Sociopaths who posture as insightful and self-aware are some of the most dangerous predators around.
When I use the terms pseudo insightful and pseudo sensitive, I’m referring to the sociopath’s manipulative efforts to seem some combination of vulnerable, self-aware, sensitive and compassionate.
For some sociopaths this deception is conscious, while for others it is so seamlessly woven into their modus operandi as to feel (for them), at least in the moment, almost authentic.
Even the normal individual, low in sociopathic traits, may struggle to distinguish his deception from authenticity when finding himself “performing” in a mode in which he feels masterfully confident and comfortable—for instance, pitching a sale; or making a presentation, or speech.
But what factors make the sociopath’s “insight” and “sensitivity” pseudo versus authentic?
There is, first of all, the manipulative function of the sociopath’s pseudo sensitivity. Authentically insightful individuals use their insight and self-awareness not merely to better protect themselves and their interests, but also to better understand themselves and others.
Sociopaths, however, always wanting something from others, oriented as they are to wanting to take something from others, use their “pseudo” insight and self-awareness for exploitive purposes.
For instance, the sociopath’s interest isn’t to get to know and understand you better for purposes of increasing his depth of connection with you; rather, his interest to establish unobstructed access to you is about positioning himself to take something from you that he wants—whether you’re ready to offer it or not, and whether it’s in your best interest to offer it or not.
In other words, the sociopath is never interested in you; he is always, and only, interested in what he can take from you.
This applies also to the sociopath’s invitation to appreciate his pseudo display of vulnerability. This may take the form of his “startling sensitivity” and self-awareness. If he reads you correctly—as someone, say, who values vulnerability and substance—then he may regale you with “apparent” evidence of his capacity to be wounded; to manifest sensitive emotions; to position himself as someone who’s “in touch” with his feelings.
As always, how much he believes his performance in the moment (versus consciously recognizing it as bogus or manipulative) varies from sociopath to sociopath and from circumstance to circumstance.
Paradoxically, a more “self-aware” sociopath will recognize his fraudulence better than a less self-aware sociopath, who may be more prone to denial, self-delusion, and the belief that, at least temporarily, he really is the role he’s playing.
Regardless, sociopaths play the “self-aware,” “vulnerable” card (consciously or not) ultimately for grooming purposes—specifically, for purposes of softening your defenses and encouraging, coaxing out, your vulnerability.
This is because the less guarded, the more disarmed you are—in a word, the more vulnerable you are—the greater (the sociopath calculates) are his chances of taking from you what he wants.
Now let me apply some of these ideas to a hypothetical, real-life scenario: Let us say you are on a blind date with a very charismatic, charming sociopath. There is seemingly very intense chemistry. He watches you in a very flattering, lusting way, feasting his eyes on you all night. He tells you how attractive he finds you, that he’s mesmerized by you.
Now he isn’t necessarily lying. He could be lying, we know that, in which case his manipulation is that much more blatantly and manifestly sociopathic. But it’s also possible that he isn’t lying—that is, that he feels, in the moment, that what he’s telling you he feels is true; or, that he’s convinced himself that everything he’s telling you is true.
And so his sociopathy can’t necessarily be traced to his lying, because in this instance he may not perceive himself as lying, and, in a certain sense, he may not be lying. His sociopathy, rather, can more accurately be identified in his underlying, preexisting agenda which, in our hypothetical scenario, come hell or high water, is to “nail” you.
He made this his mission the moment he laid eyes on you and found you sexually attractive enough to make this his intention. He feels quite thrilled—perhaps even a little giddy and delighted—that you’ve proven attractive enough (in a sense, cooperative enough) to elicit his lust, which now enables him to pursue his agenda with you.
I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only agenda our hypothetical sociopath could be pursuing with you. It’s possible that he (or another sociopath) might play things differently, by approaching his interests with more or less patience; more or less calculated, disguised subterfuge.
And it’s possible that our sociopath, or a different sociopath, on this same first, blind date, might have an entirely different set of intentions, warranting a very different approach to meeting them. For instance, he or she may be a golddigging sociopath—a financial predator—less than a sexual exploiter.
