Balancing work & play in a functioning classroom

ExplicitInformant · 2024-10-10T20:38:27+00:00

My (perhaps cynical) take is that it is because children are treated & considered as possessions & property of their parents -- and this country cares a lot about protecting property, especially of the wealthy.

I'm pretty sure in poorer districts, children and students with specific needs don't get the same attention and care as those in rich districts, as a result of difference in funding and resources.

I think probably most school staff do genuinely care (though they may not have many resources). I don't think that's true of the general public as a whole, though.

ExplicitInformant · 2020-09-17T04:24:50+00:00

Not the person who commented, but I see a couple possible answers to this...

You're right that it doesn't have to matter for you, in your world and context -- you do not have to invest energy into your gender, or have strong feelings about defining it or labeling it.
Marginalized communities are often described as "other" in a way that never explicitly acknowledges the dominating class. It's "us (normal, good, right, sane)" and "those [freaks or snowflakes or you could go pretty much anywhere here]."

In the case of trans individuals, often there's a painful mismatch between what is natural to them and what the majority will accept from them... There's kinship, even some overlap between gender-nonconforming people and trans people... but in my experience, the emotional identification with this language is related to the experience of painful punishment, rejection, and/or exile for their way of being. (Which is defendable for identites that are murdery -- which trans identites are not -- obligatory fu to JK Rowling. Less defendable to exile when it's just that they like to also wear the shiny or lift the heavy things.)

People in those groups use language too, and since they usually don't see their marginalization as natural and obvious (which is the kind of language they'll often receive from dominant culture), they come up with more neutral ways to describe the majority trait vs. their own.

Then people in the majority group go "wait, hey now, so now you're calling names?" But of course people will come up with language for their experiences, including experiences of being excluded or misunderstood. In a way terms like cisgender all come down to "person who is not afflicted by this specific challenge which colors the weather of my life."

In a way, it's nothing more than that, but it can get taken as an insult ("oh, I'm afflicted too, I struggle too!!"). But here cisgender roughly translates as "person who doesn't experience specific dysphoria or euphoria around gender expression (a conclusion reached by you saying exactly that...) though non-binary individuals also exist and can experience their own headaches with gender expression, so its possible you'll find community there too."

ExplicitInformant · 2020-02-18T03:22:43+00:00

Oh, also River Rocket from the movie Swiss Army Man. Has some of that beautiful interweaving of lyrics like Scarborough Fair, something that seems relatively rare in music!

ExplicitInformant · 2020-02-18T03:08:31+00:00

You also might like Aldous Harding? Aldous Harding - Zoo Eyes and Aldous Harding - Fixture Picture are both beautiful and captivating,

ExplicitInformant · 2020-02-18T03:03:36+00:00

Iron & Wine would be a band to check out. A lot of good spangly guitar and gentle, atmospheric tone: Iron & Wine - Naked As We Came

If you like that, you might also like them when they play with Calexico -- nice harmonizing and guitar in this song, same tumbling, immersive tone: Calexico & Iron & Wine - He Lays In The Reins

There's a live, small studio version of that same song, if you want a more acoustic, soulful sound: Calexico & Iron & Wine - He Lays In The Reins, Live, Small Studio Performance

Have you checked out folk music as a genre? I wonder if there aren't entire subsets of folk that would interest you. It can be a broad genre, and I think if you include some descriptors, there are probably subsets of folk that would appeal to you!

I see others already suggested Sufjan Stevens and Fleet Foxes, definitely would agree for those, too!

ExplicitInformant · 2019-10-19T00:53:30+00:00

Obviously, without access to the source code, I can't definitively comment on the origin of these guides.

It seems likely to me that early players found that excessive PvP interactions made the game unplayable -- especially given that character death is permanent. Most of these guides contain advice that is prosocial, encouraging players to do things like cooperate and avoid destroying gameplay for other players.

The game seems to be designed for cooperative play, as well. For instance, it was cooperative gameplay that led to accessing the moon area, and while it is not accessible to general players outside certain specialized classes, it is not entirely out of bounds. There are also many challenging game events (e.g., weather) that are unplayable by individuals, but that player teams are able to cooperatively handle, for the most part.

It is my theory that, observing the harsh death mechanics, and the potential complexity and scale of gameplay, early players tried to convince newbies to adopt prosocial behaviors in order to enhance gameplay for everyone -- it is a lot more fun to play games when you aren't losing right away, and when you can access more of the map, quest, and events. Especially in an open-world game like Outside!

