sex, there's mental sex, and then there's gender.
The first is the visible physical manifestion - the "fleshly" part, so to say.
Mental sex is the neuropsychological embodiment of this - in short: The conviction inside of your head which sex you belong to. Also, the instintice ways you behave that people didn't teach you, but which come out of your all by themselves. (That is predetermined by the shower of hormones inside your mothers body; when you "come out" - get born -, this quantity is already determined. Living is just the process to make it unfold to what this quantity had been set in you.)
"Gender" is the role you decide to take yourself when being among other humans.
This can be anything that you want, anything that your character qualifies you for. Gender doesn't exist outside of human society.
The common mistake people make between "mental sex" and "gender" is because there once was a pedophile "scientist" called John Money who did experiments with humans (the "David Reimer case") who was convicted that sex identity is something that you raise a person into. So to say, in the 50s and 60s where he became the guru about the topic "sex identity", he was a popular slave to the fallacy that babies get born "blank" - and everything they become is just a result of outside input after birth.
Not only that this has been proven to be scientifically wrong meanwhile - babies do get born with a legacy of the brains of their parents; this contains talents, cognitive weaknesses, predispositions to mental problems, temperament, sometimes even strong prevalent character traits etc. -, I do seriously wonder why, after all those decades, still the whole social sciences world, especially the part that is ideologically dominated from the US, clings to this conviction of John Money as well as the terms he coined. Why they haven't moved any step further and still spread this proven nonsense. Why they haven't made the cognitive step yet to differentiate between a neurological embodiment of sex in one's brain and the social roles one picks.
I think I can sum this up pretty well: If biological and mental (neuropsychological) sex don't match, then this is like you have the wrong manual for a technical device you must/want to operate.
As the neuropsychological part can't be changed anymore (unless maybe very, very unhealthy lobotomy - and even that bears no guarantee), you've got to choose the option "hand the correct device that fits the manual".
That is the part of "body modification".
(I must admit, discussions in this sector are hard to do with people in English as it's so poisoned with the speech that Money coined; so people often don't really understand when you pick a different wording and why and that this is not born from intolerance or a convervative misunderstanding of the topic.
I think I myself may be still at the very beginning to use a wording that puts the records straight, but due to being a native in German, I think this is doable. German has a good orginal set of words for this topic section, so... just let's have a look if you can implement this into English similarly in linguistic meaning.)
(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 12:34 am (UTC)I'm attached to my hometown. I've been all over it on the bus by the time I was 16; I've driven all over it. I'm attached to the geography and the streets, the neighborhoods and the buildings. The swell of the hills and the sweep of the river, the traffic, the train horns, the birdsong, the trees everywhere and the restaurants and bars.
Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 12:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 12:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 12:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 01:07 am (UTC)...I think, to me, "feeling home" isn't dependent on a certain place, but rather "Who is in that place?".
Meaning, the social groups and the individual people matter more to me.
(Technically, you can erect a tent in every forksaken place of the earth - as long as you have "you people" with you, and surviving is somewhat secured, even the material poverty doesn't appear as drastic.)
Yes ...
Date: 2020-10-01 01:16 am (UTC)Re: Yes ...
Date: 2020-10-01 08:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 01:35 am (UTC)Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 02:41 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 02:57 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 03:18 am (UTC)Alas!
>> I tend to leave rather than fix things in relationships. <<
Well, part of that is fixable. Relationship skills, like other people skills, are learned. While it is harder to learn them outside the developmental window, progress can still be made. This would give you more options in maintaining good relationships -- and make it easier to recognize bad ones that you should indeed leave at top speed. Some things you might explore:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-practice/201504/do-you-have-these-21-essential-relationship-skills
https://www.wikihow.com/Build-Healthy-Interpersonal-Relationships
http://blog.thempowergroup.com/2016/07/14/the-20-people-skills-you-need-to-succeed-period/
https://www.wikihow.com/Have-Great-People-Skills
The ones I have found most valuable include concrete apology and validation.
>> Self-knowledge is valuable, at least.<<
This is true.