However, this is what my hypothetical sociopath wants in this particular situation; accordingly, he’s going to pull out all the stops to land you in the “sack” or, one way or another, land himself in your pants.
Because all that matters—and in essence, what it always and only boils down to—is what he wants.
And so our sociopath, on meeting you and establishing his sexual interest, feels glad, elated, even excited that you bring something he wants. He may feel, beyond that, primitive gratitude that you haven’t disappointed him in this respect. Nothing, after all, could be more depresssing, more boring and less tolerable than, on his having met you, his discovering that, alas, you have nothing to give him that he wants.
Incidentally, this experience—his experience—of your uselessness elicits any number of possible reactions, including irritation, resentment, utter contempt, annoyance, and excruciating disappointment and boredom.
It is bad enough (for you) that you are only, and will never be more than, an object to the sociopath. However, for the sociopath, the fact that you are always only an object to him isn’t necessarily a problem; it is when your usefuleness as an object has run its course that the sociopath is most displeased and agitated, and when he is most likely to unmask himself as the cold, heartless person he is.
However, in our hypothetical scenario, as we’ve established, you do indeed have something he wants: he finds you gorgeous. And so in his relief, in his gladness, in his heady gratitude that you have something he wants—something that he can now can set about taking—a psychological transmutation occurs.
The sociopath’s gratitude, on discovering that you have something he wants, becomes primitively transmuted into a form of idealization—of you!
And in his primitive, corrupt idealization, the sociopath is prone to convincing himself, and you, of the sincerity of his ebulliant flattery and appreciation. So much so that when, as previously noted, he tells you he’s mesmerized by you, he may mean it, or think he means it, and he may seem and, indeed, be sincere when he says this.
But what mesmerizes him is you-the-object, not you-the-person. He is mesmerized not by the substantive you, but by his fantasy of what he imagines you will give him, or what he’ll soon coax from you or, if necessary, take from you.
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2010 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is for convenience’s sake, not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors discussed.)
Dear R-babe!
Congratulations on 4 FOUR Months of NC! That’s an accomplishment! TOWANDA!!!
Now, sit your sweet self right down and I want pencil and paper and MAKE A LIST OF EVERY NASTY THING HE EVER DID OR SAID TO YOU.
Then read it aloud. If you start to think any positive thought about him repeat after me: I REMEMBER WHEN THE SPATHOLE DID #1________________ and then repeat the “I remember when….” and read number 2 and so on all down the list.
RINSE AND REPEAT! That should help you get a great mad on and all your feeling sorry for the s-path-hole will be gone!
See, I have an answer for everything! ((((Hugs))))) and hang on, sweetie, It will pass!
Doing this right after I tell you thank you. Im wondering though…is it normal for me to feel so strong and then soooooo off balance…even after not having ANY contact for so long? Its as if we HAVE had contact and that has created this anxst…but there hasnt been any!
Isn’t it true that over time, hurtful memories diminish as a natural part of the recovery from a relationship which has ended?
Heard the old saying TIME HEALS ALL WOUNDS?
Why wouldn’t it apply here?
There were good times. There had to have been!
Innocently good on this side of the fence, anyway.
Why would it not be normal?
I can remember having fun at my 5th birthday party so why after a few months NC would I NOT remember the parts of the relationship I thought I had at the time not be memorable?
There were times when I thought it was the one to END all OTHERS. My mistake. I got fooled. Oops.
I like the techniques that Shatki Gawain used in meditation excercises- put the memory in a bubble and let it float away.
You don’t have to fight to not remember it. You can remember it and let it go peacefully.
Eckhart Tolle might say that the angst over the memories is your old identity as a victim of that person trying to come back to life and spoil your freedom by making you in pain again.
But that is in the past. And this is now. And NOW, you are NC.
And NC has been feeling pretty good.
So the old part of you which might choose to be in angst wants to come back. You don’t have to let it.
Maybe its enough to just simply acknowledge that you remember something good. And that’s ok and off it floats in a big pink bubble into the ether.