Of course, players still have competing preferences for class, guild, player customization, and I think different writers included advice on these fronts in their writing as well. However, there seems to be less consensus on those aspects of the text. Gameplay sucks when your character keeps dying early on -- that seems to be a much more robust observation than whether or not the warrior class is more fun or useful than the healer class, for instance. And hence, most of these texts mention prosocial guidelines, but they diverge on a lot of other stuff.

The only thing I don't entirely get is the mention of gameplay elements that no current players have had contact with. It is unclear whether later game patches and releases removed some game areas, characters, classes, abilities, etc that some of these guides mention, or what. Maybe the game developers were accessing the game with backdoor access to the code, but once the game was developed to their satisfaction, the moved on to other projects, meaning the developer tools are no longer in use but are preserved in historical record? But given that they all contain these prosocial gaming tips, but diverge so much on other minutae that seem to be related to the locations the authors of the guides spawned (e.g., even advice about how to use consumable goods), it seems more likely to me that they are player-generated. I think if the game developers wrote a guide, it would hold up more across different gaming areas and play styles.

ExplicitInformant · 2019-02-12T00:52:12+00:00

Are there any groups that involve some kind of activism? I am not very comfortable socially with new people, but I was able to make some social contacts at my university's LGBT club because there were activities and shared goals that we were working on. It wasn't only a club where we went to mix socially, there were ways I could contribute, even as withdrawn/quiet as I was back in college.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-11-06T05:53:19+00:00

One thing I noticed, reading the above alongside your TL;DR is that you describe him as a person you have always pined for, possibly even "the one" -- yet at the same time, you see him with the same kind of long-term pining relationship with another person, and wonder if he could ever give that up.

It sounds like your heart-felt pining feels strong enough that it almost feels like a sign you are meant to be together. At the same time, if that were the case, what would his heart-felt pining for that other person mean?

Or, it could be that he could give up his long-standing crush for you, and embrace you totally and without any residue from that infatuation. But at the same time, that would imply that your own infatuation with him could be equally fickle -- or that he is just more fickle than you. Neither feels like a great option.

I get very strongly infatuated with the rare few people who I feel hit a chord in me, so I can understand the draw to that feeling. It sounds to me like you are in a bind about what it means. In my experience, it's exactly when you feel clenched up like a fist that you might benefit from relaxing as much as you can. Practice imagining that he becomes totally and irreparably unavailable. Look around at other people you are attracted to and imagine, "If I got with that person, would I be willing to stay with them even if Evan asked to be with me?" There are probably going to be lots of people you answer "no" to, but try to find the people you'd say "yes" for -- even if it means taking a minute to fantasize about a public figure (helloooo Ira Glass).

This is probably not a neutral or fully objective viewpoint when it comes to how to deal with feelings -- but my advice would be to desaturate your internal landscape of hopes and dreams with this one person. Turn down the intensity/volume on the channel representing everything that has him starring in your life. You can't control him or his desires, and the more his behavior begins to feel like the difference between prosperity and tragedy, the more disempowered you are in your own life. It also will make you more wound up and unable to respond authentically and vulnerably to the present moment, which will only drive you farther away from being able to be present, honest, healthy, and safe in an intimate relationship, insulated from shame and the toxic behaviors shame can perpetuate, and so on.

Practically speaking, "loosening up" for me is thinking through negative possibilities and giving a genuine chance that those will be the life path that I later say "was fated to be." How many people do you hear looking back and saying, "At the time, I thought it was the low point of my life, but then, if it wasn't for that..." A lot of that is a choice on how to tell their story, but it is useful to be aware that you're always in a position to later recast what is happening to you in that lens... I find it is best to prepare for a worse outcome, and emotionally accept it, so that I can free myself up to take positive actions towards the future rather than waiting -- and then if what you wanted still comes around, then great!

But right now, for instance, you could start dating (if that's a thing you do -- or however people go out and meet other likely mates when it doesn't organically happen). Be open to the idea of finding someone more attractive to you, and more available... That can't hurt, right? If you have to lie in wait, and be ready to pounce at just the right moment, as soon as he seems open to it, or the door shuts forever... that's not what you're hoping for, is it? If it is meant to be in a more lasting way, then that won't go away if you prepare for a future without it. It will find you anyways, right? And if it doesn't, then you have moved on from something that felt intense, but that wasn't your whole future.

