Society has lost it's ability for independent thought

[a4a]

Lindya well put.

[newbby]

That's my reason for getting embroiled. I can't speak for others - but as Smoochie also keeps getting embroiled in arguments like this with other people he maybe needs to take a good look at exactly how and why it develops. Not to beat himself up, but just to analyse the process a bit and try to learn a better way of managing it.

 

i really think this is actually a symptom of aspergers.

[lindya]

i really think this is actually a symptom of aspergers.

 

Yes - so he has his work cut out...but the rest of the world can't continually be blamed for that. Not that I'm suggesting you are blaming others, but it's just that for the past couple of days there has been a bit of a debate over this whole issue.

 

Helping a person has its pitfalls, and one of those pitfalls is learned dependency on two or three particularly sympathetic individuals. Earlier on, Smoochie identified himself with Outcast as if it was the two of them against the rest of the board. The few who are deemed sympathetic and understanding enough start to become idealised whilst everyone else is demonised for not understanding.

 

Even professionals who should know a lot better sometimes allow themselves to fall into the idealised "good guy" role - and even actively encouraging it. I've seen it in multidisciplinary settings; it causes all sorts of problems, undermines the work of other professionals, allows the client to play professionals off against eachother - and, ultimately results in him either being far too dependent on one or two people, or isolated altogether. That's probably one of the reasons I'm getting wound up about this whole issue, because it's just a bit too reminiscent of what I've seen time and time again in real life.

[SmoochieFace]

Noone is leaving you out of the party...You're choosing to not to join in.

 

You are right. I am choosing to not join in because of my prior experiences when I did just that. I was either mocked, not taken seriously, or outright ignored. Being faced with that treatment after a while you begin to think that you are not wanted. *shrugging*

 

 

I welcome you to hop on (though no pellet poos by you mr bunny ) and have some laughs too. I do mean that. And I'm sure everybody else feels that way too.

 

I understand. Perhaps I will do so only after I determine that it is *safe* for me to do so.

 

I dunno... I am taking a much-needed vacation soon. I need to get away from my job and here and spend some time with my GF. Things may be different after I return... anything is possible.

[whichwayisup]

Have a great time on your holidays! Heading somewhere warm or are you a skiier? I'd give anything to jump on a plane and go somewhere where I don't have to wear a winter coat and longjohns! (Though my fear of flying kinda gets in the way.

 

Have a fun time! (sex included! Then, if you feel up to it, start a HOT thread when you come back... )

[SmoochieFace]

Have a great time on your holidays! Heading somewhere warm or are you a skiier? I'd give anything to jump on a plane and go somewhere where I don't have to wear a winter coat and longjohns! (Though my fear of flying kinda gets in the way.

 

Have a fun time! (sex included! Then, if you feel up to it, start a HOT thread when you come back... )

 

Up north where it's cold. Skiing is definitely out since where I'm going is as flat as a table. I'm going simply for some R&R.

[whichwayisup]

Up north where it's cold. Skiing is definitely out since where I'm going is as flat as a table. I'm going simply for some R&R.

Sounds cozy. My sister has a cottage, we usually go up north during the summer though. It's not winterized yet...Hopefully one day it will be!

[newbby]

Yes - so he has his work cut out...but the rest of the world can't continually be blamed for that. Not that I'm suggesting you are blaming others, but it's just that for the past couple of days there has been a bit of a debate over this whole issue.

i'm not really sure what you mean by this, or who is being blamed?

Helping a person has its pitfalls, and one of those pitfalls is learned dependency on two or three particularly sympathetic individuals. Earlier on, Smoochie identified himself with Outcast as if it was the two of them against the rest of the board. The few who are deemed sympathetic and understanding enough start to become idealised whilst everyone else is demonised for not understanding.

i started out in this thread saying that nobody is really free from their data input, unless they recognise it, and (i think) become enlightened. i realise this is just my opinion, and that it is of course one i have learnt from reading and discussing things that interest me.

i am not agreeing with smoochie about anybody being more unique etc, i made that clear. i also realise i could be wrong. i also think, that smoochie would certainly percieve himself as more unique, how can he help this not only because of his experiences and rejection, but also because when learning of having aspergers, he has also been told that he is unique. so every experience he has, he will of course percieve as unique.

i understand that when people say to him, yes i also experience this or that, they are only trying to educate him, but how can they get upset about it and how can he even trust that they understand what he is speaking of? in fact do they even KNOW for sure that this is what he is speaking of? how does anybody really know? its the same of course as when i say i am sad and you say i am sad too, our sadness may be different. you only know sadness as you experience it and i only know sadness as i experience it. the difference is, we have not been told that we experience it differently, so we generally dont question it.

i AM certainly not saying that smoochie should be agreed with and that he shouldnt try and learn or realise that he may be playing out only who he thinks he is, like ALL of us are. until we become enlightened (in my view).

this is just my opinion of course, and sorry smoochie for talking about you, as third party, and also sorry if i am just wrong.

