The fundamental problem I have with people

A skill I can't develop because no one treats me as an equal - which only gets worse as my skill falls behind the age-appropriate average.

It's not so much that I "fail" to see, it's that my moral code precedes everything else - including my very existence. I refuse to behave as barbarically as other people, no matter the cost. If I have to barge into people like a raider, that says more about humanity's moral bankruptcy than it does about any shortcoming I have. I want to be accepted, but I cannot accept myself if I act as badly as my abusers.

I'm not "stuck in anticipation of being attacked" in the sense that I'm always adrenalized. My predictions come from the logical analysis of scientific knowledge of human behavior applied to how people have consistently treated me in the past. I'm not panicking; I'm resigned to be treated badly and to be verbally or physically attacked. My "executive function" is operating fine. I have no problem living my life as long as no one else kicks my sandcastles over (i.e. actively and intentionally interfere with my life) but people can't seem to help themselves.

This does not describe me. I can discuss anything; I simply can't remember chains of events because my brain takes apart all events and analyzes them piece-by-piece, then stores the analysis and throws away the events. My memory is near-photographic for still pictures, but all events are decomposed into their ingredients. It's like watching a movie and only remembering the cast list afterward - except no one ever told me their names when I was young, so I can't remember names now either. So I remember individual acts, stripped of their context.

You are correct that people are not threatened by sadness; you are incorrect that they would be triggered to help. People only see weakness in sadness; they only see vulnerable prey ready for slaughter. Every time I have been sad in public I am mocked incessantly, when I'm not simply assaulted.

This is correct for me; my assault was so consistent and exclusive that remembering individual events was a waste of energy - I had to economize and turn my memorization engine into a mass meat grinder in order to process it all fast enough and be able to out-guess my opponents.

I don't interact vocally because I was punished every time I used my voice - either by my parents or by my peers. Staying silent was my best strategy.

Also, I have never disassociated in my life - I've had to face life at full volume with not so much as eyelids to dim it. People have done the equivalent of shove a firehose in my face and wonder why I'm drowning.

Incidentally, what would it say if a patient could not disassociate? What brain injury would that reveal? Does anyone know?

I find it quite poignant that you like do see yourself like an automaton, a machine, a meat grinder, a camera, or anothe device which acts on an input-output principle. Is this impression of mine correct? Is that maybe a form of disassociation?

And if that's correct, does that not make communication with a fellow human even harder, because of the destructive impulses humans have towards objects? They show that, by the way, because they always have to dehumanise a person before destroying them, so as not to feel guilt (unless they are psychopaths, non-human themselves).

I see myself as a human being. A logical human being, but a human being nonetheless - complete with flaws.

I do use machine-like metaphors, because of my familiarity with machines - I am a computer programmer. I have had more interactions with machines than I've had with people.

And I'm well aware of the practice and system of dehumanization - I've witnessed it used on me my entire life, and I've seen it happen to others. The U.S. is full of it right now.

Some cannot appreciate just how bad this can be. A child can be discouraged from trying to vocalize even before they can vocalize too. A crying child can end up being yelled at for just crying because they are hungry, gassy, wet and cold or experiencing pain from a tooth coming in. A child can face constant messages like "don't you dare say anything, you better shut up, you have to be quiet, don't you dare talk back, don't bother me now, stop your whining, just do as I say and don't talk back, I don't want to hear it go back to bed", and I am sure there are more one can add. If a child is not given any time to sit and talk with a parent or adult, that child can build up a lot of stress and frustrations. That can result in that child growing into an individual who has a very hard time communicating in a normal relaxed state.

I was trying to explain to my therapist recently how it was hard for me to pick an event in that often what happens is because there has been so many events I get flashes much like you describe. However, from what you have shared you were facing constant traumas and mistreatements. So you had to survive your environment in a very different way than many who may not be able to relate or know how to affectively support you the way you would like them to.

Many computer programmers rely so much on logic that they become a constant provocation to "normal" people, who act according to prefabricated thought patterns and very seldom logical. Often, in my experience, computer programmers become computer programmers because they prefer interaction with computers, because in many ways computers are like very kind, infinitely patient people. Have you ever considered that you are intrinsically different from "normal" people, like Spock from Kirk, with the only difference that you are an abused kind of Spock? Maybe it's only the fact that he had an empowering upbringing that allows Spock to raise an eyebrow and say "fascinating", when attacked.