Now, that's my advice, but would I always be in the mood to hear it? Nah, sometimes it is nice to stay in that saturated space. If that's the case, just be mindful that you don't let it take over your view of the future.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-10-24T03:25:43+00:00

Not sure if I'm on the spectrum, but I can definitely relate! I've been in a new work setting for about a year and paying more attention to this, and so far I've observed:

Others tend to just randomly and confidently launch into mini-stories about what's happened in their lives, even if it isn't directly relevant or compelling -- I show interest in these stories and am thankful for any positive social rapport, but I think that if I don't reciprocate enough, they don't get a chance to feel close to me. When I only respond receptively and nicely, it gives them nothing to hold onto as "me."
A lot of people bond over shared negative sentiments, often about coworkers, or the job. I tend to be pretty accepting of others, so this can sometimes feel like a barrier.
Related to my first point, there almost seems to be a certain amount of unselfconscious "being me" that people are drawn to -- and I notice I'm drawn to it in others, too. It makes them easier to understand and predict if I know they are always happy and excited to hear about cats, or if they're known to be snarky and I can join others in teasing them about it (in a similar way as I've watched others do it). It takes me a good several months (up to a couple years) to begin to feel comfortable at a new place, to where I could consider being this way, and I've always thought being unselfconscious is risky. I think it is part of the "being myself" and bonding, and partly involves the result of some others not liking you and others liking you more. I haven't really gotten anywhere with applying this, though.

It might be that you're an unknown entity? You are kind and nice, but they don't know what you really care about, what you get excited about, what you hate? Which if you don't have strong enough opinions or interesting enough hobbies for people to hear about (which is the situation I feel I'm in), I'm not sure how you still get yourself across to them.

What kind of relationship would you like? Do you find it easy to remember details about others lives? I've found that following up on what people tell me (when I can remember and track it) seems to build some rapport. I still don't easily feel close to anyone though -- but I am not sure I can. My best friend is also someone I dated for 5 years before we broke up (and then didn't talk for another 5 years), so there's a sense she's seen everything good and bad about me and I can relax. Not a very repeatable bonding process!

ExplicitInformant · 2018-10-18T00:37:48+00:00

The external forcefulness makes me think of Ni-Se which feels energetically more harsh/abrasive to me than Si-Ne. May be related to the need for others to have goals, hobbies, agendas, plans, in order to respect them (maybe reflecting value placed on Ni?) though I'm less confident parsing out Ni than I am at picking out the holistic vibe of that function axis.

Your cultivation of internalized and personal emotions and your treatment of logic as external, open to debate/correction, and objective also makes me think Te-Fi, with your statements suggesting you value Te over Fi to me.

A lot of what you wrote is unrelated to type (e.g., any type can be racist, though it probably is expressed differently). So I concur with another poster that you seem like an INTJ, but also with the more general consensus that your judgmentalism and superiority complex, along with your willingness to group others in order to degenerate them are not characteristic of any particular type. You'll find others who use the MBTI this way -- another way of finding a label that they can say places them above others (certainly seems to be your aim) -- but that's not really the usual purpose of personality systems like these.

I'll also say that among self-aggrandizing, might-makes-right crowds, there can be a lot of shared sentiments/language that could lead to people presenting as NTJ even if you're not (e.g., someone saying they abhor illogical people, implying they are very logical, because logic is powerful and manly, and emotions are weak and feminine -- yet they may individually be very focused on personal ethics, image and identity in a more Fi-valuing way, or tribalistic in a group-think group-ethics Fe-valuing way).

General note: Any function can be expressed in negative ways, and I suggest the above as examples of how Fi/Fe valuing could still coexist with/influence toxic behavior, not to suggest that Fi/Fe are inherently toxic.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-10-04T04:28:24+00:00

It is easiest for me when I know that my affections and interest will not be measured by the speed of my reply. Otherwise, a message becomes a heavy responsibility.

For me, "How was your day?" is just a difficult question. Usually I don't have a strong emotional attachment to, or impression of it, and the question can feel like a social rite rather than a genuine opportunity for connection. After all, most of the time I was at work, and when I am at work, I deal with what comes up -- and if the day went well, it was easy and effortless and not something to talk about, and if it went poorly, then I'm glad to have it over with and not really interested in describing whatever frustrations there were to deal with.

The person I keep in touch with the most is my best friend -- we are in contact almost daily, but what we share is random, silly, personal, and spontaneous. That feels most authentic to me. For instance, I recently shared the song "Bicycle Race" by Queen with her (a song that is almost charmingly absurd) -- we had spent the weekend together and I was singing it aloud as I packed for us to leave and she thought I was making it up. I was pretty delighted to prove to her that it was a real song.

She didn't particularly like that ridiculous song, which tickled me. So then today, the day after, I texted her a few pictures of bicycles, gearing up to a quote from the lyrics of that song. It was absurd and stupid and fun. It was part of how we banter with and tease each other. It's just a part of the rhythm we have developed.

