My son has a suspected in-growing toenail. We waited 4 weeks to see the podiatrist. (British National Health Service) They called on Monday whilst my son was having a driving lesson. I had thought the appointment was Tuesday, it wasn’t, it was Monday, same time as the driving lesson. I can’t tell you how guilty I felt after him waiting 4 weeks to be seen. My mess up, the appointment email came through to me not him.
So when he came in, I told him “Sam, I’ve majorly messed up. I thought your appointment was tomorrow, it wasn’t, it was today and you were having your driving lesson so I couldn’t reach you. I’m really sorry, I’m really annoyed with myself for messing up.”
Two things though.
By the time he got in, I had found out that another NHS appointment would be a further two - three weeks wait and further away from where we live. I had then phoned my PT ( lived locally all his life) who recommended a private podiatrist who he knew from uni. I had contacted them and my son is being seen in a week’s time. I made a doctor’s appointment for antibiotics as the podiatrist won’t treat if there’s infection. ( The first podiatrist was just going to look at it and waitlist my son for treatment. This one will treat during the first appointment.)
I’m thinking that from the psychopath’s view this would be acceptable. I messed up, I admitted it, I immediately moved to rectify it.
Secondly from the neurotypical standpoint. My son and I are very close. He already knows I would be gutted by that mistake. As I apologised, he told me that it’s ok, not to worry, his toe isn’t that painful (despite it bleeding every day).
So here emotionally, each protects the other. My son protects me as he knows how guilty I will feel. I protect him by accepting responsibility, apologising and being honest.
The difference quite possibly is that my son wouldn’t have been angry had I not immediately found the solution. He knows my guilt would be eating away at me, because he knows I love him to bits and worry about him. If I understand correctly, the psychopath wouldn’t care that I felt awful, just that I admitted to messing up and took action to rectify the problem.
Yes, your solution would have been perfectly acceptable to a psychopath. Everyone messes up, it's what is done about the mess-up that is important to a psychopath.
It helps my understanding to place examples in a scenario I already experienced, sorry for the long comment!
On the face of it, I understand what ‘no emotional empathy’ means, but I struggle to apply it to every scenario, every response.
I actually find it really difficult to imagine a response where there is no emotional empathy element to it. It’s so very engrained within neurotypicals I think. I understand what ‘no emotional empathy’ means intellectually, yet I struggle to place it, to apply it or to fully comprehend how it feels. It’s not just a different opinion, it’s the absence of something that essentially is always in play without me ever really thinking about it. So I understand, but without ever truly being able to ‘understand.’ That probably makes no sense whatsoever!
Indeed, this is why I have always said that neurotypicals would be unable to effectively fake psychopathy. There is so much that is in their fundamental interactions that are laden with unseen emotion, they can't remove it. They don't even know it's there.
this is exactly why i don't believe in forgiveness/think it's such a foolish concept, because someone can say they forgive somebody, but the next time that person makes a mistake they bring up every single time they messed up prior to "forgiving" them.
Well, then what needs to happen is that needs to be placed into a framework where the fact that that doesn't sound particularly like 'forgiveness' can be expressed.
I have followed some philosophy on this and think that it is a workable concept. But there are a lot of things that mess things up around this. I.e. forgiveness can't be given without contrition. Forgiveness has to be followed up by some sort of restitution.
Also, there must be strong challenges to inconsistency I think. So someone can't expect full trust from you but then show you no trust as an example. This is an inconsistency.
There are probably books on this kind of concept if people are so inclined.
The Janice thing is simple enough: If Janice's friend is a neurotypical, she will be cross and make Janice feel guilty for calling off the meeting in favour of another friend, for choosing the other activity and the other friend over her. So Janice does not tell her friend in advance. If Janice's friend is a psychopath there is no danger of this emotional mix-up. No guilty feelings incited, no reproaches. Just plain information and everything is okay again. Thanks for pointing this out.
"That isn’t going to address how hurt she feels about being rejected and left out. "
In Courtney's shoes, my response would lean towards psychopathy. I wouldn't have hurt feelings about being "rejected and left out". Afterall, Janice knew that Courtney wouldn't have enjoyed clubbing with her co-worker had she been included, and this was something Janice wanted to do instead of going to a movie with Courtney. Maybe Courtney's time was being protected by not dragging her off to do something she wouldn't enjoy. I would see Janice's behavior as disrespectful and inconsiderate of my time, but not as an egregious act of betrayal or maliciousness.
