What is deflection?

Due to my Asperger I often reach a situation where other people misunderstand my intentions and I get blamed for something that I didn't mean to do. I then explain to them that actually when they thought I was saying/doing X, in actuality I was saying/doing Y, and miscommunication happened because of Z. Now, when I talk about Z, they oftentimes accuse me of "dwelling in details" which causes them to retreat from interaction with me because they are "tired". But on my end Z is very far from a detail: it is what makes a difference between X and Y; and since they are hurt by X rather than Y, then I would say that the difference between the latter two is rather crucial, far from detail.

But, I guess, they don't agree with me. Because during the RARE occasion when I reach the point of saying its Y rather than X (usually the conversation doesn't even get there, because people are leaving right when I talk about "detail" Z, but lets talk about few cases when it does) they accusing me of treating their feelings as "less valid" than mine, hence disrespecting them. But on my end its not like that at all. Rather, "if the subject of conversation is ME, then MY feelings are more valid; if the subject of conversation is THEM, then THEIR feelings are more valid". Now, X vs Y is ABOUT ME (after all *I* was the one who supposedly done one of the two), hence, MY feelings would be more valid IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. But that doesn't change the fact that THEIR feelings might be more valid IN OTHER CASES.

Here is a recent example where I treated THEIR feelings as more valid. So I am in a long distance relationship with a girl, and we are chatting every day either through Skype or throuogh yahoo. A few days ago my girlfriend cancelled a chat. Now, in the context of some other conversations we were having, I was under impression that her reason for cancelling the chat was that she was mad at me for something. Thus, I got mad at her and, against her wish, came to chat anyway in order to "clarify" things. When she got my text, she came to chat, and then she quickly explained it to me that actually the only reason she didn't want to come to chat was her neck pain and it had nothing to do with me. The moment she said it, my mood immediately changed for the better, I was completely fine. Then she asked me whether I am still hurt. I said no I am not hurt, after all I know that her neck pain is the reason!

So you see, I treated HER perspective as more valid: after all I didn't say "I don't believe it is neck pain, I think you are mad at me". NO. What I said is "Thanks so much, finally I know its your neck pain and that you are NOT mad at me, I feel so much better now". So this shows that I treated HER perspective as "more valid" than mine: after all, the subject of conversation is HER (namely, her not coming for chat), so HER perspective is more valid.

Now, all I am asking others to do is return this same favor back to me. WHEN the subject of conversation is ME, then MY perspective should be more valid, shouldn't it? So why am I being told I am being selfish for doing that? After all, I am more than willing to give them similar favor, am I not?

Now, here is an example where people don't treat my perspective as more valid. So they spread rumors that I don't talk to anyone because I am antisocial. In reality I don't talk to people because I don't remember any names or faces. And if they wave at me, how do I know they are waving at me and not at someone else -- especially since most of the times it is, in fact, someone else they are waving at? I don't want to risk of replying when they wave at someone else -- but if they were to call me by name then I would most definitely reply. Now, when I try to tell them the above, they don't take it seriously and act as if I am just making an excuse in order to be antisocial. After all, if they took it seriously they would start calling me by my name and/or proposed some other solution (such as invite me somewhere). But they don't do any of that. They say "they understand" out of politeness and then continue to avoid me.

Now I guess you might say in their defense that if my actions (not replying to waving) can be justified by my words (saying I don't recognize them) then their actions of not talking to me can also be somehow alleviated through words (saying that "they understand" when they don't mean it). Well here is a difference though. In my case, its my PAST actions that I am justifying by words; in their case, its their FUTURE actions that are going to stay the same as they used to be in the past. I can't do anything about past actions can I? They have a power to fix something in terms of their future actions.