[AlmostMarried77]

When I talk with people such as my coworkers they all seem to parrot whatever they heard in Dr Phil, Oprah, Conservative talk radio or whatever outlet. It's like nobody thinks for themselves anymore. We need to be told how to think and I think that is why society is so fu-ked up right now. People are programmed. We are told how to dress, what movies to like, what music to listen to and what to eat. Society is training us and we don't even know it. Very few can break the mold and think for themselves.

 

Here's my independant thought (ie ramblings) on the subject:

 

The inability (or reluctance as it quite often is) for original and independant thought is what makes society and keeps it going. Human society is a form of collective intelligence. Through language we can pass on complex information, ideas, instructions, thoughts, musings and notions to other people. As the message spreads to more and more people a game of chinese whispers in effect allows the message to evolve. Mass communication (Radio, TV etc...) might limit the evolution of the message as a very large number of people get exactly the same message at the same time.

 

For society to have the correct structure there needs to be 2 types of people. Leaders and follows. Followers need to out number the leaders. Imagine a tribe of 50 apes with 20 alpha males, the tribe would suffer from constant infighting and more than likely the whole tribe would be wiped out from not being able to defend itself. Just in the same way, if too many people had the capacity for a lot of independant thought then getting anything done would be a very difficult task. A manager telling a worker (subordinate) what to do and how to do it would then have to wait for that person to finish independantly thinking about the right way and the reasons to do it it before they actually did anything. And thats IF their independant thought actually led them to do it.

 

So peoples ability for independant thought needs to be kept within certain boundaries for society to remain cohesive. Human Society has accomplished a lot of good (and some bad) thanks to a lack of thought. Worker drones are always needed as are back patters and yes men. But more fundamentaly a society needs to be in tune with itself for it to work. In any society the majority needs to have a common goal. Whether thats a society of fans of a football team all wanting their team to win the next series or a society bent on creating a perfect aryan race. The common goal as dictated by the few is then held as dear by the many. It is the few who decide what is good and what is bad.

 

To use one of your examples, Oprah:

Oprah is a leader, she talks and acts like one. She has her own troop of dedicated fans who do hang on her every word. And those fans, like members of any inclusive society, will want to pass on her message in the hope that others on hearing it will join them.

 

The Oprah Society goal: "Live your best life" To make YOUR life and everyone elses better. Mainly through "self" help and fashion tips with a bit of celebrity gossip from Oprahs celeb freinds thrown in for good measure.

How do the followers help: Going out and buying those recommened books and other products, contacting Oprah about people they know who need Oprahs help. (The way the makeovers and fashion parades are run draws parallels with evangelical preachers... or is the otherway round?)

Oprahs personal goal: To die rich and famous

 

Regarding that last point: Personally i am neither an Oprah fan nor a critic. She does raise awareness on issues and I do admire how far she has got - how many other famous black women are there of her age in america? But at the same time I do see through the hype and I take everything she says with a bit of healthy sceptism.

 

And thats enough for now... I could go on but I'm boring even myself now

[Outcast]

Hoo boy were you people busy - but you stayed nice

 

OK, to numerous points: (you have to sort out who said what)

 

But aren't the two related? Isn't the *politicking* that goes on here a microcosm of the larger world of politics?

 

Hell yeah! But here we have mods to intervene and stop total donnybrooks from happening So maybe we have a chance to discuss and even resolve things!

 

I would say, that people get more occupied with the petty small scale politics, as the big scale politics get more and more incomprehensible, and more and more meaningless.

 

Nope. In fact one of the 'Eureka' moments in my life was a lawyer telling me that in 30 years of practice, every case he ever saw boiled down to the principals disliking each other.