And then your old self says I want to come back and feel twisted and anxious and fearful again because I was used to the way I used to be and this memory reminds me of who I used to be. And off it goes in a big pink bubble. Gently, you wave bye bye. Interesting thought, but off it goes.
And then, you are still free. Still strong and still in control of YOUR balance.
It works for me. If it helps you its good and if it doesn’t, at least you know what not to do again? No?
robxsykobabe – this up and down is normal i think – it’s layers to the onion – you’re dealing with knowing he is about to become more ‘active’ again, and are not sure what this will mean in terms of his behavior.
you know, we were with these disordered f*cktards for reasons. there were things about them that captivated us…..but we do have to remind ourselves that they ARE false creatures, and captivated is CAPTURED.
and i suspect that your angst would be WAY bigger if you had contact.
break it down and figure out the pieces/ messages floating around in your head right now.
can yo create some ‘fun and good times’ some other way? maybe that’s what you need….’cause i am certain you don’t need him.
best, one step
RBabe:
YES…..VERY NORMAL !!!!
Sometimes I think I’m trying to reach a ‘plateu’……and then all will be fine….but….
LIFE AIN”T LIKE THAT!!!
Sometimes we get knocked down a few notches…..and things affect us differently at different times.
Just keep this in mind…..
When our ‘immunity’ is down…..we get a bug….
Don’t be hard on yourself…..you’ll be okay…..you’ll get through this little bump too…..just like the rest…..and it’ll prepare you for the next bump……
it’s important though…..for us to take a snapshot of ‘how we feel’ at every stage in the journey…remember the rest stops, remember the stormy roads, and remember the downhill coastal areas too! It’ll help us with the next part when we get there.
XXOO
EB
Silvermoon, The American wit and funny girl,Dorothy Parker said,
“Time wounds all heels!”
Love, Gem.XX
Good one gem! LOL! I love Dorothy Parker.
here’s another good American Quote which might even be the best applicable come to look at it…..
The time to take counsel of your fears is before you make an important battle decision. That’s the time to listen to every fear you can imagine! When you have collected all the facts and fears and made your decision, turn off all your fears and go ahead!
George S. Patton
Mike, I didn’t mean to imply you were autistic, but i work with many children who have many varied issues and problems with language and communication problems. i see all kinds of communication issues everyday. i have also been there myself. And I can recognize literal thinking and communication impairments and the problems and misunderstanding that surfaces from it. Just hear me out because i genuinely want to help you.
The problem that you seem to be having is you have a problem with ‘literal’ or ‘concrete thinking’ and it really IS an impairment.
Literal thinking is taking a very literal interpretation of what others are saying and having trouble accessing the untold meaning behind what is said…. Seeing or interpreting the world and what is being said in a black and white only sort of way that you are completely missing all the greys in between that make up the WHOLE picture of what is being said.
It’s trouble understanding hidden meanings, possibly prompting others to say “You know what I mean!—”when you obviously don’t.
Here is a very simplified example of “literal thinking” with say, a young child.
Mom: Go break a leg!
Son: Why would I break my leg?
Eventually as speech and communication evolves the child gets more confused as he/she gets older because he/she is not learning this innately but has to nearly relearn, memorize and update information and new interpretations in a almost cumbersome sort of way with nearly every new social contextual cue to reach the ‘meaning’ behind things as they come up. Once they get one concept down a new one will always surface.
Now while autistics exhibit pragmatic language impairment, this type of communication disorder can also be found in individuals with other types of issues outside of autism. While nearly every autistic has had some form or semantic pragmatic disorder or pragmatic language impairment or other literal thinking or interpretation communication issue, not everyone with these deficits have autism.
I do work with kids with PLI and other communication problems that have particular trouble understanding the meaning of what others are saying in speech or in text.
There is an inefficiency or inability in processing ’the idea’ behind what is said and these individuals often work much harder to interpret the idea BEHIND what is actually said while everyone else has got this down innately.
They have difficulty or inability in making the necessary associations in order to understand what is ‘being conveyed’, they just don’t GET the ’implied’ meaning behind what is actually being said.