Some relationship skills grow out of self-knowledge. For instance, you have to know what you're feeling and what you want before you can communicate these to someone else. Put the bottom rungs on the ladder by making sure you know this stuff first, before complicating it by adding other people.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 08:28 am (UTC)I have to say it like that from a psychological point.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-10-01 11:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-09-30 05:19 pm (UTC)From where I sit, the big advantage of modern willingness to dump it all and leave, is that people can get themselves out of some pretty bad situations, without having to accept being socially stigmatized and relatively disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. I was a lot better off three thousand miles from my birth mother. My gay ex-Mormon friends were a lot better off a long way from their families. The offer of "we'll tolerate you, and only pick on you a bit (once you reach adulthood), provided you accept that you are subnormal" is not worth accepting, however much it allows the weird to survive in traditional societies.
The alternative to abandoning a bad situation is fighting back - and I mostly mean that quite literally. If I can't escape the local bully for whatever reason, my best choice is for some person-unknown to do him in; I just need to avoid being either caught or blamed. I don't think that this is an improvement. (For every person who gets away with a justifiable homicide, there will be some who get caught, and others whose homicide really wasn't justified - a custom of getting the hell out of dodge [instead] means the ones who are overreacting will do less harm, and the ones who are unskilled or unlucky will themselves receive less harm.)
Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 03:48 am (UTC)That's sad.
>> there's even a psychological term for me - though when I googled today I found a different set of terms I don't recognize. <<
There are a variety of terms.
>> The one I remember is something like insecure-avoidant attachment style/disorder. <<
These are attachment styles. Here is a look at insecure-avoidant attachment in children and its adult sequel, avoidant-dismissive. This post talks about how to overcome that pattern.
You may have come across things like Reactive Attachment Disorder, or more accurately connection disruption. What RAD really means is that a child is unable or unwilling to meet adult demands for attention and obedience. What causes that is adults spectacularly failing to meet a child's needs for healthy attachments to form, and then of course they blame the child for being "disordered." See also Developmental Trauma Disorder as a relative of PTSD, in which early stress (neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc.) disrupts whatever element of body/mind is growing in at that time.
>> I'm told I spent the first year of my life in the care of social services, and I actually remember being back in foster care for a year at the age of 6 or 7. Message received: people go away, en masse, and you can't control it. Conclusion: so you had better concentrate on things you can control, or at least influence, which are unlikely to involve other people.<<
That would do it. :(
>> From where I sit, the big advantage of modern willingness to dump it all and leave, is that people can get themselves out of some pretty bad situations, without having to accept being socially stigmatized and relatively disadvantaged for the rest of their lives.<<
That is an advantage.
>> I was a lot better off three thousand miles from my birth mother. My gay ex-Mormon friends were a lot better off a long way from their families. The offer of "we'll tolerate you, and only pick on you a bit (once you reach adulthood), provided you accept that you are subnormal" is not worth accepting, however much it allows the weird to survive in traditional societies.<<
Yeah.
>> The alternative to abandoning a bad situation is fighting back - and I mostly mean that quite literally. If I can't escape the local bully for whatever reason, my best choice is for some person-unknown to do him in; I just need to avoid being either caught or blamed.<<
That's one option, among others.
>> I don't think that this is an improvement. (For every person who gets away with a justifiable homicide, there will be some who get caught, and others whose homicide really wasn't justified <<
It depends on the context, and the people. Sometimes running is better, sometimes fighting is. Most humans have a complete 4F survival toolkit.
>> a custom of getting the hell out of dodge [instead] means the ones who are overreacting will do less harm, and the ones who are unskilled or unlucky will themselves receive less harm.) <<
Often true.
However, humans are not really designed to live alone, and most fare poorly in that mode. Modern society leaves a lot of miserable people as a result. This is a problem.
Flight works best as a strategy when there is something better to flee toward, when people can find a home, family, friends, job, etc. elsewhere. This is rarely true today. For all the "get help" yammering, very little help is available and most has strings attached; there's never enough for those who need it, and many who need it find it untenable or inaccessible. If society really wanted people to stay alive and healthy, it would provide no-strings support for everyone fleeing a bad situation. Instead we see a lot of deaths in the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" pattern.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-01 05:59 pm (UTC)That link was interesting. I'm pretty clearly a combination of fight and flight, in those terms, but wouldn't have thought of using such terms at all. But my goal has been control, generally via not needing anyone else's help, or being able to acquire that help in the marketplace. And when people infringe on me, I fight back.
Since I moved to California 20 years ago, I've somewhat had fawn forced on me. To gain the money and status to better take care of myself, I need to demonstrate "social skils", aka pretending to believe and be excited by managment's latest brilliant take on the strategy that I've already repeatedly seen fail, among other all-important skills required to be rated "meets role requirements" as an engineer.