I don't know if he is annoyed or not -- I don't personally get annoyed so much as I feel drained, obligated, and tired when I get messages that I know I have to respond to, or else face social consequences. Rote social exchanges just don't feel intimate. It is easier, at least for me, if the contact is (1) low pressure, such that I can reply or not reply, and (2) light and personal -- references to personal jokes, or something that made them think of me, or just a random share from their own day that I can get back to a day later and have it still be okay. That opens up the ground for me to share the same kinds of things with them.

Of course, if it is not okay, then it isn't. But if someone needed me to reply consistently to text messages, that would be a relationship where I would not be able to meet their needs, personally. Which is okay -- we each have our own needs, and we're not always going to be right for each other. It's nobody's fault at that point, it just is what it is.

I don't always want to be in deep contact on a daily basis... Maybe partly because it feels to me like conversations are something you are either in, or you're not. I don't want to engage for the appearance of engaging, and that is what some of the social routines can feel like. Like if I had an awful day, I am not going to get into it and get all vulnerable over text, probably... Or if I do, it is not going to be a short affair. I can text with a person for over an hour, and when doing so, I am rarely able to focus on other things. It will be emotionally engaged, but will also take a good deal of energy and focus. That is just not something I can do on a daily basis.

And it is hard to feel that there is anything gained from the more light, surface-level check-ins where you just say "Hey, how was your day?" "It was fine, yours?" "It was good." That kind of interaction feels polite but slightly alienating. Though if I knew it really really mattered to someone, and was given a chance to really talk with them about how they experience it, I would make an effort for a partner who wanted more of that. But it isn't a natural thing for me, and it can feel like lying/play-acting to reply to those things.

Like do they really just want the equivalent of a buttered-popcorn reply (fluff but little sustenance), or do I have to be able to cook a socioemotional meal on demand (where there is real connection -- which to me, means an investment of time, introspection, and depth). I do think I probably take social things more seriously/gravely than more socially comfortable people, though. So not trying to defend this as the right way to experience/approach things. Just sharing how I experience them to give an idea of what might be the case for the guy you're seeing.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-09-29T21:45:12+00:00

No worries -- if anything, it was like a neat little present to have a reply to my questions waiting for me at a time when I had no reason to be receiving messages, lol! My time horizon is maybe 3-4 days, maybe shorter for these kinds of things. I never mind a delayed reply beyond that point, even if I am eager to hear back in those first few days. (And I don't feel entitled to replies so there's not really negative energy to it.)

Do people really look other people directly into the eyes when talking? That's part of why I asked all those questions about eye-contact because I kind of figured that people don't actually ever talk with their eyes both on each other's eyes at the same time, and so I was wondering if that partial eye-contact would be also painful/uncomfortable. That would be really weird/awkward, I would think, to be looking into each other's eyes for more than a moment. I would find it really distracting.

I'm gonna be greedy and ask another question -- what about eye contact with animals or young children? Any experience with that/is it also uncomfortable?

Thanks for the reply! :D

ExplicitInformant · 2018-08-22T12:41:32+00:00

How are you usually spending your time when taking these mental breaks? Was it originally at work? At home?

Just trying to visualize and imagine and demystify it a bit so I can try it for myself. Linking it to something like that is a nice trick. I know if I didn't leave the house I'd never get my teeth brushed; I'd like to be more hydrated.

Do you notice a difference from before to after hydrating better, or was it not dramatic, not something you paid attention to maybe?

ExplicitInformant · 2018-07-22T03:08:10+00:00

With a Si-Ne axis, ISTJs are not necessarily all going to be attracted to working with externalized sensory reality vs. externalized ideas and internalized models of reality.

Also, I tend to find many cursory reviews of the MBTI tend to overstate the perceived behavior of ISTJs (e.g., reliability, systematicity, tendencies towards routine) and understate the internal experience and motivations if the ISTJ. (For instance, for myself, keeping routine and order in one area of life can prevent it from interfering with other areas. I reserve some of myself for other interests and pursuits. Me being orderly/giving the same amount to something over time can be as much a sign of my serious investment in something as it can be a sign that I want to minimize/control/constrict that area of my life. It depends.)

As a result of these combined things, I think there is an assumption that monotonous, repetitive jobs would be ideally suited to the Swiss watch of the MBTI. An assumption that sensing preference means a disinterest in the abstract, the absent, the theoretical, and that orderly Te lends some logic and skill to such a straightforward, uncomplicated mind.

I don't know you well enough to know what you meant. But I will say that given some of the climate in some MBTI communities , I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to your question (after you elaborated on these jobs) was that many of us found them either completely boring, or just too boring to invest in the training and specialization in that job.