They have difficulty recognizing in contextual (conversational) or text (print) situations that certain statements may have alternative meanings or a broader interpretation beyond the mere words looped together to form a particular sentence. They seem to always respond to information in a very literal and rigid manner and need to be taught how to interpret what is ‘being conveyed’ or ‘implied’ beneath what is being said…
They have some difficulty grasping the main idea, the ‘gestault’ of things, often drawing conclusions and making other inferences from conversation, text, and other social interactions, many times somewhat incorrectly or just completely way off the mark, because they can’t access the ‘idea’ behind what was actually being said in their literal and limited grasp of interpreting what is being said, text or spoken.
In their focus on the words ‘in their literal only meaning’ of what is said, that very concrete and limited way they are seeing or interpreting what is being said they often lose the implied conveyed FULL message that everyone else is getting except for them.
So everyone GETS what is being conveyed except the PLI or communication impaired individual which is only getting what is literally just being said. Everyone else is getting both the ‘said message’ and the ‘implied message’ behind it so they are getting ALL of what was intended to be conveyed while you are only getting HALF of what is being conveyed.
And not being able to get BOTH is an impairment in language communication skills when everyone else is innately communicating in both forums.
Sometimes one might as well be speaking two totally different languages.
Now i’ve prided myself in overcoming such issues but one can’t get too cocky as i’ll explain in this story.
Not long ago i looked at the calendar from the autism classes we take and the title of one class we were going to was titled: “Toilet Training for Children with Autism”
Well my daughter is a child with autism and was having a particular problem in this area. So i pack her up collecting her toilet seat and i figured i can go to Barnes and Noble while she is getting toilet trained.
Well, when we get there I notice that there aren’t any autistic children around. Instead there are a bunch of mothers and a handful of dads sitting classroom style looking at a power point presentation. They stare at me with my kid and her toilet seat confused at to why i was there with my kid and a toilet seat.
Now I figure that we’re in the wrong classroom. but i wasn’t. i was in the right place.
The class was actually for teaching parents how to toilet train their children with autism.
I looked at the flyer at the actual words and it literally only said “Toilet Training for Children with Autism”,
Nothing there did it say that it was a parent workshop, and no one else there got a phone call stating that it was a parent workshop and i maybe somehow I just missed the call.
Nope.
Everyone there knew and understood from the title and somehow they ALL got the conveyed ‘implied’ message behind the title of the class what was meant that i simply didn’t get.
I was the only one there who brought my autistic child there thinking i was going to drop her off with her Sesame Street toilet seat and come back later from Barnes and Noble after she had been instructed and toilet trained.
Now I could argue that the title of the class literally said one thing, but it would be pointless to do so. because EVERYONE there read the same thing i read and out of all 25 parents there, including a handful of dads, (so i couldn’t even blame this on male ignorance) I was the only one there that didn’t get the ‘meaning’ of the ‘message’ of what the instructor of the class was conveying in his class title.
If everyone there got it except myself than the problem lied in me. How else did everyone else there understand what was meant in the title with just what was stated?
Somehow, no matter how adept i get i will still blunder, and misinterpret, and ‘miss’ the meaning of what is being said here and there, because I do not have an innate understanding of such things but have come about this as a skill i had to consciously work on and develop over the years.
Mike, communication is a social act and unless one is conducting a monologue with one’s self, it involves at least one other person. Communication within a social situation can be more challenging than just understanding the words of others. There are unwritten rules that govern stated and spoken interactions and these may change depending on the circumstances and whom one is talking to.
To not be able to do this effectively is an impairment in communication and a speech and language communication pathologist is recommended so that you can overcome this issue.
Or you can continue to believe that you are not impaired in this area and expect the world to change their ways for you, which i would state, don’t hold your breath, because they are all understanding each other and communicating effectively with each other. you’re the one out of the loop and it’s a skill you need to start working on or developing now, i don’t know how old you are but it will make life in general very dificult in all areas if you chose to ignore this deficit.
