3/3

I've spoken about how my higher than average self-worth is narcissistic, not in the sense of faux grandeur, but rather based on objective success. Despite this, the social norm binds me to avoid "bragging" about things I have earned or physically constitute me. It's tough because when accused of pseudo-intellectualism or any other assumption that I'm faking an ability, I can not rebuttal with the actual substantiating proof because that too will be viewed as rude towards the other person... socially ive developed to where I can explain as a means to excuse myself if I am at an actual physical disadvantage regarding an issue, but the opposite of proving my worth more than the average, is still prevented by others' social intimidation. Another issue is that since my superiority is actually real,Ifeel compelled by the "burden" of superiority moral code to humble myself around those I see as inferior surrounding a topic.Iavoid giving evidence for my ability primarily out of the fear of hurting someone else' s feelings. It's equally as un-humble to assume the former social fears have no influence relative to the empathetic motive. Even here I'm reducing what should be an opportunity to earn respect for myself into a loss of perceived social superiority (at least from the outside pov). there have been so many times where ive been so so so many times where I've been tempted to show credentials or prove my authority.Ithink part of the reasonIfeel separated from most people is because im "enlightened" past the point of average social fears, neurotypicals view me as ignorant rather than justified. Again,I can't prove that justification or ill just burn the thin bridge or chanceIhave at a positive social connection with that person.

Just this last august,I had a lengthy argument and fell out with a group of friends who I had relied on for some time, due to their accusations that I was acting sociopathically, when in realityImade a mistake becauseIdid not know better at the time. This was beforeIwas diagnosed with ASD.Ileft becauseIfelt guilty as if it was my fault, since a similar falling out pattern had happened repeatedly in past friend groups the years prior. Now knowing my condition instead of blaming myself for not learning from past mistakes, I understand that I am permanently, if not very closely, predisposed to that failure in maintaining a relationship in the first place.Ican add a few things about how the agitated group members should not have only gave clemency afterItook blame and statedIunderstood my actions were a mistake, but should have also recognized or at least suspected neurodivergency and incorporated that into their treatment.

one of the thingsIcomplain about other people the most boils down to ignorance.Ican excuse ignorance based on the fact of simply never being exposed to an opportunity to learn something, but what typically irks me is the very obvious situations where that ignorance is willful, or where an individual made a conscious decision multiple times throughout their life to reevaluate their knowledge on topic or position. In order to not deeply hate everyone around me for this,I also rationalize that willful ignorance is both a foundational human trait, and that people are guided by social complexes they are not able to be as aware of as I am through neurodivergency. You can see how this promotes a feeling of superiority against the majority of those around me. even for my romantic partnersImaintin this lens, albeitImake sure to act unconditionally kind towards them regardless. There has not been a single friend I've had who I've felt was actually intellectually stimulating to listen to.I simply outscore and outskill everyone but the top percentile in my topics of interest, which consequentially are also the topics addressing the nature of current, present, social reality. ifIwas an expert in trains and not sociology and social philosophy, I would probably be more caring about listening to what others have to say. Typically within even the topic being presented in the first place for a discussion,I can already sense the leaning of the best suitable answer almost instantly through pattern recognition. It's a skill so natural to myself that I don't even consider that it could seem like divination to the average person. Because of this open-ended discussion and analysis are my strong suits,I find deeper foundational truths in positions than the typical limits of those who support an ideologyIshare. because of thisIalso end up grossly intellectually unchallenged in general political contexts, where it seems I'm at least a few orders of magnitude observant than the person im listening to lecture. hard scientific or social philosophical concepts are what I typically resort to for intellectual stimulation, a large part of my leisure time is just surfing Wikipedia articles about "cognitive dissonance" or other sociological, psychological, and social philosophy terms. in no way couldIever challenge an actual expert in any of these, butIam consistently a grade level or two above the current level im enrolled in, andIhave been for my entire life.