"I am never devoid of human companionship, meaning that I am perfectly happy alone, and I don’t get lonely or jealous. Being bothered by a friend having other friends is completely foreign to me. It makes no sense."
I am the same. While I'd be relieved to be left out, being lied to would cause me to lose respect for Janice. Trust and respect are essential to me. It wouldn't necessarily end the friendship, but I'd become detached, and possibly too busy to see her for a while. I would think that it was so silly to lie, but on the other hand, at least she called! So, I'd give her some credit for that, although she should have told the truth. I would also keep the information that I knew to myself. There wouldn't be a confrontation or discussion or apologies. I could still continue the friendship if the rest of my experiences with Janice had been positive enough for me to let that one incident slide. The scenario implies that this was a long-term friendship. If Janice felt any guilt about it, she would likely self-correct without all the conversation and drama and apologizing and whataboutisms that could easily make everything go south. If it happened again, it would be over.
For.a different slant on.this, look at the comment section on.this video, which provides an evenings worth of thought. The psychopath vs neurotypical view aired by Athena is only.part.of the complexity. The 'spectrum' angle adds a whole.lot more, and sadly is somerhing one may realise.only in.later life: 'Explanations' vs 'Excuses'.
I never understood apologies for years, because I always just thought it was neurotypicals trying to make themselves the bigger animal by making other people apologise. I think that is what it is mostly. Politically this always seems to be the case. But there are some that talk about apologies in a more functional way.
I work through my interactions with others in relation to stated principles and such. So I had a friend who kept on flaking on me. I brought it up with him. He acknowledged and apologised for the behaviour then ghosted me for two months immediately afterward. So this invalidates a worded apology from him as a reliable signal of intention.
When he flaked again I sent him a long message with a record of the times he had cancelled on me and told him we were done (with an apology not being a possibility due to earlier behaviour). Both at the time, and at a time when we communicated a bit later he tried to guilt me and whatnot and got really emotional ("you might not understand this but I think about you all the time" etc.). So I wrote him a message, analysing his lack of values as I saw it and asked him if there was any abstract philosophical principles that he commits to that hold a higher position for him than his emotional preference? So, as an example, I know him being on the left he doesn't hold the non aggression principle as a value. Since leftism is the redistribution of wealth via the initiation of force.
He didn't answer, and he probably doesn't hold a higher value than his own emotional preference. So I don't interact with him or any in that friendship group. I think this mechanism is preferable to "grey rock" in dealing with narcissism etc. It is highly effective at communicating and setting boundaries. Because those sorts of personalities can't do much against the puncture of their imaginary "moral highground". By a stern analysis of their (lack of) values.
I also use apologies as a kind of game theory. I apologise and wait for behaviour to change. If it does not then I can call someone on that later on if they are being a nuisance. I think it gives one an advantage because they have done everything required by the social ritual so it's a good card that can be played. People can't say 'why don't you be nice to x'. If you say 'I apologised but he chose not to see me when I reached out'. Then what can they do?
I used to not really get the NT moral highground stuff. I used to really wonder about status and such. But it has clicked for me recently and I think it is worth putting in the extra effort to manouevre yourself into the moral highground position. Because NT's can't do much against it.
I'm autistic and while my feelings get hurt, words mean little to me. I need to see concrete action to accept an apology. I need to see the person is doing something to make up for what they did AND that the behavior is not repeated. I actually tell friends and others in my life, that "I don't care how sorry you are. I care that you want to make amends and won't do it again." I'm not sure if this is entirely due to my neurology or if it may also be related to being an abuse survivor, but actions always mean way more to me than words.
Apologies are so strange. I have given with all the sincerity that I can fake and be amazed that the person seems to be happy about it.
Something i discovered was that being straight up and owning my words and actions made other people really unhappy.
I have noticed this too. It seems like they think that you aren't sufficiently sorry when you just outright say, yup, I f*cked up.
This happened to me a couple of days ago.
My son has a suspected in-growing toenail. We waited 4 weeks to see the podiatrist. (British National Health Service) They called on Monday whilst my son was having a driving lesson. I had thought the appointment was Tuesday, it wasn’t, it was Monday, same time as the driving lesson. I can’t tell you how guilty I felt after him waiting 4 weeks to be seen. My mess up, the appointment email came through to me not him.