I'm sorry if I'm projecting. I must say I find your style and phraseology quite amenable, and also convincing, as if I could like you. I don't think I would ever punch you.

Maybe the convincingness comes from the fact that your world of experience is a system - you see the logic in your abuse, and it becomes inescapable.

The Fundamental Problem you have with People - is it that they have an illogical behaviour? Or is it more like an illogical logic they follow?

And what is logic?

In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”

People hated me long before I learned how to program.

I program computers because they make sense; their output logically results from the input. You can't say that about people; There is no connection between how one acts toward them and what behavior one gets in return. One could be the nicest person to someone yet still get slugged with a baseball bat by that same person.

No matter how "different" I am, it doesn't make me inhuman, and it doesn't make me deserve the treatment I receive.

How is my "phraseology" different from others?

The only way to understand the world is through logic, and the systematic breaking down the whole into its constituent parts. Our knowledge of science stems from this.

Their refusal to use logic and their tendency to wallow in emotion makes them behave nearly like animals. They literally enjoy being out of control, and they don't care who they harm in being so. It is their refusal to use logic that makes them see me under a cloud of fear and hate, instead of the obviously harmless person I am.

so, are you enjoying being out of control?

Well, but still, maybe you started relying on logic long before you learned to program. My idea is that that might be the big crux of your problem with people.


I think it's spockish (without the stoicism). Maybe you're right, it's less your phraseology then the content of what you write that I am referring to. Or maybe it's part of your phraseology that you make many statements. And I want to repeat, I like that. Maybe it's a sign that you are less an empiricist and more of a logician. A bit like me. I tend to think the world through and in the end come up with my own design of the world, which does not always accurately reflect the world as a reality independent of me.

I rigidly control myself. I am not under your control, and that is by design. I fight every day not to be controlled by others who would fully enslave me given the slightest chance.

What makes you think I'm "out of control"?

I taught myself how to program when I was nine years old. I don't even remember much before then. And why would relying on logic be a problem? If people are illogical, that's their flaw, not mine. If they're lash out at me, that's their fault.


I think of everything independently of people; I try to match my mind to objective reality as much as possible and flay any biases and inaccuracies out of my mind. Too many people rely on biases, interpretations and subjectivities and how people end up hating me - predators know how to manipulate those to feed false information to people and get them to do their bidding. No one cares enough about facts to sacrifice themselves to make sure that's all they learn. They'd much rather believe the comforting lie than the inconvenient truth.

But doesn't logic always rely on assumptions? Is a logical world view possible without making assumptions about core conditions or assumptions of ethical nature (like the value of cooperation).

Have you read The Sea Wolf by Jack London? I highly recommend it to you. Very honestly. It has some romantic content and weaknesses, but at it's core it's the description of an absolutely cruel antagonist, who has developed an entirely logical world view based on his assumptions, his reading of the philosophers, his lack of any formal education.

And he places logic just as high as you do. Yet he is the perfect bully, while you are, as you describe yourself, a harmless, even gentle human being.

On the contrary, to be truly logical one must not have any assumptions. One must always seek to fill the holes in one's knowledge with proven facts. Assumptions are precisely where errors come from. To err is human precisely because humans assume.

To solve a problem logically, one needs all the facts pertaining to that problem, and acknowledge one can't solve the problem if one doesn't have all the facts.



While I have read others of London's works, I don't think I've read the Sea Wolf. I don't remember it in any case. But if the antagonist is making assumptions - especially if he has no education on logic only relying on philosophers - then it would make sense that the result would be flawed.

There is a phrase used in computer science: Garbage in; Garbage out. It's used to describe the idea that the outputs can only be as good as the inputs. If the premises of an argument are flawed, no amount of logic can save you. So it's no surprise to me that a man who fed himself a half-diet of flawed philosophers and believed himself a sage would end up a flawed man himself. I make a point of practicing informational hygiene to avoid this; only getting information from peer-reviewed sources or that which that be confirmed by both myself and by third parties. The premises must be as flawless as the logic, or the whole argument is doomed.