Another issue arises there whereImust seek older people than myself to discuss or grow as a person, yet at 19Iam relegated to really only interacting primarily with my cohort. Once I graduate I imagine I’ll have much greater freedom to branch upwards to whereIbelong, but currently I'm (sorry) being tortured by philistines. My pattern recognition skills are so adept that I can profile someone's integral ideology (to a degree) based on their level of adherence to the social and cultural norms which I'm aware of. These past weeks, I've had to put up with a very noisy and basic guy in the studio row over from mine, who I can very accurately profile:

He engages in the following mass median cultural and social norms or intentionally straining his voice slightly lower to appear more masculine, styles himself with the standard short hair and masculine clothing, and in interactions with a female classmate, typically attempts to take the dominant role. However, his conversations have an infatuation with repeatedly bringing up his suspicions another classmate is gay (despite the conversation being resolved multiple times), and attempting to further individualize by explaining his ubiquity in having ADHD and his own suspicions of neurodiversity (although, upon directly confronting him about these side comments about his ND suspicions, he becomes extremely defensive and refutes that he has any neurological disorders besides ADHD. This demonstrates, despite hard conformity to social norms, an internal motive inside him to move away from societal definition of himself, and to individualize through means he sees as different, but not radically offensive to the social institution. His defense and pull-back of questioning his neurological disorders (when CONFRONTED, uninitiated by him), suggests that even though this individualization is a positive development in a vacuum, he is either one of two things: pursuing slight-fringe identities to bolster self-ego while still remaining within the oppressing social norms (appropriation), or he is carrying an internal hope to break free from social norms imposed on him as he sees greater freedom in "coming out" about his rejection of mainline society. The latter is surprisingly very unlikely from my experience, regardless of how much I hope it is the case. Other comments regarding a high appreciation for classicism, and willful ignorance of architecture as a profession leads me to believe that his internal intentions are the former option of appropriating risqué culture while still huddling inside dominant social norms on order to improve his individuality and as a result his self-perceived social standing (he did strike me as kind of loser/desperate, despite his strong code of social norms). For someone who wields power through embracing social norms, even addressing or confronting the fact that one is doing so is seen as disparaging to character. Obviously this demonstrates how adherence to social norms in the first place is intentional ignorance in order to gain power, suppressing the conscience that one is taking the less ethical route to social gratification. Everybody is so fucking ignorant, and willfully so. Compare it to working at Lockheed Martin for the paycheck, which you desperately try to rationalize as worth it for the untold crimes against humanity you are aiding in.

Although one can be shaky lifelong on this internal discourse, a common internal philosophical solution is to rationalize that you, yourself are objectively more valuable than any other person. This insnane level of ego is a method of “philosophical suicide” in response to crisis of belief, where the person submits themselves to an unquestionable "truth" in order to avoid psychological uncertainty and self-doubt. Extreme terror of this discourse of ethically embracing societal norms results in a more extreme implementation of this internal philosophy, keeping pace with other right wing dogmas as it grows stronger. As people aren't predisposed to have an innately greater or lesser fear of this ethical discourse in a vacuum, the main determiner of how terrifying the discourse is to an individual is the amount of power they have resting upon embracing the social norms. Typically, this reliance is introduced through a high class, which requires capitalist culture to maintain itself, or a familial upbringing which introduced a child to social life at an above-avaereg skill or extroversion, thus having a stronger ability to exploit others through application of social norms. As the latter option has no reference of reasonable euphoria from social power than their own, they assume any drop would put them below their own perception of the average necessary happiness. Those with larger social power also have those they exploit for reference of a lower social power, so typically the fear against the internal ethical discourse is a mixture of both failure to understand one's true position in society, and one's hatred and fear of being moved closer to the less socially powerful people they exploit. These two ideas are both present, yet anachronistic to each other. Someone with no meaningful idea of the spectrum of social class could not have been exposed to the people they are exploiting, as that would give them a 2nd level of social power to build their understanding of the scale of social power. As a result and a means to resolve the cognitive dissonance, the higher power individual chooses willful ignorance of interpreting the lower power people into their definition of scale, as not doing so would leave them in a weakened state where they are not aware of the social scale they are exploiting, or conversely, they admit flaws, build the logical social scale, and as as result accept the reality that they are unjustly exploiting the lower social power class.