So, if they were to start suggesting things for me to do IN THE FUTURE to make me more social and I started shooting them all down with excuses, then I agree, my excuses would be pretty meaningless (I mean if I really want to socialize then I would grab whatever they suggested would I not). But if my excuses are only about THE PAST, then I can't do anything to change THE PAST, so explanation is all I can do. Now in many people's minds, if I am explaining my behavior it means that I don't want to change it (after all, my explanation would imply that whatever I am doing is what I should be doing). On my end its not like that at all. When I explain what I mean is "in the past I did A because B was in the way, now if you remove B then in future I will easily change A into C". So, as you see, my explanation does NOT say I will do A in the future, quite the opposite in fact!

Anyway, back to the title of the post: some people told me to look up "deflection" and said that is what I am doing when I explain myself too much. I looked it up in the following link http://mindfulconstruct.com/2009/01/06/ ... eflection/ Now, one thing I see in that link is that when the people "deflect" they bring up something that is tangentially related but not directly. Like one of the deflection examples they gave on that link is when a person says that the other person projects their life onto them. Well, for one thing, you can't exactly prove it, can you? Now, in my case I always take what I am told at face value: if I am told its about me, I take it as about me, I would never speculate that it is anything else. Now, what I am doing is talking about something that LOGICALLY relates to the substance of objection. I say "I didn't wave back BECAUSE I DIDN"T RECOGNIZE YOU"; I would NEVER say anything else, such as "I didn't wave back because I was tired of all the homework". Now the "homework" excuse would have been a deflection, I agree. But I never used that excuse, did I? On the other hand, I don't see how "Not recognizing your face" can be construed as deflection. I mean, if I am "tired" I can still force myself to wave back. But if I don't recognize the face, I can't force myself to recognize it, can I?

Now, one likely way in which they might claim I am deflecting is that I am saying that their feelings are "less valid" than my problem with face recognition. But from my perspective that's not the case. I mean what are their feelings? Their feelings is that "it really hurts if they wave and are DELIBERATELY ignored". Now what am I trying to claim? I am claiming "My ignoring was NOT deliberate, it was caused by problem with face recognition". So I didn't invalidate their feelings did I? As a matter of fact I agree with them: being DELIBERATELY ignored IS bad. All I am saying is that said concept won't apply here since I never deliberately ignored them. If they STILL say that I invalidated their feelings, they are implicitly saying htat "whether your behavior was deliberate or not is up to perspective, in your perspective it wasn't deliberate, in ours it was, and our perspective is just as valid as yours". But don't you see how illogical it is? Whether the behavior was deliberate doesn't have multiple perspectives! Its a simple yes or no question that can be answered by the person in question.

Once again, in case of my girlfriend, I was fine with everything the moment she explained about neck ache. Is it because I thought "Her neck ache is more important than mine hurt feelings"? NO. Rather, the SUBJECT of my hurt feelings was "her not chatting with me BECAUSE OF ANGER". Now, from her responce, I have learned that it was NOT "because of anger". So the subject of hurt feelings was out of the way, so my feelings aren't hurt any more. Simple, right? Now why can't others give me similar understanding as well?

i think that sometimes people with aspergers can be prone to respond with a detailed expose of "why they reacted like they did" when confronted by someone who feels hurt by that action, i think they feel it is a deflection because it can get longwinded.
I have aspergers and i know i do it myself sometimes.

if someone feels hurt if you dont wave back to them and you are not able to comfortably do that, then i would simply tell them "please dont wave to me from afar it puts me in an uncomfortable position, you know that you git"

and leave it at that

CpaAbs wrote: i think they feel it is a deflection because it can get longwinded.

I don't get why "longwinded" would make it sound like deflection. I operate the opposite: if I know I did something bad on purpose and want to hide it, I would respond with very short sentence if that. On the other hand, if I am long winded it means I know I am right and I have nothing to hide.

