Cynicism and lack of faith in others

Actually, that idea bothers me a lot. If I do have an altruistic impulse, other than something that is simply polite, like holding open a door for someone, I have to figure out what's in it for me before I do it. I can't stand the idea that I might be using someone but masking it in pseudo-benevolence.

skyflyz wrote:Well, if you drill down, nobody ever does anything that doesn't profit them in some way. In the purest form of altruism, people generally help others because it makes them feel good to help.

So what?

Does that make the deed less valuable? I doubt the starving homeless man cares about why somebody would help feed and clothe him, he just is grateful that somebody would.

But only seeing the recipient of apparent altruism doesn't convey the full picture. Its the deliverer of apparent altruism that we also have to look at.

I think it does matter why people do things, separate from how such actions are experienced by others. If we are trying to understand ourselves, why we do something and why we do not do something, its important to know what is propelling us into all our choices. I think once we accept that there is no such thing as altruism, we can relax and go forward without this fabricated element in our minds, which has been inculcated into the psyche of the population and has damaged and ruined some people's lives.

Another aspect is that not all societies perceive altruism or generosity in the same way. I have witnessed altruism and generosity been given to people from one type of culture to a completely different one and the beneficiaries of the altruism/generosity perceiving it as a sign of weakness.

momof3inTN wrote:People are inherently selfish and wrapped up in their own bubble. This combined with our highly acute sensitivity to most things and their general lack of sensitivity leads to avPD people believing that 80% of people do not really care about things that matter to us.

One of my biggest problems with people perfectly articulated.

Why do I bother making so much effort to get to know someone and do things for them if most of the time I get little if anything in return? Very often I am ignored, not paid attention to, or they don't put in much effort unless it's convenient for them. People only really start to appreciate me once I start avoiding them because I am fed up, I've found.

It's not selfishness so much as self-preservation. It's important for relationships to try to be reciprocal, otherwise there's an unfair power balance and the other person starts to feel drained of energy and sometimes even used. Almost every friendship I have had felt like this. It's normal for parents to feel this way with regards to their children, especially when they are very young and have to be cared for, but it's unhealthy for friendships to function like this over the long term, I think.

Me v2 wrote:
Another thing that must be said, I think, is how the word "selfish" has been hijacked and changed to mean the opposite of what it really does mean. It means to take care of oneself, in all ways, because if we are not taking care of ourselves and doing right by ourselves, we are not being our true selves and neither are we giving other people the best of who we are. Ideas about "sacrifice" and "serving others" before ourselves or instead of ourselves have, I believe, been invented & promoted by religious ideologies in order to have their aims, needs and desires met, for free, with endless myths and expressions of how the person will be rewarded "spiritually".

This concept seem to have been heavily laid at the feet of women, who have often taken on such an idea with gusto and zeal, but as they all find out in time, it all comes at a heavy price - their self and their lives. So in modern society, we venerate those who give up their lives to "serve others", when we should be extremely sad that people do so, for they lose their own lives in living this way.

I believe and think it is fine for someone to help others, if they can, if they wish to and when they are doing so from a position of strength. But never at the expense of their own self and life.

This describes my mother very well (it is unfortunately common among mothers). She serves other people to the detriment of any of her own pursuits or creative endeavours, and she bears a certain amount of resentment and bitterness because of it. Of course it's so internalised that most of the time she's not aware of just how bad it is.

For most of my life I have been trying to strike a healthy balance between self-preservation, self-actualisation, and serving other people. I try to avoid people who tend to take more than give. I also want to help those who mostly give to be attentive to their own needs and not serve others at the detriment of themselves, because this isn't fair either.

Elaina wrote:Why do I bother making so much effort to get to know someone and do things for them if most of the time I get little if anything in return?

If you only/mainly give in expectation of receiving, you aren't giving.