 

So, too, with international affairs. For all the IA theory in the world, when you boil off all the rhetoric and hypocrisy what you get is some folks don't like other folks and will try to 'get' back at the folks they don't like. But humans don't want to admit this base little trait so they clad it in grand realpolitik or economic models to make it all sound plausible. But models can't predict because they never take human nature into account. So that every mini-battle is highly illustrative of the mechanics behind mega-battles.

 

okay now i see where you think i do not understand your argument. i should have said, it bothers them because in their perception, smoochie is rubbing it in their faces.

it was a hurried response, but i did actually understand your argument.

 

Gotcha - it was your response that made me think you hadn't!

 

do you think it would have made a difference if smooch had said "i am an individual", and other people had said "i am an individual too"

 

No because they now have an impression of Smooch that will be hard to erase. It's the 'halo effect' at work.

 

All right... we all know that *perceptions* can be wrong or misleading, right? So, using yours truly as an example, why should I have to *pay* for those inaccurate or misleading perceptions? Why can't people (in general) say "you know, maybe I am wrong here. Maybe I am allowing my negative experiences and the resultant fears and prejudices from allowing me to give another person a fair shake. Maybe I am the one with the problem - not Smooch."

 

See what I'm saying?

 

Because that kinda requires a fair bit of introspection and security in self and understanding of others and empathy and so many people are wrapped up in their troubles and issues they haven't the time to get all that stuff organized for themselves. Or, as newbby says, 'enlightened'. That's a hard spot to aim for and most folks don't even get close.

 

As with language, so with emotions. Experiments show that the most common facial expressions are universal and 99% of the human race experience and interpret them instinctively. Even babies are equipped to do this.

 

Nonetheless, in a recent experiment, humans showed very different and often very poor abilities to read facial expressions.

 

What scientists do know for certain is that we are surprisingly bad at discerning the real emotions or intentions behind others' facial expressions. "One of the problems that people don't realize is how complicated face reading is," notes Pollak. "At first glance, it seems very straightforward, But if you break it down--think of all the information in the face, how quickly the brain has to comprehend and analyze it, memories come in, emotions, context, judgments--then you realize that we really can't do it all."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19980901-000024.html

 

The only way I can be free from all of this and not have to *pay* is to be totally self-sufficient AND live in a place that is outside of anyone else's jurisdiction.

 

Nah. You live on the outskirts. You earn enough money for your needs and live your life in a way that means you deal with the people you want to mostly and the people you have to once in a while. And you count on your ability to understand that humans aren't logical to keep you happy and peaceful in the midst of their turmoil. I think even folks with Aspie can absorb and use Ellis' philosophies and/or buddhist philosophies of 'detachment'.

 

Would you feel less of a pariah if the cause for your 'differentness' was extreme genius or extreme beauty? Is the fact that you have a 'disorder' something that adds an unpleasant nuance to your 'difference' for you? I know a lot of people on discovering that they have these sorts of problems sadly feel flawed.

 

To me, the Halo Effect is destructive - not constructive - in fostering harmonious relationships.

 

It can be in so many ways. The reverse from your version of 'halo effect' is thinking a total jerk is a wonderful person. You'll see both often as you observe humans and how they relate.

AND...This whole thread is stirring it up for everybody. My best guess is people will take things out of context, put their own spin on it and react. Then that fuels the fire and makes it worse, then everybody else reacts again...

 

Which is kinda sad. Why can't people question the context? Why not determine what was meant before getting mad at what we think was meant?

 

Smoochie just constantly makes me feel guilty

 

Nobody 'makes' anybody feel anything.

 

Your interpretation of another's words/actions is filtered through your issues, experiences, etc. If your particular set of filters lets 'guilt' get through, that's about you not about anybody else.

 

Then afterwards, you can't help wondering if - from the other person's perspective - that was exactly what they wanted on some level.

 

And there we go. Ascribe motivation and then get upset at the motivation you have ascribed. Is that really fair?

 

Here's my independant thought (ie ramblings) on the subject:

 

And very interesting thoughts they were!

[lindya]

Nobody 'makes' anybody feel anything.

 

When I read Smoochie's posts, I often find myself feeling the same bizarre sense of guilt and shame that I used to feel at school whenever anyone was getting into trouble. I don't generally feel the same way when reading other people's posts. I attribute it to the fact that I see Smoochie as a victim, primarily because many things he says make it sound - to my ears at least - as if he sees himself as a victim.

 

Your interpretation of another's words/actions is filtered through your issues, experiences, etc. If your particular set of filters lets 'guilt' get through, that's about you not about anybody else.