Fawn kills my morale. After praising the brilliant leader, it will be hours, perhaps days, before I'm able to motivate myself to do more than trivial engineering. After supressing the urge to give feedback about yet another piss poor user interface "improvement", or to admit that I regard the people making those decisions as somewhere in the space that contains incompetence, knowingy acting to destroy the product, and fixation on increasingly tiny improvements for a subset of users, at the expense of everyone else (aka complete unawareness of the concept of "trade off"; see "incompetence") - I'll probably feel exhausted, and now that I'm WFH, indulge that by taking a nap during working hours, and not make up the time later.
And on the flip side, if I get excited about my work, and feel competent and with it, rather than too old and tired etc., I'll probably forget to be sufficiently deferent, and get more negative feedback from my manager. (Who hasn't figured out that the two problems are connected - but to be fair, I only noted the connection myself recently - when I'm in my normal lead-and-take-charge mode, I expect all my input to be equally valued and equally good; when I'm avoiding "being negative" I'm also quiet as a mouse and basically invisible.)
Of course it doesn't help that I'm also on the autistic spectrum. We almost certainly have a multi-generational trauma situation in my birth family. None of us are "real people", aka "normals", and we've all developed coping strategies that aren't great for building relationships. My mother did borderline personality disorder, with a lot of extreme acting out. That's how she came to conceive me while on day pass from a mental home, which is of course how I ended up in the hands of social services as an infant. One half-sister specializes in "flee".
>> However, humans are not really designed to live alone, and most fare poorly in that mode. Modern society leaves a lot of miserable people as a result. This is a problem.
I'm very much not looking forward to becoing old and frail, particularly if I lose a degree of mental functioning. I currently have a very comfortable (for me) living situation with a fellow weirdo, probably smarter than I am (extremely rare - I'm off the charts myself) but with different specialization, who has enough less "fight" in her that we don't end up in routine conflicts. (I may be infringing on her though, which worries me. I don't want to ill treat people i care about.) At any rate, she's convinced she'll predecease me, and if that happens I'll be back to my older less satisfactory pattern of living totally alone, complete with grief and the resulting poor judgment, plus some degree of age-related disability. Not appealing, but it's pretty much the hand life has dealt me - or that hand modified by my best efforts to upgrade a few of the cards.
For now though, I'm very comfortable. My solutions ahve worked well for me.
>> Flight works best as a strategy when there is something better to flee toward, when people can find a home, family, friends, job, etc. elsewhere. This is rarely true today. For all the "get help" yammering, very little help is available and most has strings attached; there's never enough for those who need it, and many who need it find it untenable or inaccessible. If society really wanted people to stay alive and healthy, it would provide no-strings support for everyone fleeing a bad situation. Instead we see a lot of deaths in the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" pattern.
I recognize that humans, particularly those not on the autistic spectrum, often sincerely desire what they claim to desire, while at the same time acting in ways that reduce their chances of getting it, even in actions explicitly taken to pursue that particular aim.
But at the same time, it's often useful to deduce the real goals from what the choices made actually acheive.
And in this case, I think societies want the misfits to go away, and is reasonably OK with them dying, and more than OK with them not reproducing their own kind. This includes but is not limited to weirdos. Surplus poor people are misfits, as are those incapable of learning the skills required for the majority of jobs in that society. It's good to have a few people on skid row, to point at to motivate those whose compliance is slipping, but not too many, as that would impose costs on the normal people/society as a whole/the society's controlling elite.
This is made more complex, because societies need a few weirdos, the way organisms need mutations - both provide potential adaptations when conditions change. But just as with mutations, most either have no visible effect, or reduce the affected entity's chances of surviving, reproducing, etc. But also much like organisms, societies have immune systems, to reduce infestation by nasty potentially dangerous mutant cells/weird people. (Yes, I mixed my metaphors, between mutant organisms and mutant cells within an organism. Not enough time this morning to write better.)
Note also I'm not blaming US society in particular, or modern societies in general. Weirdos have had problems with their society approximately forever. Exactly what traits make you "weird" have changed somewhat, but not the basic pattern. Some folks are less useful to the PTB, and more disruptive - or simply less pleasant for the common type of person to be around. If there's not enough to go round, those folks get less. If a scapegoat is wanted, those folks are it. etc. etc.