Elaina wrote:For most of my life I have been trying to strike a healthy balance between self-preservation, self-actualisation, and serving other people. I try to avoid people who tend to take more than give. I also want to help those who mostly give to be attentive to their own needs and not serve others at the detriment of themselves, because this isn't fair either.

Knowing who we really are, our true selves, our true needs and then being true to that, is the greatest accomplishment any person can make, in my opinion. I think we tend to embrace ideas of "how we should be" which mostly come from other people, without much examination or analysis and this often leads to suffering.

Everybody is, ultimately, trying to find true peace and for those people who seem to be fixated in some way, such as mostly taking or mostly giving, they are trapped in a cycle of such behavior and they won't ever be able to get out of that trap without changing their thoughts. So unless you help such a person with their thoughts, anything else you do for them won't really help them.

The concept of fairness is a made-up idea that exists nowhere else in nature. Why do we think we are different and must have such a thing? I believe we may have been conditioned to believe the idea of fairness from fables, tales and folklore and not much else. We must ask for what purpose is this so.

Me v2 wrote:If you only/mainly give in expectation of receiving, you aren't giving.

I think you're trivialising my position here. Have you never been in a relationship with someone else where you give all of the effort and they simply take? If you haven't then you might not know what I am talking about.

I don't give with the expectation of receiving, but when I give and the other person always seems to take to the point where I start to take notice, then I start to have a problem. Maybe it makes me seem more petty since I'm supposed to simply give without thinking about myself, but then later you mentioned being "true to one's own needs." So which one is it?

Me v2 wrote: Knowing who we really are, our true selves, our true needs and then being true to that, is the greatest accomplishment any person can make, in my opinion. I think we tend to embrace ideas of "how we should be" which mostly come from other people, without much examination or analysis and this often leads to suffering.

Everybody is, ultimately, trying to find true peace and for those people who seem to be fixated in some way, such as mostly taking or mostly giving, they are trapped in a cycle of such behavior and they won't ever be able to get out of that trap without changing their thoughts. So unless you help such a person with their thoughts, anything else you do for them won't really help them.

-- That's exactly what I try to do, as you have said, to try to change their thoughts by helping them see.

I don't seem to understand where you're coming from. Later in your post you denigrate the idea of fairness as being a part of folklore and then the paragraph above seems like a well structured concept of the very same fairness. As you describe "mostly taking or mostly giving, they are trapped in a cycle of such behavior", as described you understand that this is NOT FAIR. You are demonstrating thoughts about fairness here. It's a fairness that is internalised with the concept of self (something I said I supported in my previous post) and not of some external standard, but fairness nonetheless.

What you are espousing is actually a very Westernised philosophical position, and philosophy is a man made framework too.

Me v2 wrote: The concept of fairness is a made-up idea that exists nowhere else in nature.

That's actually not true. Chimpanzees have a fairly well developed sense of fairness. If you give one two pieces of mango and the other only one for the same amount of effort and continue to do so repeatedly they will get noticeably angry. You may argue that this is pettiness, but this is something that exists in nature outside of humans. Toddlers without being taught will "punish" the bad puppet and not see it favorably for hurting the good one.

Human beings have an evolved sense of fairness that has served them well in forming human societies. Dictatorships and being taken advantaged of rather than being given proper resources for survival are an example of unfairness that we rail against if we have the ability to do so.

Me v2 wrote:Why do we think we are different and must have such a thing? I believe we may have been conditioned to believe the idea of fairness from fables, tales and folklore and not much else. We must ask for what purpose is this so.

Again, I think you're trivializing folklore here too. Folklore may not serve the same active purpose as we know it today but in the past it was created to condition human societies to value different things. Every culture has different folk tales and they are all man-made but they all serve purposes, albeit different ones. This is what gives each culture its unique character and perspectives on things.