And to be perfectly honest, I would not call myself "gentle". In fact, "rough around the edges" would not be an inaccurate description.

I disagree about your assumption that assumptions have no part in logical reasoning. The fact is, there can be no logical reasoning without assumptions (which is my assumption).

See for example this argument:

The production of pencil sharpeners can no longer be profitable. This is because various factors have decreased demand for pencil sharpeners. First, pens are used far more than they once were. Second, those who use pencils often use mechanical pencils. Finally, increased use of electronics has decreased the need for handwriting.

The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Availability of mechanical pencils has increased

Students no longer prefer pencils over pens for math calculations

Production of pencil sharpeners cannot be profitable if there is a decreased demand for them

Anything that can be accomplished with pencils can also be accomplished with electronics

Pencil sharpeners are only in demand for the purpose of sharpening pencils

So if I say, cooperation is good for people - therefore the only logical interaction between people is cooperation - people who refuse cooperation act illogical. Which is the assumption therein? Or are there several assumptions? Or is this not a reasonable example for logical reasoning?

You chose to assume all those things. One can go out and prove or disprove for certain all of those things you mentioned. You didn't prove that assumptions are necessary.


Logical arguments require proven facts, not assumptions. Once you introduce assumptions into the mix, you're no longer arguing from logic - you're arguing hypotheticals.

I see. But what are proven facts? Proof is more often than not depending on certain assumptions of causality. To a religious person, the concept of God is even a proven fact. To somebody who is more scientifically biased, science offers proven facts. To a positivist, next to nothing is a proven fact. Even that the sun will rise tomorrow is a mere assumption.

I guess what I mean that we all argue hypothetically all the time. Maybe the problem you have about other people is precisely that. They argue hypothetically (often believing they have proven facts), you don't. In a way that makes you superior in any given situation. An argument with you can't be won. Many people become aggressive when they sense that their opinions don't hold water.

And actually here I am hypothesizing. I once had a very intelligent, matter-of-fact, perfect wife, and she started abusing me for being so given to speculation. So I am the opposite pole, I guess.

You are arguing ad absurdam - no normal person thinks like this in their everyday life, much less someone thinking logically. Even if you take axiomatically the idea that nothing is certain, one can calculate the odds of things being true and use that. The odds of the Sun not rising tomorrow are so small it would be ridiculous to gamble on its failure.

You can win any argument with me as long as you have the facts. But odds are I have the facts first, because any gap my mind has will be exploited by predators. I have a strong incentive to be correct - not being so means someone hospitalizes me. If you lose an argument, you might be embarrassed; if I lose an argument I could be killed. People do not hold back when they "punish" me.

She should not have abused you. She was wrong to do that.

That's nice of you to say that.

By the way, when it came to stochastic and statistics in school, that was the only time I became quite engaged with numbers - because I fantasized or philosophized a lot about the reality of probability. I always came to the conclusion that probability is a kind of magical concept, or a means to create dependability for events which are in reality totally unforeseeable. Of course, that was a sign of intellectual hubris.

I don't know, but maybe I am willing to admit that you won this argument about logic.

However I still think that applying logic, like possessing wisdom, can lead to discrimination, being ostracized, eventually even incarceration and death. That was for example Wilhelm Reich's theory about why Jesus was killed (and about himself).

And that is why I am not letting go - but in the end of course I cannot know about the true threads you are exposed to.

All metaphorical swords are double-edged; anything can be used for good or ill. Evil is in the will of the wielder, not the weapon.

Just to clarify: I meant that they who appy logic are not the aggressors, because logic is neutral. But logic can be very frustrating to normal, illogical people. They then wield the sword. In the best case they want to cut the logical Gordian knot with it, in the worst case they want to cut the logician.

But what else can I do? I can't stoop to their level and be as illogical as they are. Yet not being allied with anyone puts me at an extreme socioeconomic disadvantage - which everyone takes advantage of. They use my difference as an excuse to attack me and keep me chained.

"What can I do" is a deep question. I guess the answer lies in who you are. Maybe you can really do nothing. A Christian once quoted the Bible to me, saying something like "the leopard cannot change his spots". He said that it makes no sense to try harder, experiment in self-betterment etc. That the allure of the Christian tradition lies in that one person who will accept you as who and how you are. Even though I am not especially religious, I find that a powerful insight. Mortal human beings are simply not capable of that infinite compassion, tolerance, acceptance, which they so like to ascribe to themselves.