And starting with a disadvantage that's not your own fault is generally enough to put you on the "weird" side of resource distribution, unless you are lucky enough to also spring from the local elite.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-02 08:13 am (UTC)Logical.
>>Since I moved to California 20 years ago, I've somewhat had fawn forced on me.<<
That sucks. :(
Me, I'm just not good enough at it for the workplace. I've lost or quit over it more than once. Instead I've found work where I don't have to jack people's ego.
>>Fawn kills my morale.<<
That sounds like a PASS problem, which can be very dangerous.
>> Of course it doesn't help that I'm also on the autistic spectrum. <<
Yeah, that's hard.
>> We almost certainly have a multi-generational trauma situation in my birth family. <<
Yikes. There are some resources for coping with that, though.
>> I'm very much not looking forward to becoing old and frail, particularly if I lose a degree of mental functioning. <<
America has arranged things so that the death nobody wants -- alone, in pain, in a hospital -- is the death almost everyone gets. However, there are ways around this. For example, the unpreventable types of death (e.g. cancer, Alzheimer's), which tend to be most ruinous, are usually preceded by several preventable types, some of which are quicker and cleaner (e.g. heart attack). If pressured to prevent things, consider whether you would find that type of death preferable to a lengthy and miserable one in the hands of your enemies. Frex, one doctor harped on heart disease as a "silent killer." I said, what's not to like? He dropped his brain. But seriously, if I am out walking and fall over dead, that is a perfectly agreeable death. Enslaved in a hospital for years is not.
>> I currently have a very comfortable (for me) living situation with a fellow weirdo<<
Yay!
>>I recognize that humans, particularly those not on the autistic spectrum, often sincerely desire what they claim to desire, while at the same time acting in ways that reduce their chances of getting it, even in actions explicitly taken to pursue that particular aim.<<
Point.
>>But at the same time, it's often useful to deduce the real goals from what the choices made actually acheive.<<
They can be quite deluded. At least, they become extremely distressed when I point out that their chosen action is undermining their stated goal, I state what goals it aligns with, and ask if they wish to change their action to match their stated goal. When they do not, I reiterate the mismatch, adding that they are now lying since they are aware they are working against that goal and toward a different goal. They should be honest about their goals.
>>And in this case, I think societies want the misfits to go away, and is reasonably OK with them dying, and more than OK with them not reproducing their own kind. This includes but is not limited to weirdos. Surplus poor people are misfits, as are those incapable of learning the skills required for the majority of jobs in that society. It's good to have a few people on skid row, to point at to motivate those whose compliance is slipping, but not too many, as that would impose costs on the normal people/society as a whole/the society's controlling elite.<<
This is all painfully true, although they actively murder some categories. Just look at police statistics for black or disabled people, not to mention the lethal effects of commodity foods on Native Americans or unhealthy food subsidies on the poor. If they really wanted people to eat healthy food, they'd quit subsidizing sugar and subsidize apples and spinach. For fucksake, this is not rocket science.
>>This is made more complex, because societies need a few weirdos<<
Absolutely. Without that, society is fucked when things change. Have you ever seen a fully matured, static society with <1% weirdos get hit with a major upheaval? It's hilarious, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off. I confess, I usually loot and run. Fuck 'em. (Okay, usually I'm the one on the horse with the torches, but oh well.)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-02 04:25 pm (UTC)A lot of the incidental abuse I experience isn't intentional, it's just that something else is (always) more important than fixing my problem. I think this applies to a lot of the examples you suggest, where "making money", "getting elected", and "giving advantages to donors" are examples of goals more important than non-elite people's health and safety.
Yesterday I had an economy sized blow up at my manager, in a performance review, because she's once again stressing me not doing anything that other people consider to be socially inappropriate, and doesn't get that the only way I can avoid that risk is to do nothing at all. (This is pursuant to an incident where her manager texted her that I was about to go off again, a few days ago, and she texted me; she can't see that I was completely blindisded, and since I can't see what was wrong about the style of my message, any message I might send would be equally likely to be "bad" behaviour.)
For what it's worth, she was trying to congratulate me on not having any public blow ups with official reprimands in the past year. But "must only talk to your manager about complaints" and "manager is very busy" add up to "must not talk today" - every day, as long as the relationship persists. It's also notable, though I didn't get a chance to mention it, that the year I got "exceeds expectations" in a technical area" along with "fails to meet expectations" for "teamwork" I got a much better annual bonus than this year with "meets expectations" across the board.