Christians were once told that suffering is good and that we will be rewarded in the afterlife for those efforts. Many of us don't believe that anymore. One can understand that in many ways this belief made sense at the time because suffering was largely unavoidable. But, regardless of folklore, the concept of fairness exists in most human beings as a part of nature. We are taught through folklore/religion regarding how to value it, for the sake of serving god to be rewarded, to be charitable to other people if we happen to be fortunate, etc.

Ultimately, I think we're just arguing over semantics. First you said that I don't truly "give" if I expect something in return, and then later you seemed to agree with me on being "true to one's needs". Someone crashing in my house for six months and not paying rent is not true to my needs, and my mother serving other people to the detriment of herself is not being true to her needs either. Wanting to visit someone's house and raid their refrigerator might be true to my needs for nourishment but it does harm to other people. I'm not pagan but "An it harm none do what ye will" is a concept that addresses this power imbalance.

As silly as the concept of fairness may be it's biologically a part of who we are (except for maybe sociopaths) and is a pretty good framework for interacting with other people. Just because a structure on a biological impulse of fairness is human made that doesn't mean that it cannot serve a useful purpose.

Almost all relationships are not a perfectly fair split in terms of efforts, like 60/40. I understand that even fairness is a very subjective concept too, but when it starts to feel like 70/30 or 80/20 in your efforts compared to theirs then I think it's important to consider this and to value yourself inasmuch as the other person.

This topic has sparked quite a lot of deep discussion. I appreciate others opinions and I think this topic is at the core of our issues.

I am wondering if maybe we have a form of "post traumatic dysfunctional family syndrome" and this is why we feel like a foreigner when we are in groups of people that enjoy each other and exude a sense of well being and contentment in their lives?

Maybe we feel this is impossible for us, when really it is because we have been conditioned to deal with dysfunction, stress and unhappiness during our formative years? Things are not like that for me now, but I don't know how to trust others and reach out without feeling extremely vulnerable. I don't feel at ease enough to laugh and have fun on a personal level except for my husband and that is because I know he loves me.

I have to have to love and acceptance first from someone before I feel at ease building a bond-- but that doesn't work with people outside my immediate family! Because the first little hint that a friend may be self-absorbed and apt to be insensitive to me--- I am withdrawn like a turtle in a shell. However, I hate my shell-- d---m it!!!

My father should never have been as self-absorbed and insensitive to me as he was. He basically wrote me out of his life when I was 9 years old and felt relieved to be rid of his duties as a parent to me and my brother. My mother was saddled with mental illness my whole life and could not be a normal parent. I have adapted so well to this with my turtle shell-- that now I don't know how to live without it!!

I will say-- since blogging on this site-- I have felt more free to be myself around others and have realized more about my little avoidant quirks and tried to find new ways to get around it.

I think for almost all of the people who have AvPD there is some amount of it that traces to family dysfunction.

For me my immediate family was generally fine, but I learned a lot of stupid coping mechanisms in relation to our extended family from my parents, particularly my mother.

There were at times ridiculous amounts of drama between my mom and her siblings because my grandma is a b*** and likes to provoke her children and take no responsibility for it (and thus remains in control). After the fallout, my mom would lose virtually all contact, cut them out of her life, and I didn't get to see my cousins. (She always found this unfair, so sometimes when things weren't too bad she'd drop me off at grandma's to see my cousins and then pick me up later without getting involved with anyone.)

And then there's the stupid things I observed just a year ago. There was a dumb squabble with the neighbor over money and then, that's it, they take the garage key they gave them and lose contact entirely. Initially it's aggressive and direct, and then following this it's totally avoidant behaviours.

Sometimes losing contact with people who are nasty to you makes perfect sense, but at times I felt like this was their ineffective way of dealing with things. Can't say I completely blame them in all cases, though, since most of my extended family are nearly impossible to deal with.

Not having a lot of extended family support for my own self-confidence, on top of having Asperger's and thus natural difficulties making friends, as well as avoidant tendenies, makes me quite the lonely person. :/

---

And, I hope Me v2 didn't find me too aggressive. I know it's hard having a debate/discussion when you're avoidant because the instinct is to run away and avoid anything that even remotely appears to be conflict. It's much easier for me to do this online because I have the time to collect my thoughts properly.