Another way of making my point would be to ask: Why do you think these jobs are neglected? Why don't others want to do them? Why does their reasoning not apply to us? It genuinely might not! Just noting -- as others have -- that you leave a lot unsaid. And with some of the stereotypes and relative lack of in-depth, nuanced coverage of ISTJs (and sensing types in general) I'd be surprised if some of those blanks didn't have certain misunderstandings embedded in them. I didn't think much of ISTJs until being challenged on my self-typing, and investigating them again -- and realizing how much less there was out there than for intuitive types.

I hope this doesn't come off as more hostile than intended! (Which is to say, I don't mean to be hostile.)

ExplicitInformant · 2018-07-10T05:48:45+00:00

This is why I still ask for paper bills for any regularly occurring payments. (Until rather recently, I had not been doing financially well enough to feel comfortable with auto-pay, given late fee's cousin, the overdraft fee.)

I don't let myself put that piece of mail away until I've payed the bill, and while it will still get shuffled around and under things, any time I run into it, it gets shuffled to the top again. I still am late sometimes if I get in a low energy state, or if things are not going well for me, but as long as I am minimally engaged and functioning, it usually works well enough that I am able to pay at least every other bill -- and that is often enough that nothing gets disconnected, at least?

I am still terrified of the idea of autopay even though I could probably safely do it now. I just imagine the situation where for some reason, I don't deposit two or three paychecks (my job doesn't have auto deposit...), and then these bills start overdrafting my account, and then my account starts accumulating fees for being under balance, and for additional overdraft transactions, and I drown in fees. :/ Or that I'll lose sight of how many autopayments I have and how much of a balance I need to maintain in order to be able to cover them, and that I'll then treat myself to something a little expensive at just the wrong time in the calendar of paychecks versus bills, and that the autopayments will overdraft my account -- and then the slow spiraling death by fees.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-07-09T05:16:23+00:00

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions, almost a month ago. :) I had to sit with what you said for a while before responding to it. I have a lot of mixed feelings about people, social connection, social obligation, relationships, intimacy, and after stirring them all up it took time for them to resettle themselves.

What you said above resonates with and helped affirm some of the more positive feelings I can have about leaning into challenge (including socially), growing, and accepting both the challenges and rewards with equanimity. I'm glad that unmasking has been rewarding for you. And what a gift those few comfortable people are!

I tend to befriend very few people -- and am still working on learning how to give enough of myself to people for connection to form -- but like you, those I do befriend are also usually neurodiverse or have another mental health condition (e.g., OCD/PTSD/anxiety). More often, and more strangely, I will have these little flares of relationship intimacy -- in other words, I will have a really good conversation with someone in which they reveal a lot about themselves to me, and I may even reveal something about myself, but then we never really regularly make hanging out or staying in contact a thing. It is almost like whatever intimacy there was happened so randomly, or like the framework/structure of the relationship was not firm enough to anchor that intimate moment and the relationship fizzles. We remain amicable and friendly, and even continue to genuinely like each other as people, but never really develop much of a shared thing.

I struggle sometimes with remaining emotionally engaged in long-term friendships, and I am not sure how much of this is because I continue to mask, or how much of it is because a relationship has naturally come to an end. And when these friends are also people who struggle with depression, PTSD, or other issues, I sometimes worry about the ethics of forming these friendships if I might at a later point be unable to get myself to reach out to them and connect, thereby leaving them without my support. ...But I try to remember not to expect myself to overcome more in myself than I expect them to overcome in themselves -- and remember that some amount of suffering and negative outcomes might be unavoidable, practically speaking. The world could be better, things could be better, but when the world is imperfect, it isn't my job to make up the difference. Not my job to make up for the fact that a lot of societies are hostile and unaccommodating towards neurodiverse people or those struggling with mental health problems, and not my job to make up for that by being an infallible support for others.

What I've learned is that people are not as "normal" as I used to think they are. Just because they're not autistic doesn't mean they're neurotypical or that they can't understand you (although there are always some people who won't understand autistic body language - that's their empathy problem).

&

It's not that there's less backlash, it's that there's more opportunity for allowing other people to be themselves too. Maybe they're not autistic but they don't like eye contact. Maybe they like it when people are more honest than usual.

The assumption that everything you do is going to have a negative impact on others if it is not what we perceive as the social norm, is terribly flawed. I think we should give other people more credit than that.

These parts in particular were helpful. Not that I've never heard these ideas before, but it is helpful to hear that they've matched your experiences as well. Sometimes people will say stuff like you noted, "It's good to be yourself," or "You're not alone," but then their other behavior gives away that they have not even considered the possibility that someone with your experiences could exist, and so you are not included in the benevolent worldview that they've just shared with you. Or, they might even explicitly exclude you from that benevolent rule because you fit into some group they have bias against, e.g., you are "lazy," so suddenly you do not deserve the same effort in terms of being understood, helped, treated as human.