So when he came in, I told him “Sam, I’ve majorly messed up. I thought your appointment was tomorrow, it wasn’t, it was today and you were having your driving lesson so I couldn’t reach you. I’m really sorry, I’m really annoyed with myself for messing up.”
Two things though.
By the time he got in, I had found out that another NHS appointment would be a further two - three weeks wait and further away from where we live. I had then phoned my PT ( lived locally all his life) who recommended a private podiatrist who he knew from uni. I had contacted them and my son is being seen in a week’s time. I made a doctor’s appointment for antibiotics as the podiatrist won’t treat if there’s infection. ( The first podiatrist was just going to look at it and waitlist my son for treatment. This one will treat during the first appointment.)
I’m thinking that from the psychopath’s view this would be acceptable. I messed up, I admitted it, I immediately moved to rectify it.
Secondly from the neurotypical standpoint. My son and I are very close. He already knows I would be gutted by that mistake. As I apologised, he told me that it’s ok, not to worry, his toe isn’t that painful (despite it bleeding every day).
So here emotionally, each protects the other. My son protects me as he knows how guilty I will feel. I protect him by accepting responsibility, apologising and being honest.
The difference quite possibly is that my son wouldn’t have been angry had I not immediately found the solution. He knows my guilt would be eating away at me, because he knows I love him to bits and worry about him. If I understand correctly, the psychopath wouldn’t care that I felt awful, just that I admitted to messing up and took action to rectify the problem.
That’s really worth knowing, thank you.
Yes, your solution would have been perfectly acceptable to a psychopath. Everyone messes up, it's what is done about the mess-up that is important to a psychopath.
It helps my understanding to place examples in a scenario I already experienced, sorry for the long comment!
On the face of it, I understand what ‘no emotional empathy’ means, but I struggle to apply it to every scenario, every response.
I actually find it really difficult to imagine a response where there is no emotional empathy element to it. It’s so very engrained within neurotypicals I think. I understand what ‘no emotional empathy’ means intellectually, yet I struggle to place it, to apply it or to fully comprehend how it feels. It’s not just a different opinion, it’s the absence of something that essentially is always in play without me ever really thinking about it. So I understand, but without ever truly being able to ‘understand.’ That probably makes no sense whatsoever!
Indeed, this is why I have always said that neurotypicals would be unable to effectively fake psychopathy. There is so much that is in their fundamental interactions that are laden with unseen emotion, they can't remove it. They don't even know it's there.
this is exactly why i don't believe in forgiveness/think it's such a foolish concept, because someone can say they forgive somebody, but the next time that person makes a mistake they bring up every single time they messed up prior to "forgiving" them.
good insight 👍🏼
It is not that I am a great "forgiveness" person, I just don't want the responsibility to keep the details straight.
If we are friends, I don't care what offenses you did in the past and will not remind you. Within a month or two, I simply will not remember or care.
A lot of people have past grievances locked and loaded for just the occasion of a misstep.
The locked and loaded is an unfortunate downside to the valuable remembering and adjusting expectations accordingly.
Yes. It sounds so tedious. And hostile.
I think someone did that to me earlier this year, during a phone call.
They handle about 40% of my income. So I eliminated the personal aspect. (except for one confirmation call per year)
Other than family, isn't that what we all do? Don't we get rid of those people?
Some people do, many do not, however, unfortunately
Well, then what needs to happen is that needs to be placed into a framework where the fact that that doesn't sound particularly like 'forgiveness' can be expressed.
I have followed some philosophy on this and think that it is a workable concept. But there are a lot of things that mess things up around this. I.e. forgiveness can't be given without contrition. Forgiveness has to be followed up by some sort of restitution.
Also, there must be strong challenges to inconsistency I think. So someone can't expect full trust from you but then show you no trust as an example. This is an inconsistency.
There are probably books on this kind of concept if people are so inclined.
The Janice thing is simple enough: If Janice's friend is a neurotypical, she will be cross and make Janice feel guilty for calling off the meeting in favour of another friend, for choosing the other activity and the other friend over her. So Janice does not tell her friend in advance. If Janice's friend is a psychopath there is no danger of this emotional mix-up. No guilty feelings incited, no reproaches. Just plain information and everything is okay again. Thanks for pointing this out.