As for the incident that got me down rated for "teamwork", well I suggested after 3+ months of being unable to fix a situation that was impairing my health, that since it clearly happened on his watch, and because of policies he presumably supports, the CEO deserved to be fucked with a splintery telephone pole and no lube. I was in an impaired condition at the time, as a direct result of the situation in question, FWIW. At any rate, someone reported it to HR - with the result that I had a very frank - and loud - private discussion with my boss' boss, the problem got fixed within the week, and I got a bad rating on my performance review. (I did manage to emphasize to my manager yesterday that making a public comment extreme enough that I got written up with HR was the best strategy I could find to fix the problem at the time, though unintentional. (That incident also resulted in my autism being officially disclosed to management, for the first time in my life.)
At the time, I was exploring the possibility getting my doctor to give them a choice of accomodating the health problem, or paying me disability; I'd run out of better options because while almost any manager in my reporting chain could get me exempted, they were always too busy doing something more imporant (to them). (Problem, in a nut shell - wasn't allowed to park near the building, because of red tape, and couldn't physically handle the sun and heat exposure I was getting walking from the nearest place I was allowed to park. I'd discovered I could get a ride [for the disabled] for half the route - but that was the part that I could otherwise have done indoors, which was merely physically a bit much for my aging body, rather than the more serious bad interaction of excess sun exposure with my prescription medications.)
>> Have you ever seen a fully matured, static society with <1% weirdos get hit with a major upheaval? It's hilarious, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off. I confess, I usually loot and run. Fuck 'em. (Okay, usually I'm the one on the horse with the torches, but oh well.)
At the moment, I'm coping with yesterday's stressful interaction, and the expected result of insomnia (which didn't materialize, yay!) by actively fantasizing about e.g. what a disaffected weirdo with biological skills could produce by way of an assymetric plague that kills off primarily the less weird and most powerful. Since it's just a fantasy, the effects can be unrealistically precise, and the real world ethical conflicts can be elided. (In the real world, most weirdos have a few normal people they care about.. sometimes they even give both to normal children...) It wouldn't make a decent novel, or even a short story - it's a complete self-indulgent Mary Sue - except I call the ones with an over-the-top violent streaks "Murder Sues" ;-( But it's helping me manage my moods, so I'm happy enough with it.
I like your image too. And being the one on the horse with the torch right now is very appealing.
What I'm probably going to do relatively soon is declare myself retired. That's scary - no expectation of anyone else looking after my interests - but as long as the investment markets don't crash and stay crashed, a lot worse than covid + Trump has made them do so far - I've got appropriate savings to maintain my current lifestyle more or less indefinitely, and the fallback if things go wrong of moving to a lower cost area. At this point though I'm following my 3 day rule after yesterday's blow up - never make a big or unrevocable decision within 3 days of the incident provoking it.
>> That sounds like a PASS problem, which can be very dangerous.
The high functioning autistic community has its own terminology for much the same thing - people who are best at pretending to be normal often "crash", winding up with a breakdown. I did that approaching 20 years ago, and was off work on disability for 3 months, followed by some time working limited hours. Fortunately(?) the crash had physical symptoms, so it looked medical to coworkers and managers, but my doctor figured it, correctly, for primarily coming from the psychological side. Also fortunately, shortly after I was back working full time I got head hunted by a much more nerd-friendly company. And that led to me finally cracking the glass no-Aspie ceiling that was keeping me from being promoted to the level my technical abilities merited. (As a "principal engineer" my financial prospects turned out to be much better, though the reason I wanted it was to avoid having to carry my cap in my hand to beg higher ranked engineers to permit me to do what I knew was the right thing, being the actual expert on the topic at hand.)
Anyway, I'm rambling. Thanks for being a kind of therapist and helping me cope with my current conflicts and confusion. I'll also be talking to a professional therapist this evening, who I've been seeing since before the breakdown. (Does anyone ever recover with therapy? Or does the therapy simply function like a crutch or a prosthetic?)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-02 08:39 pm (UTC)That damn well is intentional. While you may not be a primary target -- that is, they're not going out of their way to hurt you like gaybashers go hunting -- those people damn well know they are being selfish and that their actions hurt other people. They could make other choices, but they choose to be selfish.