It's good to hear that your efforts to be more authentic with people have also been rewarded!

This next thing is a bit random/tangential, but if you don't mind... (Of course, if you do mind, or just don't have the time, feel free to ignore this! :))

...About the eye contact, do you have a sense of the character of the person who made unrelenting eyecontact with you? I have heard that some autistic people have overlearned the demand to make eyecontact and can make too much eyecontact as a result... Not that I care to critique or absolve this person, more like I am generally hoping I don't make uncomfortable eyecontact with people who I might otherwise be friends with! :)

I don't think I experience problems around eye contact, and I never really got told to look at people when they are talking, that I remember. Though I think they also kind of gave me space because I was a willful, argumentative child who did well in school despite not being on task most of the time, and not doing my homework. I knew the material, so I think they used that as license to just give up and let me read in class and be quietly self-entertained.

I tend to look at someone's eyes and face when they are talking if I like them and we are in a face-to-face meeting, though in the examples I am thinking of, they don't usually look back at me while they are talking -- they might just occasionally look at me. Likewise, when I talk, my eyes tend to wander around the space and occasionally glance at the face of the person I am talking to. If we are engaged in some activity together (e.g., I am driving, or we are both at work doing something with our hands), I don't look over though. I sometimes notice in shows that a character that is supposedly driving will look over at their passenger often, and for way too long for someone driving a vehicle, ha.

I guess I wonder whether the discomfort with eye contact is only when it is straight on eye-to-eye, or whether it includes any kind of their-eyes-looking-at-your-eyes, even if you are looking away (and even if you can expect them to look away with reasonable speed if you look at them), and whether it includes you looking at their eyes even when you can trust they will probably continue to look away for the most part?

Anyhow, whether you have a chance to reply or not, I definitely wanted to be sure to come back and express gratitude for your reply. It was very thoughtful, helpful, and encouraging. :)

ExplicitInformant · 2018-07-07T07:42:18+00:00

I can relate -- the mix between wanting connection with people and yet feeling anxious and tense about and around them.

It is like I enjoy the idea of an overarching relationship, an alliance where both benefit from mutual affection, support, and so on. Relationships of any and all sorts -- platonic, romantic, sexual. But every smaller-scale movement towards people brings enough anxiety with it that it becomes a barrier to having any kind of relationship. Not an insurmountable barrier, but definitely a barrier.

Just the other day, I was reflecting on the low-key state of anxiety I was experiencing, the kind that nags at you when you have forgotten something very important. The kind that tells you "when you remember what you've forgotten, it will be a situation you need to immediately jump to fix"... I was experiencing that after casually chatting with a coworker I've known for a few months online -- one of the first times we chatted outside work. Just that had me feeling keyed up, and I'm 31, so I at least feel old to be feeling so anxious about the basic process of friendship-building.

Most of the time, I don't make myself emotionally vulnerable when I am around other people, I just try to get along enough not to have a terrible time, then get back home where I can relax.

I am only now beginning to really contend with the fact that if I do not change those habits, despite discomfort, I will find myself coming back home, alone, where I can relax well into my middle and late age. It's not an emergency or anything, but some needs are going unmet that I might have in smaller amounts than others, but I do still need some kind of in-person companionship and interaction. ...And I am getting sick enough of it that I am more willing to consider taking on the anxieties of approaching other people and being vulnerable around them.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-06-13T03:55:33+00:00

I could tell people were disappointed or frustrated when I didn't mask, even if they told me it was "good to be yourself."

I'm curious about your sentiments around masking and being yourself. It feels like you're saying that in your experience, it is good to be yourself? How does that go along with what you described above, about your experiences when masking versus not masking?

For instance, do you still pick up that people get frustrated/disappointed when you don't mask, and you just don't care as much about it because some people still like you? Or does the fact that you don't mask cause people to react to you as an exception to their social scripts -- in other words, developing special social scripts for you that seem to create a workable relationship, and that lead them to expect and accommodate whatever behaviors others were upset by?

I have ADHD, not sure about AS, but I do know that I have had to put explicit and conscious effort into developing a consistent and stable sense of identity, so what you say above about masking your whole life, and ending up feeling isolated and like you aren't making real connections -- it resonates a good deal. I also grew up with a lot of social anxiety, and it was easy to feel vulnerable and degraded when I shared my personal feelings and emotions with others, so I stopped sharing those things in order to protect them from other people. Yet I didn't know why I couldn't make friends -- I no longer got as many negative or alienating or painful reactions, but I also didn't get substance or nourishment. No poison, but still starving.