It's difficult for me to argue or debate with someone in person unless I trust them, because my fight-or-flight kicks in and I am terrified they are going to make me look foolish and/or attack my character and make me feel awful.

Elaina wrote:I think you're trivialising my position here. Have you never been in a relationship with someone else where you give all of the effort and they simply take? If you haven't then you might not know what I am talking about.

Elaina wrote:I don't give with the expectation of receiving, but when I give and the other person always seems to take to the point where I start to take notice, then I start to have a problem. Maybe it makes me seem more petty since I'm supposed to simply give without thinking about myself, but then later you mentioned being "true to one's own needs." So which one is it?

If you are bothered/affected by not getting what you think/feel you should get, you are always going to get upset/disappointed when you are with a person who behaves like that. The trick is not to have expectations or go into relationships with any expectations or assumptions.

Elaina wrote:That's exactly what I try to do, as you have said, to try to change their thoughts by helping them see.

I don't seem to understand where you're coming from. Later in your post you denigrate the idea of fairness as being a part of folklore and then the paragraph above seems like a well structured concept of the very same fairness. As you describe "mostly taking or mostly giving, they are trapped in a cycle of such behavior", as described you understand that this is NOT FAIR. You are demonstrating thoughts about fairness here. It's a fairness that is internalised with the concept of self (something I said I supported in my previous post) and not of some external standard, but fairness nonetheless.

What you are espousing is actually a very Westernised philosophical position, and philosophy is a man made framework too.

Firstly, the other person has to overtly desire and actually ask for help. Giving help/advice in any other circumstance is prone to fail and likely to bypass the person's mind.

People who are trapped in a cycle of behavior that is too much taking or too much giving has nothing to do with fairness. I don't see how escaping from this has anything to do with fairness. Its simply that doing so can bring a person to a different way of being and hopefully, a peaceful one.

Yes, Philosophy is a human construct but it does not require anyone to engage with, believe or be aware of someone's philosophy in order for it to be valid and relevant to its holder. Fairness requires other people to actualize it and express it.

Elaina wrote:That's actually not true. Chimpanzees have a fairly well developed sense of fairness. If you give one two pieces of mango and the other only one for the same amount of effort and continue to do so repeatedly they will get noticeably angry. You may argue that this is pettiness, but this is something that exists in nature outside of humans. Toddlers without being taught will "punish" the bad puppet and not see it favorably for hurting the good one.

I don't see that the above are examples of non-human fairness. With the chimps example, the chimp getting less sees less food coming its way from what appears to be available, ergo they get angry, like any living thing would. Toddlers are humans and of course, they have received tons of opinions and messages from adults from the moment they are born, so the above example is simply learned/conditioned behavior.

Elaina wrote:Human beings have an evolved sense of fairness that has served them well in forming human societies. Dictatorships and being taken advantaged of rather than being given proper resources for survival are an example of unfairness that we rail against if we have the ability to do so.

Inter-species conflict and fighting is quite common and prevalent. Joining forces with others may seem like there is some "common good" in their aim, but all examples of such coalitions only appear to be so on the surface because for each country/group/party, they have their own agenda and wishes for the outcome. The idea of humans all having a common good, or that something called society exists, is an illusion I believe.

Elaina wrote:Again, I think you're trivializing folklore here too. Folklore may not serve the same active purpose as we know it today but in the past it was created to condition human societies to value different things. Every culture has different folk tales and they are all man-made but they all serve purposes, albeit different ones. This is what gives each culture its unique character and perspectives on things.

Yes, cultures have interesting differences and surface uniqueness, but often they are all very similar in the end because the human experience is quite similar the world over. But unfortunately, humans are known to lie, exaggerate, be selective with what the say happened and write history as they see fit to do. It doesn't mean its true.