CpaAbs wrote:if someone feels hurt if you dont wave back to them and you are not able to comfortably do that, then i would simply tell them "please dont wave to me from afar it puts me in an uncomfortable position, you know that you git"

I don't see anything "uncomfortable" with being waved. Quite the opposite: I WANT to be approached; I simply wish I knew exactly when they approach me. So, I would say something along the following lines:

1. If you wave at me, please do so SEVERAL TIMES so I can be absolutely sure that its me you wave at, and respond (incidentally there was ONE time when it worked: after they waved me several times I came joined the table and had good conversation; I hope people were to do that more than just one time a year)

2. If I still don't respond, please call me by name. In fact, I prefer if you call me by name regardless, but if you try to wave at me and I don't respond, then calling my name is a must.

causalset wrote:

CpaAbs wrote: i think they feel it is a deflection because it can get longwinded.

I don't get why "longwinded" would make it sound like deflection. I operate the opposite: if I know I did something bad on purpose and want to hide it, I would respond with very short sentence if that. On the other hand, if I am long winded it means I know I am right and I have nothing to hide.

i'm with you, but that's usually not how it works for them, if they start a longwinded explanation when someone is pressing for some answer then it's safe to assume it's a deflection, or a subtle lie

causalset wrote:

CpaAbs wrote:if someone feels hurt if you dont wave back to them and you are not able to comfortably do that, then i would simply tell them "please dont wave to me from afar it puts me in an uncomfortable position, you know that you git"

I don't see anything "uncomfortable" with being waved. Quite the opposite: I WANT to be approached; I simply wish I knew exactly when they approach me. So, I would say something along the following lines:

1. If you wave at me, please do so SEVERAL TIMES so I can be absolutely sure that its me you wave at, and respond (incidentally there was ONE time when it worked: after they waved me several times I came joined the table and had good conversation; I hope people were to do that more than just one time a year)

2. If I still don't respond, please call me by name. In fact, I prefer if you call me by name regardless, but if you try to wave at me and I don't respond, then calling my name is a must.

what i meant was not that that's the exact feeling you MUST have or the sentence you MUST use, i meant that it's usually more enjoyable for NT's to get a 1liner when their doing something that is not comfortable to you like "getting waved at in a way so that you are not able to tell if their waving at you or not" so for their pleasure it may be expedient to simply tell them how you like it, and maybe tease them if their not able to keep up with that

CpaAbs wrote:i'm with you, but that's usually not how it works for them, if they start a longwinded explanation when someone is pressing for some answer then it's safe to assume it's a deflection, or a subtle lie

Can you explain the logic behind this.

CpaAbs wrote:what i meant was not that that's the exact feeling you MUST have or the sentence you MUST use, i meant that it's usually more enjoyable for NT's to get a 1liner when their doing something that is not comfortable to you like "getting waved at in a way so that you are not able to tell if their waving at you or not" so for their pleasure it may be expedient to simply tell them how you like it, and maybe tease them if their not able to keep up with that

Even if it is enjoyable FOR THEM it won't be so FOR ME. As it stands, they assume I don't want to be approached in any way (including waving) so no one does (the incident I am discussing is the one that happened in August and, since no one waved at me ever since, I am still obsessing about that one person I wish I were to respond to back then). So my task is to prove them wrong and tell them that yes I want to be approached. I tried. Their response was "it is okay we understand". But what exactly do they understand? Probably they mean something along the following lines: "we understand your reasons why you want to be left alone, and we are not mad at you at all". The part I put in red is the one that I disagree with and I want to refute it. But no matter how hard I try to refute it, it doesn't work. If they truly believe I DON"T want to be left alone, why don't they take any initiative to invite me over to do stuff, besides telling me that they understand?

causalset wrote:

CpaAbs wrote:i'm with you, but that's usually not how it works for them, if they start a longwinded explanation when someone is pressing for some answer then it's safe to assume it's a deflection, or a subtle lie

Can you explain the logic behind this.

i havent really thought about an actual explanation for it before, but it would be interesting to get one, it's really easy to see it happen in movies, if someone goes on with a longwinded explanation when pressed it's usually a lie, some kind of subversion or a child not able to sort through relevant information.