 

I'll be tracking you on this. Especially next time you're taking issue with someone for making Smoochie feel bad...or using expressions such as "shame on you!"

 

And there we go. Ascribe motivation and then get upset at the motivation you have ascribed. Is that really fair?

 

I try to analyse my own thoughts and motives. If other people ascribe negative ones to me, then unless I'm in a really foul humour or they seem to be on a quest of malice, I'll consider what they're saying - trying, as much as possible, to put my "I want to be a nice, good person" defences aside so that I can do it with some objectivity.

 

Not easy, admittedly - and no doubt I do it with very varying degrees of competence. Also, if you are prepared to admit that you may have less positive aspects to your character, and attempt to examine these, there will always be people willing to help you criticise yourself...because they know there's a good chance that you'll actually pay some attention to what they're saying instead of immediately brushing it off with various ego defences.

 

Sometimes a person's ego is constantly disguising - even from them - the less savoury aspects of their personality. They constantly boast about all the things they'd like to imagine they are ("I say what I think" "what you see is what you get with me" "I'm an individual" the usual self congratulatory bumff that this thread began with). They present others -not necessarily with a true and complete picture of who they are - but, rather, with a picture of their ego.

 

Other people may question them on that automatically. Why not? Why not ascribe to them the motives you think they might have? Especially if they seem reluctant to examine themselves in a constructively critical manner in order to improve themselves and their interactions with others. If I'm wrong about Smoochie, then he needn't worry. What if I'm right, and it's within his power to analyse his motives and try to use any subsequent learning about himself to improve his interactions with others...instead of constantly seeing other people/AS as the source of all his problems?

 

Now, before you come back and indicate that I've disappointed you in some way because you thought I was A, B and C, consider carefully why you're disappointed.

[d'Arthez]

Nope. In fact one of the 'Eureka' moments in my life was a lawyer telling me that in 30 years of practice, every case he ever saw boiled down to the principals disliking each other.

Yes, but is that cause or effect of the whole thing that the principals disagree about? You don't sue your neighbor, if you can solve a matter amicably. Lawyers cost a lot of money, so you will be spending the money only, if you perceive the gains to be higher than the loss.

 

So, too, with international affairs. For all the IA theory in the world, when you boil off all the rhetoric and hypocrisy what you get is some folks don't like other folks and will try to 'get' back at the folks they don't like. But humans don't want to admit this base little trait so they clad it in grand realpolitik or economic models to make it all sound plausible. But models can't predict because they never take human nature into account. So that every mini-battle is highly illustrative of the mechanics behind mega-battles.

In fact I have to disagree here. What made politicians as Abe Lincoln, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Che Guevara, etc. disliked by certain people? Was Lincoln too unfashionable to be President? Was Russia attacked by a horde of nations after the October Revolution, because Lenin once dressed up as a simple farmer, when paying a visit to the German Social Democratic Party? I doubt it. (And, no Lenin was not head of State at that time, nor has he ever been).

[Outcast]

or using expressions such as "shame on you!"

 

If someone uses an expression like 'shame on you', it is clearly intended to have an impact. OTOH, inferring guilt from statements not designed to arouse guilt or not directly aimed at you is about you.

If other people ascribe negative ones to me, then unless I'm in a really foul humour or they seem to be on a quest of malice, I'll consider what they're saying - trying, as much as possible, to put my "I want to be a nice, good person" defences aside so that I can do it with some objectivity.

 

And that's a fine plan. It works, well, when you find yourself reacting to another poster. You need to claw down the feelings and track them back.

 

I often find myself feeling the same bizarre sense of guilt and shame that I used to feel at school whenever anyone was getting into trouble

 

Why did you feel that? Did you ever figure out what caused you to feel that way? Where's the origin of that? What in your life caused this to be a trigger for you?

 

Sometimes a person's ego is constantly disguising - even from them - the less savoury aspects of their personality.

 

Which is what I said - people think Smooch thinks he's better than others and that's a mortal sin. So first they cast him in the light of 'egotistical' and then that unpleasant light casts its glow over all his statements and makes them suspect.

 

This is why people with disorders suffer - because people who don't have them and don't understand them insist on believing there's an underlying character flaw. It's not the case. It's a different way of behaving that looks like a character flaw but people who are unfamiliar with how the brain works or how it causes those behaviours mistake it for a character flaw and, even when told that there's a disorder at work, still insist on thinking the person is 'really just being an a$$'.