"That isn’t going to address how hurt she feels about being rejected and left out. "
In Courtney's shoes, my response would lean towards psychopathy. I wouldn't have hurt feelings about being "rejected and left out". Afterall, Janice knew that Courtney wouldn't have enjoyed clubbing with her co-worker had she been included, and this was something Janice wanted to do instead of going to a movie with Courtney. Maybe Courtney's time was being protected by not dragging her off to do something she wouldn't enjoy. I would see Janice's behavior as disrespectful and inconsiderate of my time, but not as an egregious act of betrayal or maliciousness.
"I am never devoid of human companionship, meaning that I am perfectly happy alone, and I don’t get lonely or jealous. Being bothered by a friend having other friends is completely foreign to me. It makes no sense."
I am the same. While I'd be relieved to be left out, being lied to would cause me to lose respect for Janice. Trust and respect are essential to me. It wouldn't necessarily end the friendship, but I'd become detached, and possibly too busy to see her for a while. I would think that it was so silly to lie, but on the other hand, at least she called! So, I'd give her some credit for that, although she should have told the truth. I would also keep the information that I knew to myself. There wouldn't be a confrontation or discussion or apologies. I could still continue the friendship if the rest of my experiences with Janice had been positive enough for me to let that one incident slide. The scenario implies that this was a long-term friendship. If Janice felt any guilt about it, she would likely self-correct without all the conversation and drama and apologizing and whataboutisms that could easily make everything go south. If it happened again, it would be over.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IrNvwiLzchE
For.a different slant on.this, look at the comment section on.this video, which provides an evenings worth of thought. The psychopath vs neurotypical view aired by Athena is only.part.of the complexity. The 'spectrum' angle adds a whole.lot more, and sadly is somerhing one may realise.only in.later life: 'Explanations' vs 'Excuses'.
Thank you
I never understood apologies for years, because I always just thought it was neurotypicals trying to make themselves the bigger animal by making other people apologise. I think that is what it is mostly. Politically this always seems to be the case. But there are some that talk about apologies in a more functional way.
I work through my interactions with others in relation to stated principles and such. So I had a friend who kept on flaking on me. I brought it up with him. He acknowledged and apologised for the behaviour then ghosted me for two months immediately afterward. So this invalidates a worded apology from him as a reliable signal of intention.
When he flaked again I sent him a long message with a record of the times he had cancelled on me and told him we were done (with an apology not being a possibility due to earlier behaviour). Both at the time, and at a time when we communicated a bit later he tried to guilt me and whatnot and got really emotional ("you might not understand this but I think about you all the time" etc.). So I wrote him a message, analysing his lack of values as I saw it and asked him if there was any abstract philosophical principles that he commits to that hold a higher position for him than his emotional preference? So, as an example, I know him being on the left he doesn't hold the non aggression principle as a value. Since leftism is the redistribution of wealth via the initiation of force.
He didn't answer, and he probably doesn't hold a higher value than his own emotional preference. So I don't interact with him or any in that friendship group. I think this mechanism is preferable to "grey rock" in dealing with narcissism etc. It is highly effective at communicating and setting boundaries. Because those sorts of personalities can't do much against the puncture of their imaginary "moral highground". By a stern analysis of their (lack of) values.
I also use apologies as a kind of game theory. I apologise and wait for behaviour to change. If it does not then I can call someone on that later on if they are being a nuisance. I think it gives one an advantage because they have done everything required by the social ritual so it's a good card that can be played. People can't say 'why don't you be nice to x'. If you say 'I apologised but he chose not to see me when I reached out'. Then what can they do?
I used to not really get the NT moral highground stuff. I used to really wonder about status and such. But it has clicked for me recently and I think it is worth putting in the extra effort to manouevre yourself into the moral highground position. Because NT's can't do much against it.
Quite true, it is an exceptional position for negotiation.
I'm autistic and while my feelings get hurt, words mean little to me. I need to see concrete action to accept an apology. I need to see the person is doing something to make up for what they did AND that the behavior is not repeated. I actually tell friends and others in my life, that "I don't care how sorry you are. I care that you want to make amends and won't do it again." I'm not sure if this is entirely due to my neurology or if it may also be related to being an abuse survivor, but actions always mean way more to me than words.