causalset wrote:Even if it is enjoyable FOR THEM it won't be so FOR ME. As it stands, they assume I don't want to be approached in any way (including waving) so no one does (the incident I am discussing is the one that happened in August and, since no one waved at me ever since, I am still obsessing about that one person I wish I were to respond to back then). So my task is to prove them wrong and tell them that yes I want to be approached. I tried. Their response was "it is okay we understand". But what exactly do they understand? Probably they mean something along the following lines: "we understand your reasons why you want to be left alone, and we are not mad at you at all". The part I put in red is the one that I disagree with and I want to refute it. But no matter how hard I try to refute it, it doesn't work. If they truly believe I DON"T want to be left alone, why don't they take any initiative to invite me over to do stuff, besides telling me that they understand?

my view is that if you continue to beat a dead cat it's just not going to spring to life from that, in my opinion if you want someone to do something, especially girls, it's best to be succinct about it, do it in a teasing manner and go with the flow. maybe there is a window of opportunity, it may be open or it may be closed, if your not respecting that that window may be like that then it may start to use words like deflection, if it's a girly one

CpaAbs wrote:i havent really thought about an actual explanation for it before, but it would be interesting to get one, it's really easy to see it happen in movies, if someone goes on with a longwinded explanation when pressed it's usually a lie, some kind of subversion or a child not able to sort through relevant information.

What you see in the movies reflects the mindset of movie-writers, not reality. Just like in child movies the evil characters are dressed in black, while in reality the only people dressed in black are orthodox jews and other religions figures. So this brings it right back to original question: why do people (whether that be movie writers OR people I interact with) THINK that "long winded" = "either lie or deflection"?

CpaAbs wrote:my view is that if you continue to beat a dead cat it's just not going to spring to life from that, in my opinion if you want someone to do something, especially girls, it's best to be succinct about it, do it in a teasing manner and go with the flow. maybe there is a window of opportunity, it may be open or it may be closed, if your not respecting that that window may be like that then it may start to use words like deflection, if it's a girly one

Looking at all the times you use the word "it" indicates that you are viewing people as mashines that dispense some responses. But people are not mashines, they are thinking entities equipped with brain. So what is the logic behind them responding the way you described?

disclaimer:
personally i dont think it's appropriate to debate people in a forum where they come to share their personal problems.
i come here to become better at dealing with my aspergers, to get help for that, and to help other people in the same way

causalset wrote:What you see in the movies reflects the mindset of movie-writers, not reality. Just like in child movies the evil characters are dressed in black, while in reality the only people dressed in black are orthodox jews and other religions figures. So this brings it right back to original question: why do people (whether that be movie writers OR people I interact with) THINK that "long winded" = "either lie or deflection"?

reasons your comment might be considered deflective:
1) you are debating me on weather movies reflect real life or simply the mindset of writers, and that is an interesting discussion in and of itself, but it is absolutely not relevant for the point i was making
2) you take time to debate me on an irrelevant point, but cut short the relevant one, namely that "people that get longwinded when pressed are likely to be considered liars, deflecting or child-like"
3) you ask me to expand on a point that look a bit similar to the one i was making, but is not the same (and it's also an incorrect one in and of itself)
4) when you represent the point i was making you happen to represent something that most people would find a LOT less likely to be correct than the one i was actually making, that's a common politician gimmick but i dont think it's a very acceptable one in many situations other than politics

causalset wrote:

CpaAbs wrote:my view is that if you continue to beat a dead cat it's just not going to spring to life from that, in my opinion if you want someone to do something, especially girls, it's best to be succinct about it, do it in a teasing manner and go with the flow. maybe there is a window of opportunity, it may be open or it may be closed, if your not respecting that that window may be like that then it may start to use words like deflection, if it's a girly one

Looking at all the times you use the word "it" indicates that you are viewing people as mashines that dispense some responses. But people are not mashines, they are thinking entities equipped with brain. So what is the logic behind them responding the way you described?

in my opinion it is expedient to be succinct and enjoyable for most recipients, and you are asking me to expand on that

CpaAbs wrote:disclaimer:
personally i dont think it's appropriate to debate people in a forum where they come to share their personal problems.
i come here to become better at dealing with my aspergers, to get help for that, and to help other people in the same way

But from my point of view "debate" and "help" are logically interconnected. After all, the problem with Asperger is not understanding other people. So learning to understand other people would be help. Now, when I learn math or physics I don't just memorize it, I understand LOGIC behind it. So if I try to understand LOGIC behind other people, that's when debate comes in.