 

In fact I have to disagree here. What made politicians as Abe Lincoln, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Che Guevara, etc. disliked by certain people? Was Lincoln too unfashionable to be President? Was Russia attacked by a horde of nations after the October Revolution, because Lenin once dressed up as a simple farmer, when paying a visit to the German Social Democratic Party? I doubt it. (And, no Lenin was not head of State at that time, nor has he ever been).

 

D'A, I don't understand your question at all.

[lindya]

Why did you feel that? Did you ever figure out what caused you to feel that way? Where's the origin of that? What in your life caused this to be a trigger for you?

 

I believe that the feeling of shame that results when I see someone else getting into trouble may in some way be connected to empathy. Positive. A less worthy reason may be that as the youngest child I was used to a more sussed older sibling passing blame for things (stolen biscuits etc) onto me. Therefore if some-one is getting into trouble for something, I may well be expecting them to turn round and point the finger at me.

 

Feel like turning the light on yourself now, Outcast? Or are there no imperfections to be highlighted?

 

 

 

Which is what I said - people think Smooch thinks he's better than others and that's a mortal sin. So first they cast him in the light of 'egotistical' and then that unpleasant light casts its glow over all his statements and makes them suspect.

 

I seem to recall that earlier on in the thread, Smoochie was quite keen to agree with this sort of analysis that you presented:

 

Smooch, try to contain your disdain. While it's annoying that people are so sheep-ish, at the same time, it's kinda sad that people are soooo neeeedy. Be grateful that you have been constructed differently, but don't rub it in people's faces. You don't *need* validation and you aren't crushed when people disagree with you - that's great but not everyone is that strong.

 

Better to be strong or weak? I'll make a value judgement and say I think it's better to be strong. What do you think? You're the one who made the statement - so how did you mean for Smoochie to interpret it? Should he feel good about being less needy or more strong than others (if, indeed, he is?) Should others feel bad about being perceived as weaker and more needy? Just as you said "Shame on you!" to me in order to create an impact, you must have intended for that statement to create some sort of impact. What was the intention?

 

I'm really not trying to have a fight with you about this. I think it's fine to ask other people to explain their motives and reactions - and I don't mind you doing that to me...but it would be nice if you could show that you don't mind going under the microscope yourself now and again.

[a4a]

I have to wonder if this is making Smooch a tad uncomfortable?

[d'Arthez]

Lincoln was probably disliked by a lot of Southerners (especially the slave-owning ones) because of his stance on slavery. A stance many people took. But it is not the dislike for Lincoln that caused the American Civil War. It is not the dislike for the stance that caused the American Civil War.

 

During the first part of WW I, Russia was supported by England and France. They apparently were not too fond of the February Revolution, but they could live with it. The people in Russia had not changed - they got rid of a czar with absolute powers. However, that is not inconsistent with the model you proposed.

After the October Revolution, however there were dramatic shifts in attitude. The consequences of that are well known. But did the people in Russia change dramatically, or was it the attitudes of Western Powers such as England, France, etc. towards Russia that had changed? And what was the exact change?

I think it is closer to the truth to say that a lot of powers did not like the new political system there (they did not care about democracy anyway), plus the fact that a Russian withdrawal from WW I might have some consequences for the war on the Western front. Add in the impact the Revolution had in many countries, and thus negatively affecting the war effort.

 

We must not over-psychologize politics. Nor over-economize politics. Nothing is gained by doing that. A lot of "insane" decisions made by Hitler for instance can be explained using a combination of both economical and psychological explanations. "Madmen" are often extremely rational in their approaches, but "reason" itself is based on what is considered "good" and "of value." "Reasons" differ for each leader, but are never completely severed from the economics, and attempts to hold onto power, even moreso in non-democratic countries.

[loony]

Which is what I said - people think Smooch thinks he's better than others and that's a mortal sin. So first they cast him in the light of 'egotistical' and then that unpleasant light casts its glow over all his statements and makes them suspect.

From his posts I understood that he feels more individualistic than the rest of people, therefore being superior as he is one of the rare and few individuals who use the vast capacity of their own minds instead of following the common trends like sheep. At the same time he complains about the lack of social contacts he experiences. Is anybody surprised why this happens? It's not about being better than the rest, it's about telling the rest they are being stupid, because they are not better that causes resentments.

[SmoochieFace]

I have to wonder if this is making Smooch a tad uncomfortable?