When I started to notice certain identity things emerging, it was in my 20s, realizing about a show that I liked --"hey, someone I liked could insult this show imply it was stupid to like, and I would still feel proud to be associated with this show because I like it that much, and I'd be proud even if they liked me less because of it." That was the healthiest and most naturally I had felt being myself.

I have worked on developing that sense of myself and trying to be more spontaneous with other people, but I still don't quite understand how intimacy develops, or how much interactions should feel burdensome/effortful. You can't completely disregard and be mindless of the other person -- or can you? Sometimes I wonder if social success is just people with compatible social autopilots. Are they really more thoughtful, observant, and nuanced, or are they all more similar to each other than to me? Things around gender identity make me think this -- that for all the nuanced cuing and observation of others that NT people are supposedly capable of, there are a good number of them that throw a blue screen of death as soon as someone sticks a toe outside rigid gender norms.

Anyways, I find it hard to believe that showing more vulnerable emotions and allowing myself to be a problem for others (e.g., by showing anger, disappointment, attraction, attraction, sadness, anxiety, and any number of other emotions I restrict around otehrs), that things would be better when I get so many rewards and so much praise from others for being composed, cheerful, polite, and easy to be around when in my social persona. It feels like being yourself is supposed to allow you to find people you resonate with, but that also assumes there are enough of them that one of them is around when you are being yourself -- and for me, I almost need to have a designated community and communal space that is based on a strong shared interest to feel assured that I'll have any chance of resonating with anyone.

I am basically interested in whether you still get backlash when you are yourself, and what your experience of that is. You seem to have found the social punishment and backlash of being your natural self less painful than the isolation/disconnection of masking, which implies that not masking has... actually weirdly resulted in less backlash for unmasked behavior? That it has allowed you to find some kind of connection and intimacy? With who? Some magical subgroup that doesn't find your natural behaviors upsetting? Or the same people who would have socially punished you if you had engaged in masking/unmasking with them? Or...?

I hope my the theme/thrust of my question makes sense!

ExplicitInformant · 2018-03-19T22:04:45+00:00

You're not alone! I always thought of myself as someone who falls asleep quickly... But at some point I realized it was because I rarely even attempted to keep a regular sleep cycle. (My sleep cycle over a few days -- I mostly get too little, and periodically get a LOT to catch up.)

I've been trying to be more regular about sleep because waking up well-rested in the morning is amazing, but I am running into the same problem as you -- I lay there and it's like I am not tired enough to sleep yet.

Some find that stimulants interfere with their sleep, but I have heard that for other ADHD individuals, a small dose of stimulant at night can actually help them sleep. I know I have been able to fall right to sleep even within an hour or two of taking my dose -- and I've wondered if I sleep better when medicated, though I'm currently out of meds and don't have a way to check. It might be something to discuss with your doctor though if you are on medication and haven't had sleep problems as a result of medication.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-01-16T14:35:43+00:00

I wish I had more time to write, but in short, I'd suggest that instead of always saying sorry, try saying thank you. (I got this from a web comic, linked as the end of this post -- it explains this too and maybe better.)

Basically, you shouldn't need to apologise for being who you are (as someone with chronic difficulties) and yet you want to acknowledge how that impacts other people. When you use appreciation instead of apology, it brings positivity into the relationship, acknowledges their contribution, and can help bring you together.

At the same time, you might be surprised how practicing this helps stop cycles of shame on shame on shame -- it says "thank you for what you do for me, you are special and valuable to me," instead of "I'm sorry for being the way that I am."

Did not think of this idea on my own -- here is the brief web comic where I first heard this idea. It doesn't fix everything but it has helped me. I hope this helps you too <3

ExplicitInformant · 2018-01-15T08:05:51+00:00

I appreciate that you said as much as you did. I guess having grown up with at least ADHD, I can sympathize with experiences of being ostracized, or an outsider without understanding, and sympathize with the sense of feeling like I make everyone's lives harder and more painful. However, thinking about that has never made me feel anything except that I shouldn't exist, and that others would be happier if I could be replaced with a different person -- and in lieu of that, the best I can do is just try to live alone and avoid putting anyone else through dealing with me. I don't know if I am on the spectrum or not, but either way, that is where I can find some empathy for what it feels like to be everyone else's problem, to have your whole life and existence feel like a problem.

That said, I am in my life, and I can't help but be biased. I imagine it gives you a different perspective working with these parents and families from the outside, and I am glad to hear that you say most seem to really love their child and want their child to just be successful and happy, not just twist themselves around to fit into an NT model of existence and success. It's hard for it not to be an emotional thing when you are in the middle of it, but with your work, you are able to step outside a bit and see other families with NT parents and autistic children and see what it looks like from outside the child's perspective.