Maybe the only possibility lies in accepting that the world is a hard and dangerous place. Many people learn very quickly that one has to fight hard. Others, never. Or very late.

I think that I have long held a belief in the world as an essentially good and cooperative place, so that I could keep up the hope that some day I will find a place where it would accommodate me ideally, and I could be happy. Now I am beginning to feel that this is not going to happen. I see two ways: either I change, or I stay who I am, and accept the faar andct that my quality of life or wealth, or the love I receive, will be limited or even scarce. I am not sure whether I can change, maybe I will remain who I am. But maybe, if I come to a point where I stop asking the question, I will also stop holding on to the beliefs I have of who I am, and develop, without even noticing, other skill sets, and do change.

Sorry, I believe this might sound like an sermon of some sort.

I don't know your story, and so I cannot know how far your fears of being killed or confined are justified. I imagine, if you stay logical, but also calm and controlled, and if you refrain from reacting to the other's lack of logic (or cooperation), you will be reasonably save. And the more accepting you are of your place in life, the more you will become agreeable. And people like agreeable people. Agréable people even find an infinite amount of cooperation. Sometimes it's even enough to be more assertive and seemingly free of inner conflict or fear. People also react to that very favourably. I know that from experience. Not my own, though. I am somebody that is not trusted. Didn't you also mention that some people consider you untrustworthy, or a liar, even?

I have tried everything moral. The only actions I have not tried are those that would make me as bad as my abusers. The goal is to live my life while retaining my soul. It seems that people will only let me do one, not both.

I believe one truly dies when one stops improving themselves. A direct contrast, I guess.

For me, the basic version of that sentiment goes without saying; but I don't see the reason the world needs to be a self-parody, to exaggerate the danger beyond reason.

I have never been allowed to believe such things; the opposite has been made plain to me since day one. And I have spent my life changing who I am, never settling on any aspect, to the point where it has destroyed my body.

I am not in a place to throw stones You are fine to me, at least.

I have had my life threatened to my face many times. My own parents made a point of making sure my life was forfeit to them at any point. Without going into potentially triggering detail, my worst punishments involved being tied up.

That has never worked for me. Human behavior naturally escalates; every antagonist I have encountered has always behaved worse and worse until I had to fight back. They are willing to kill, if necessary.

That is absolutely off the table. The only reason I am in the position I'm in is because of the predations and bad behavior of others. I will never accept the role the human species demands of me as the world's slave. And no human being will accept me as anything above rock bottom - not a person, not even a valued object. I will never accept humanity's condemnation; to do so would be rewarding their bad behavior. Punishing that bad behavior must come ahead of everything, including my life.

If the price of being tolerated is my very will, then I will remain hated - but what does that say of the human species that they demand such a high price for tolerance?

Not from me they don't. Every failure of obedience without question or hesitation I express enrages all witnesses. To the species, the only purpose of my existence is to obey. No exceptions.

I am not considered human. I am definitely not considered someone to be taken seriously. No one believes what I say is true.

I do believe what you say is true. This makes me one exception to your rule - which logically renders your general statement untrue, which then means your statement remains true, which means I do believe what you say is true.

I think what you describe is compelling. I like your expressions of pride, which means you have an unbroken spirit.

I share your belief that society is an entity which demands obedience and tries to shape you into a conforming part. I think however that interaction with individuals does not always follow totally predictable patterns.

On the other hand I often get very tired waiting for the exception to rules partly opaque to me. (This statement makes questionable sense.) What I mean is there nearly always comes, ore maybe there comes totally and logically always a point, where obedience to partly unclear rules seems to be demanded by the situation. Behaviour absolutely without rules is not possible, totally logical behaviour is also not only impossible, but often not wished for, or not demanded by the situation, which is often better described in primal, emotional, non-logical terms.

I am not sure whether I make moral distinctions quite as strongly as you.

I can offer you my friendship, for what it's worth. You can always send me a personal message and we can share information in a less public way, if you wish. I find what you say believable and I also feel you should not feel as objectified, threatened, and lonely as you do.