Elaina wrote:Christians were once told that suffering is good and that we will be rewarded in the afterlife for those efforts. Many of us don't believe that anymore. One can understand that in many ways this belief made sense at the time because suffering was largely unavoidable. But, regardless of folklore, the concept of fairness exists in most human beings as a part of nature. We are taught through folklore/religion regarding how to value it, for the sake of serving god to be rewarded, to be charitable to other people if we happen to be fortunate, etc.

Religions exist primarily in the form they do today because they were invented when we didn't have science. Fairness is just an opinion, passed down through the generations, of how some people think they should live/be and that they think its a good idea for everyone to live that way. But like religion, it doesn't follow that its a real thing or that everyone should behave that way.

Elaina wrote:Ultimately, I think we're just arguing over semantics. First you said that I don't truly "give" if I expect something in return, and then later you seemed to agree with me on being "true to one's needs". Someone crashing in my house for six months and not paying rent is not true to my needs, and my mother serving other people to the detriment of herself is not being true to her needs either. Wanting to visit someone's house and raid their refrigerator might be true to my needs for nourishment but it does harm to other people. I'm not pagan but "An it harm none do what ye will" is a concept that addresses this power imbalance.

You are mixing things up that are unrelated. You are also misunderstanding of what I referred to as being true to yourself and mocking it with irrelevant examples.

Elaina wrote:As silly as the concept of fairness may be it's biologically a part of who we are (except for maybe sociopaths) and is a pretty good framework for interacting with other people. Just because a structure on a biological impulse of fairness is human made that doesn't mean that it cannot serve a useful purpose.

Fairness is not silly, its just unnatural in my opinion. You might think that its used for inter-person interactions, but there are other forces at work in such dynamics and not fairness. I doubt fairness is biological.

Elaina wrote:And, I hope Me v2 didn't find me too aggressive. I know it's hard having a debate/discussion when you're avoidant because the instinct is to run away and avoid anything that even remotely appears to be conflict. It's much easier for me to do this online because I have the time to collect my thoughts properly.

Nope. Its a conversation. Got tied up with other stuff. Also, language and words are not my favorite paradigm (its an incredibly crude cudgel if you ask me) so I have to work hard to correctly express what I want to, and this takes time.

Elaina wrote:It's difficult for me to argue or debate with someone in person unless I trust them, because my fight-or-flight kicks in and I am terrified they are going to make me look foolish and/or attack my character and make me feel awful.

Losing the care about what others think of us is one of the great steps a person can take in becoming free, whether they believe they have AvPD, or SA or not. And its not hard to make this change when you understand why we worry about other people's opinions, especially of ourselves.

momof3inTN wrote:Things are not like that for me now, but I don't know how to trust others and reach out without feeling extremely vulnerable. I don't feel at ease enough to laugh and have fun on a personal level except for my husband and that is because I know he loves me.

You have to take a chance, in my opinion. Its that simple and that powerful.

momof3inTN wrote:I have to have to love and acceptance first from someone before I feel at ease building a bond-- but that doesn't work with people outside my immediate family! Because the first little hint that a friend may be self-absorbed and apt to be insensitive to me--- I am withdrawn like a turtle in a shell. However, I hate my shell-- d---m it!!!

You have to take a chance, in my opinion. Its that simple and that powerful.

momof3inTN wrote:My father should never have been as self-absorbed and insensitive to me as he was. He basically wrote me out of his life when I was 9 years old and felt relieved to be rid of his duties as a parent to me and my brother. My mother was saddled with mental illness my whole life and could not be a normal parent. I have adapted so well to this with my turtle shell-- that now I don't know how to live without it!!

Your father is not the arbiter of you. He is only one person. Other people do feel differently about you, but they can't tell you until you show yourself. Trust me its true. You have to take a chance, in my opinion. Its that simple and that powerful.