Now, maybe miscommunication is the way I phrase questions. Like sometimes physics professors accused me of coming to the office to prove that book's author is an idiot. But I never tried to do that; instead I tried to UNDERSTAND book's author; thus I was pointing out where I MISPERCEIVE what I read as illogical so they can correct me. Right now I believe the miscommunication is similar.

On the other hand, you might be saying that in this particular post you are helping me rather than I am helping you. But since we both have Asperger I don't see why one is any worse than the other.

CpaAbs wrote:2) you take time to debate me on an irrelevant point, but cut short the relevant one, namely that "people that get longwinded when pressed are likely to be considered liars, deflecting or child-like"

Well the thing is that I was not being pressed. In fact quite the opposite took place: other people were being pressed to hear my explanation, and the more I pressed them the more they evaded hearing me with polite excuses. Now, one of these people said I was the one who was deflecting. So how is it possible for someone to deflect and be pushy at the same time?

In any case, here is interaction in question:

1. The girl told me on facebook she waved me and I didn't wave back

2. I responded VERY BRIEFLY that I simply didn't recognize her

3. I didn't get the acknowledgement I was looking for in a form of telling me that next time she would call me by name or some other suggestions

4. Few months have past during which she wasn't on facebook much

5. Since I wasn't happy with 3, I decided to go back to 2 and this time I went on and on about 2 in long monologues so she can understand it better

6. The more I expended on it the more she backed off

Now, look at two things:

A. She never pressed me, did she

B. I didn't start long monologue until 5. So why didn't 2 work, if I was brief at 2?

causalset wrote:But from my point of view "debate" and "help" are logically interconnected.

yeah they are, but inversely so. the more intensely you "debate" something the more likely are you to portray the other persons point of view in a way so that it looks false, and do so in a disingenuous way. that leads to content with an intellectual value beneath SPAM.
i find SPAM very distasteful, both the kind in text and the kind in a can.

causalset wrote:

CpaAbs wrote:2) you take time to debate me on an irrelevant point, but cut short the relevant one, namely that "people that get longwinded when pressed are likely to be considered liars, deflecting or child-like"

Well the thing is that I was not being pressed. In fact quite the opposite took place: other people were being pressed to hear my explanation, and the more I pressed them the more they evaded hearing me with polite excuses. Now, one of these people said I was the one who was deflecting. So how is it possible for someone to deflect and be pushy at the same time?

deflecting, being pushy and and being pressed go together like Hans and Gretel, it's just not attractive and most people with any standards will wish to leave that situation.

causalset wrote:In any case, here is interaction in question:

1. The girl told me on facebook she waved me and I didn't wave back

2. I responded VERY BRIEFLY that I simply didn't recognize her

3. I didn't get the acknowledgement I was looking for in a form of telling me that next time she would call me by name or some other suggestions

4. Few months have past during which she wasn't on facebook much

5. Since I wasn't happy with 3, I decided to go back to 2 and this time I went on and on about 2 in long monologues so she can understand it better

6. The more I expended on it the more she backed off

Now, look at two things:

A. She never pressed me, did she

B. I didn't start long monologue until 5. So why didn't 2 work, if I was brief at 2?

A) some people may find she triggered an insecurity, generally comments about waving are not rehashed months later.
B) "2" didnt work because you were brief (witch is good), but not that much "on point", and not really presenting it in a way that captures her mind, people dont remember that much of what goes on.



you asked what deflection is, and demonstrated what i would consider deflection more so than i've seen on a forum before, but we all have challenges, good luck with yours