Re: just read graham's intro

[Guest guest]

> I just don't see others as tools for my own social

> advancment. The difference seems to boil down to their

> ability to manipulate others. I see people who lack

> intelligence, creativity, insight, but are the most

> successful. Jerks succeed in being jerks because they

> seem caring. I really don't want their glibness. It

> would just be nice to have a few of the benefits.

Brilliant observation!

The difference certainly is in the ability to read and thus respond

appropiately to social cues, even if that response is not 'genuine':

Your 'jerk' above is able to generate cooperation in others strictly

through his superior social aptitude, despite possibily lacking in

actual ability.

Ironically, I've been told at times that I can come off

as 'manipulative', trying to 'analyze and control' everything. I

think two things are happening here:

1. the person making this observation probably doesn't realize

that 'analyzing' is the only way I can make sense of the world, and

that I'm not so much trying to 'control' everything as just simply

understand my place within it, according to the rules I can deduce

by analyzing. this is an innocent process---forget controlling it, I

just want to 'get it' in the first place!

2. this person also probably doesn't realize that the so-

called 'social butterfly' highly social person they probably like a

lot is actually THE most manipulative of all. Yet only my own meager

attempts at social gymnastics appear 'manipulative' because they are

OBVIOUS, awkward, obviously out of place, ill-timed and not working,

and are not so incredibly subtle and thus *invisible* as the NT

socialite.

There is a very large part of me that wishes the majority of human

interactions didn't have to be based so strongly on the 'game' of

social interaction / manipulation.

BUT

Recently, I've come to terms with the fact that--like it or not--it

is. That is the NT world.

My solution has been to simply try to learn those dynamics. Hence

the seduction thing... I don't even want/need so much sex that I

feel the urge to pick-up a different girl every night of the week

like some of my male-minded fellows seem to. But doing so is exactly

the kind of 'in-field' practice of the social game that has helped

me learn how to interact socially. My attempt at learning pick-up

has been like learning a musical insturment--gawky, awkward,

frustrating, but occasionally surprisingly rewarding. Enough to keep

going until some of it sticks, for real.

I guess learning is a lot like bush-whacking.... the first steps are

slow and difficult, frought with hassle and obstacles. Progress is

slow. But once you've done something once, there's a bit of a path.

Literally, in your neurons. The more you do it, the more you blaze

that path, and soon you have a dirt trail.... keep walking the path,

keep blazing the trail, and soon you have a road.... then a wider

road..... and so on.

The worst possible scenario for me is the pick-up scene -- alone in

a loud, noisy club, forced to try and PLAY by the subtle social

rules of a game I don't understand. But in a way, it makes it the

best learning situation.

Graham

[Guest guest]

Graham wrote:

>Ironically, I've been told at times that I can come off

>as 'manipulative', trying to 'analyze and control' everything. I

>think two things are happening here:

>

>1. the person making this observation probably doesn't realize

>that 'analyzing' is the only way I can make sense of the world, and

>that I'm not so much trying to 'control' everything as just simply

>understand my place within it, according to the rules I can deduce

>by analyzing. this is an innocent process---forget controlling it, I

>just want to 'get it' in the first place!

>

>2. this person also probably doesn't realize that the so-

>called 'social butterfly' highly social person they probably like a

>lot is actually THE most manipulative of all. Yet only my own meager

>attempts at social gymnastics appear 'manipulative' because they are

>OBVIOUS, awkward, obviously out of place, ill-timed and not working,

>and are not so incredibly subtle and thus *invisible* as the NT

>socialite.

Part of why I am seen as " controlling " sometimes (as I've

been told) is that I am likely to state opinions or ideas

of what-should-be-done in a " too direct " manner. I fail to

wrap my ideas in social-camouflage of deference and pseudo-

deference. So even though I have no intent or interest in

making anyone do what I want (or think should be) done, I

am seen as " dictatorial. "

And some people, oddly enough, are easily confused between

what is " dictatorial " and what is " manipulative. " Perhaps

that's because they've learned (unconsciously) to let

themselves be manipiulated into obeying " the powers that

be. "

Jane

[Guest guest]

> Part of why I am seen as " controlling " sometimes (as I've

> been told) is that I am likely to state opinions or ideas

> of what-should-be-done in a " too direct " manner. I fail to

> wrap my ideas in social-camouflage of deference and pseudo-

> deference. So even though I have no intent or interest in

> making anyone do what I want (or think should be) done, I

> am seen as " dictatorial. "

That's also generally how I get misconstrued as aggressive. That and

the fact that I *have* opinions.

[Guest guest]

>

> That's also generally how I get misconstrued as aggressive. That

and

> the fact that I *have* opinions.

>

>

all people manipulate. that is how we get needs met. people move in

and out of different modes of operating depending on the system. the

problem is that people who are very adept at control and manipulation

can do it seamlessly. these are the popular people, or people seen as

good managers. the kind that are seen as manipulative are trying to

be heard/get their needs met etc but are not good at it.