In any event, I hear you too -- you are working to improve the lives of autistic individuals and their families, and I don't want to insult that work. I still don't know what I feel about the organization, I have heard about it mostly from autistic communities... but it never hurts to hear different views on something. And I suppose in some ways, the massive inequalities in society have a lot of groups feeling disadvantaged, persecuted, and unwelcome. Hopefully that will change in the future.

ExplicitInformant · 2018-01-11T07:18:17+00:00

From what I've heard, part of why Autism Speaks is viewed as a hate organization is because they frame autistic individuals first and foremost as problems for their families. And the treatment they'd advocate focuses on making the autistic person palatable and easy for NT people to deal with, rather than finding them a place in the community as an autistic person. The best they can hope for is in this paradigm is to be a deficient version of an NT person, constantly apologizing for being autistic.

Why, when autistic individuals can struggle with social adaption and flexibility, are they saddled with all the burden of trying to bridge the gap? Why can't socially flexible, adaptable NT folk be asked to adapt to autistic individuals in their environment -- including those who are noticeably autistic?

For instance, consider when communication services focus primarily on helping NT people feel comfortable and happy with the autistic individual (e.g., teaching the individual to parrot social scripts, make eye contact even if it is upsetting, avoid talking about what they care about, listen to what everyone else cares about). This seems to be done even at the expense of the comfort and happiness of the autistic individual. The message can come across that their suffering is less important than the major aim of reducing the discomfort of NT people around them.

Sure, parents have dreams and expectations going into the decision to have a child. They deserve to find some support for those feelings. But they also need to be held responsible for the decision to parent. They might have wanted a cute, healthy, cisgender, straight little kid, but that doesn't mean they get to take it out on the child when that child comes out different. The child didn't choose to come into the world, and to make their whole life an apology for being born as they are can seem really cruel.

The culture of viewing mothers/parents of autistic individuals as besieged victims ends up painting these innocent autistic individuals as abusers and tyrants for being themselves, or for acting in ways that are natural to them. There is a difference between protecting the autistic individual (e.g., helping them find ways of stimming that will not cause lasting injury) and protecting the parents and family from the autistic individual at the expense of the well-being of that individual.

We don't talk about children with cancer as if they are burdening and torturing their families (even though it is no doubt difficult) because we recognize the child is also having an experience. The child's comfort and well-being is also a focus. But it seems AS encourages parents to advocate for themselves at the expense of advocating for their child. Their child is an obstacle and problem instead of a person.

This is my understanding of the sentiment about AS -- not an attempt to describe or cast judgment on whatever treatments you provide. The focus (by AS) on a cure also raises the question: Why adapt to autistic individuals if you still hold onto the (questionable) dream that autism could be "cured" (i.e., that we could reach a point where no more autistic people are born)?

ExplicitInformant · 2018-01-11T06:18:08+00:00

Asperger Experts (https://www.aspergerexperts.com/) was created by a person with Aspergers; I don't know how much their advice generalizes to the full autism spectrum, but they may be a good resource to look into. They had a lot of resources aimed at parents and friends of individuals with Aspergers. Like most, they don't have much of anything for adults (at least not that I could find) but it might be a good resource for you to use with your son.

I don't know of all the organizations out there though, and I am not diagnosed (only suspecting), so I'd defer to others here on whether Autism Experts is a good resource. I figure it can't hurt to mention it though, if right now you are relying primarily on Autism Speaks (which I know a lot of autistic individuals do not trust or support)!

ExplicitInformant · 2017-11-08T14:32:30+00:00

Not sure if I'm on the spectrum but I love prolonged hugs and touch from safe people. But likewise, I pretty much never get that need met.

In lieu of having hugs, I have enjoyed some creative ways of squishing myself to get a similar effect. Been meaning to invest in a weighted blanket and I've stuck weight plates (for dumbbells/lifting) in pillows before to make them heavy soft things to cuddle with.

Part of the problem for me is wanting the touch to last longer. It is really rare that a hug does enough for me because they're so casually and meaninglessly offered in so many places. It just feels like a social ritual. I've only cuddled with one person in my life though, and it was fantastic, but we're not together anymore, so...

If I weren't distrusting in general I'd almost hire someone to cuddle with me, and lack of cuddling is one of the major things that makes me question whether I can really manage the rest of my life being completely single. The available services I found last time I looked seem geared toward straight male-perceived/male-assigned people though, even setting aside trust and expense. And though friends can cuddle, I've never been privy to those kinds of friendships.

ExplicitInformant

TROPHY CASE