>>Yesterday I had an economy sized blow up at my manager, in a performance review, because she's once again stressing me not doing anything that other people consider to be socially inappropriate, and doesn't get that the only way I can avoid that risk is to do nothing at all.<<
That environment is toxic for you. That kind of constant pressure to be something you're not is what causes autistic burnout.
>> But "must only talk to your manager about complaints" and "manager is very busy" add up to "must not talk today" - every day, as long as the relationship persists.<<
It is not reasonable to make mutually exclusive demands. That is abusive. If the manager is always too busy to address your concerns, then the company must furnish another employee for that purpose. Solutions to this exist; there are companies with an ombudsman, complaint department, human resources employee for resolving issues, etc. Putting a sealed pot on a hot stove causes explosions. That's not autism, it's physics.
The situation you describe is a misapplication of dominance theory in which subordinates are expected to suffer in silence. It is ineffective as well as unethical. If this is at all typical of how the corporation works, which is likely, they are probably hemorrhaging money through such things as absenteeism, presenteeism, supply pilfering, stress-related illnesses, turnover costs, and so on.
>>At the time, I was exploring the possibility getting my doctor to give them a choice of accomodating the health problem, or paying me disability<<
That would've been a much better solution if you have an amenable doctor. Give people one or two chances to do the logical, decent thing and if that doesn't work, try a different approach.
>> what a disaffected weirdo with biological skills could produce by way of an assymetric plague that kills off primarily the less weird and most powerful. Since it's just a fantasy, the effects can be unrealistically precise, <<
Oh, it would work fine if they targeted the elite. Targeting the merely normal is harder, but the elites often have distinct differences. In some cultures they're a genetic subset -- often inbred, leading to convenient target markers. In other cultures they have a different diet. Usually they live in somewhat different places. All of that makes it feasible to hit them preferentially.
>> and the real world ethical conflicts can be elided. <<
That remains an issue. But then consider how bad they are. Are they better, the same, or worse than a targeted strike?
>> (In the real world, most weirdos have a few normal people they care about.. sometimes they even give both to normal children...) <<
True. Separating weird from normal is much harder than separating elites from everyone else. And if you kill off most of the parasite class, the remaining norms tend to be much more livable.
>>I like your image too. And being the one on the horse with the torch right now is very appealing.<<
*fond sigh* Rome, by firelight! :D
I love the T-shirts that say, "If you're a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?"
>> What I'm probably going to do relatively soon is declare myself retired. That's scary - no expectation of anyone else looking after my interests <<
That may be prudent. Other options include finding a saner job (challenging) or working for yourself (depends on your skillset, but consultant seems a likely option).
>> At this point though I'm following my 3 day rule after yesterday's blow up - never make a big or unrevocable decision within 3 days of the incident provoking it. <<
That is a wise rule. However, you should also look at the established pattern over time. Your employer seems to have a very poor grasp of rational problem-solving. In addition to the personal stress, how do you think they'd respond if you tried to communicate a major breach of ethics or safety? It sounds like they would either ignore or punish you, not fix the problem. In engineering, that can get real ugly real fast in ways that affect more than the hapless employees under the grinder.
>>The high functioning autistic community has its own terminology for much the same thing - people who are best at pretending to be normal often "crash", winding up with a breakdown.<<
Autistic breakdown is what happens when people have to spend all their energy pleasing others just to gain bare tolerance. It's a vicious situation. Most "therapy" is not aimed at helping the recipients live with the brain they have or build a gratifying life. It's aimed at making them more pleasing to people who matter. >_< Over time, that's devastating to health.
>> Anyway, I'm rambling. Thanks for being a kind of therapist and helping me cope with my current conflicts and confusion. <<
I'm glad I could help.
>> I'll also be talking to a professional therapist this evening, who I've been seeing since before the breakdown. <<
If you have a good therapist, that's sensible. I recommend asking what they think about the practical aspects of your job. Does the employer sound safe and reasonable to an outside party? Does the company have OSHA or other complaints lodged against it?