 

Quite the opposite. I am finding this thread to be of great interest.

[a4a]

Quite the opposite. I am finding this thread to be of great interest.

 

Well you are now being included within the group? correct?

[blind_otter]

Nope. In fact one of the 'Eureka' moments in my life was a lawyer telling me that in 30 years of practice, every case he ever saw boiled down to the principals disliking each other.

 

So, too, with international affairs. For all the IA theory in the world, when you boil off all the rhetoric and hypocrisy what you get is some folks don't like other folks and will try to 'get' back at the folks they don't like. But humans don't want to admit this base little trait so they clad it in grand realpolitik or economic models to make it all sound plausible. But models can't predict because they never take human nature into account. So that every mini-battle is highly illustrative of the mechanics behind mega-battles.

 

That's his opinion. personally i think it's pap. There are a lot of people and even countries who dislike each other intensely, yet somehow manage to get along fine and who are not moved by some overwhelming litigious spirit. Whether someone stoops to that level has more to do with personal moral values and the ability to create and maintain good boundaries. Good fences make good neighbors, as they say. I can think of a bunch of countries off the top of my head right now.

 

Because that kinda requires a fair bit of introspection and security in self and understanding of others and empathy and so many people are wrapped up in their troubles and issues they haven't the time to get all that stuff organized for themselves. Or, as newbby says, 'enlightened'. That's a hard spot to aim for and most folks don't even get close.

 

Or, most people only feel moved or motivated to do serious introspection when the relationship in question has some intangible value to them. If I felt moved to seriously examine my reactions and interaction every time I met someone, or spoke with someone, I would never GET anywhere or DO anything.

 

The fact of the matter is, there are a few on here who started out defending this guy. And decided to disconnect from that particular individual. I'm always more than willing to go out of my way for anyone, but not if they slap me in the face continually while I do it. I only tolerate that from preverbal infants.

[SmoochieFace]

Because that kinda requires a fair bit of introspection and security in self and understanding of others and empathy and so many people are wrapped up in their troubles and issues they haven't the time to get all that stuff organized for themselves. Or, as newbby says, 'enlightened'. That's a hard spot to aim for and most folks don't even get close.

 

Beautiful. Just beautiful. I don't think I have seen this better expressed.

 

 

Nah. You live on the outskirts. You earn enough money for your needs and live your life in a way that means you deal with the people you want to mostly and the people you have to once in a while. And you count on your ability to understand that humans aren't logical to keep you happy and peaceful in the midst of their turmoil. I think even folks with Aspie can absorb and use Ellis' philosophies and/or buddhist philosophies of 'detachment'.

 

This IS my goal - to live on the outskirts. It will take time, patience, and of course money but it CAN happen and that is what I am striving for. I simply want to take myself out of the *rat race* because it isn't working for me.

[SmoochieFace]

Well you are now being included within the group? correct?

 

Seems to be that way, however, I wonder about your tone here as it has a tinge of contempt.

[a4a]

Seems to be that way, however, I wonder about your tone here as it has a tinge of contempt.

 

Nope, no contempt at all. I come unarmed. Just an observation that strikes me funny in some way on a personal level. I will have to track why this feeling came to the surface.

Most likely because of some flaw in my character, or perhaps a childhood experience?

[blind_otter]

Nope, no contempt at all. I come unarmed. Just an observation that strikes me funny in some way on a personal level. I will have to track why this feeling came to the surface.

Most likely because of some flaw in my character, or perhaps a childhood experience?

 

 

I'm sorry. Don't ascribe any motivation to that giggle.

[lindya]

Seems to be that way, however, I wonder about your tone here as it has a tinge of contempt.

 

You have a choice as to how you interpret it. You can see contempt in it, or you can recall that you were complaining about not feeling part of a group and respond by saying something like

 

"Well, seeing as a whole thread has been devoted to me I can hardly complain about feeling out of things now - can I?!"

 

We all get subjected to comments that could be taken in a good or a bad way. A good way of dealing with it is often to assume that the person is having a light-hearted joke with you and respond accordingly. The chances are that people will warm to you for that, because they see you as someone who doesn't take himself too seriously. Someone who will take a joke against himself without getting upset.

 

Why do they test you out like that? Because, I suppose, they want to know that you're someone who is comfortable to be around. Someone who won't get upset or angry whenever people start bantering with eachother....casual bantering being, as you can see on these boards, something that people enjoy doing to pass the time and stay in contact with eachother.