>> (Does anyone ever recover with therapy? Or does the therapy simply function like a crutch or a prosthetic?) <<
Depends on the type of therapy and the type of illness or injury it treats. There's a whole branch of modular therapy intended for short to medium-term use to address specific issues that are straightforward to fix with information. Frex, if someone lacks people skills, those can be taught; which is a different issue than innate shyness, autism, etc. Damage from one abusive relationship can often be repaired well enough that it doesn't keep bothering the survivor. But long-term abuse or neglect, or chronic mental illness, tend to be things that don't go away. People can learn to cope but may need intermittent or ongoing therapy.
One thing is absolutely consistent: therapy cannot fix a problem driven by an ongoing cause. You have to remove the knife before you can heal the stab wound. So for instance, therapy for an abusive relationship will not fix the damage until the victim escapes the relationship or (rarely) the abuser works through stopping the abuse.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-04 06:10 pm (UTC)Well, my first interpretation of this was how you probably intended it - advice to get out of that job to avoid farther damage.
But then I started thinking about my relationship with "society", particularly as an Aspie, but also in any other capacity where I have a target painted on my back for being different. Those aren't good thoughts, and I'm back in a none-too-healthy anger spiral. (Not your fault; that's a very very accessible state for me, and better than falling into despair.) And of course that gets back to the post this thread is part of. I'm happier as far as possible from normal society, and the average person probably will turn out to have a knife in their hand, that I just don't see immediately, so abandoning a proto-relationship easily works better for me than trying to preserve them.
And cycling back to employers - my worst employment experiences have been when I stayed and tried to fix things. They get improved, at least somewhat, but I get chewed up in the process. I'm now better at avoiding triggering normies who have (IMO) a pathological fear or hatred for weirdos, and faster at noticing when someone I'd assumed to be reasonable is about to fly off that particular handle - but I'm also unhappily vigilant. I'd be much happier if I could associate only with my own kind, whoever they are - and given my history, not all that closely with them either. (I need large periods of time alone to be and stay comfortable; people are exhausting even when I'm enjoying myself with them, and I'm not sure whether that's introversion, chronic vigilance, or a mix of the two. One thing for certain though - if I'm conscious of being vigilant, I'm not happy in the experience.)
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-10-04 08:15 pm (UTC)At least, consider leaving if that is feasible for you. Some jobs are better than others, and it is getting easier to find opportunities to work from home or work for yourself.
>> But then I started thinking about my relationship with "society", particularly as an Aspie, but also in any other capacity where I have a target painted on my back for being different.<<
*sigh* Unfortunately, that applies to a wide range of disadvantaged groups. Poor people are denied resources and then blamed for their misery. Women live with the ever-present risk of sex crime at a rate of 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 depending on other factors. Black people are routinely murdered by police. This is soul-destroying and health-wrecking for everyone in a targeted group.
>>I'm happier as far as possible from normal society, and the average person probably will turn out to have a knife in their hand, that I just don't see immediately, so abandoning a proto-relationship easily works better for me than trying to preserve them.<<
Well, when you know that, you can work with it. Ignoring the problem just makes you more of a target.
While stuck in society, however, you can also take steps to bolster your energy because you know people are a drain and a threat more often than neutral or helpful.
>>And cycling back to employers - my worst employment experiences have been when I stayed and tried to fix things. They get improved, at least somewhat, but I get chewed up in the process.<<
That sucks, but at least you know it's a pattern problem and that you're better off bailing.
>> I'm now better at avoiding triggering normies who have (IMO) a pathological fear or hatred for weirdos, and faster at noticing when someone I'd assumed to be reasonable is about to fly off that particular handle - but I'm also unhappily vigilant. <<
Nobody should have to live like that.
>> I'd be much happier if I could associate only with my own kind, whoever they are - and given my history, not all that closely with them either. (I need large periods of time alone to be and stay comfortable; people are exhausting even when I'm enjoying myself with them, <<
That is fairly typical of introverts in general, as well as aspies who tend to be introverts. It has been observed that in an event filled with people on the spectrum, many of them actually socialize with each other just fine, because their instincts tend to match.
>> One thing for certain though - if I'm conscious of being vigilant, I'm not happy in the experience.) <<
Nobody is.
As much as possible, look for places and activities that help you relax and feel safe. That can help buffer against the vigilance.
Also, remember that the "hyper" part is contextual. It means "too much." If a majority of people are either out to hurt you or don't mind hurting you to get what they want, then it is not excessive vigilance. Still destructive of health, but accurately matched to the threat level. There's a difference between an accurate response and an exaggerated response in terms of rationality, even if they are both health hazards.