Yes, everyone has eaten and tasted chicken and they all know what they are talking about, you and i have not, but i ‘learned’ to eat something else and ‘imagine’ it to be the same chicken they are referring to, so that i can somehow be able to understand what they are talking about. and if I can learn this than you can too.
Mike
Mike,
Thank you.
But if you tell me that words aren’t the things they represent I know exactly what you mean. It’s the people who need to be reminded words are not the things they represent who are closed to the lesson. I can’t get at their meanings, because they are fixed on their words. They can’t get at what I mean either, but I’m not refusing to clarify what I say.
Sometimes, no, I often can’t clarify what I say because if what I said opens with something as simple as “The cat sat on the mat,” and continues like that for a while, asking them why they don’t understand that opening sentence isn’t an option. Asking them if they know what a cat is isn’t an option. And they refuse to say at what sentence of mine — like heaven forbid any complexity should be built on what I say — they can’t reconcile the meaning of.
As far as I can tell, everything I’ve said completely reconciles with what you say. I think I can speak of the lesson you refer to as well. But as valuable as your insights are, they aren’t actionable for me, for what I described here.
***
Again, thank you.
My metaphor for how the universe may enforce morality is a judgment after the end of our lives. Will I have lived a life where I can be confronted with my actions while I lived and still look the dead vikings and the dead samurai and the dead wild things in the eye, so to speak. This site is helpful to me in preparing for that metaphorical judgment. The predominant theme of this site seems to be that although everyone baffled isn’t a victim, all bullies baffle someone. As far as I can say I haven’t refused to clarify myself when asked “what do you mean by such-and-such,” I can address this metaphorical judgment in good faith that I only have reason to believe I fulfilled my resolve to be a decent person.
Steve’s post seemed to imply I might not be able to do this, so I asked what I asked, and can say so if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, so to speak. Now I can only stand by in the meantime for someone to give me something else to think, if that’s what’s going to happen.
To add on to the earlier post
Mike says:
“”To use as an example, there’s a comic book about how comics work called “Understanding Comics.” There’s an early scene in which the narrator is portrayed on a stage trying to establish his terms. There’s a heckler calling out insisting that if the comic doesn’t have Batman, it isn’t really a comic. REAL LIFE IS NOT THIS GENEROUS. By socially inept, I mean in real life, people hide their detached “it isn’t comics if it doesn’t have Batman”-like preconceptions,—
[The Other Mike] “That sounds like impairment in Theory of Mind or Mind-Blindness—
You seemed to have taken my example easy enough: why should I consider I’m the impaired one, just because I have no notion of the other person’s inaccurate misconceptions?
(ME) It’s not an inaccurate misconception, but you seeing and taking it literally and you are missing the whole point of what he was trying to say. Sure there can be a comic book without a Batman or any other superhero in ’that realm’ which although he only STATED “Batman” he was also including without saying so, other superheros in that same realm, such as Superman, Spiderman, Ironman, and any other costumed, usually caped sort of action Superhero which is the “typical’ in the comic book experience.
A person with only access to say “Archie” comic books or “Casper the Friendly Ghost” comic books, which while technically they are still a comic book it isn’t equable to the FULL comic book experience where people can understand running into a burning building to save their comic book collection, or fork over a small fortune in thousands of dollars for a single comic book edition, which will usually be done for say a “Batman” collection or any other in THAT SAME realm.
Although Archie is also “a” comic book, it isn’t viewed or regarded as being in the same comic book realm of the Batman’s (or Spidermans, or Supermans” which WAS included in that same category even if it wasn’t stated, for it was ’implied’ by stating a TYPE of comic book)
Archie isn’t even sold in the comic book stores around here along with ’real’ comic books sold by any self respecting comic book store owner, instead it’s usually found in supermarkets tucked along with astrology pamphlets and gossip magazines. Because to include it with other comic books would be insulting to those Batman comics and minimizing the comic book experience.
No one will run into a burning building to save some Archies, because it isn’t a comic book like “Batman” is a comic book. If my nephew asked for comic books for his birthday, I would get him the typical understood comic books found in comic book stores with a caped action superhero on the cover sort of like a “Batman” or any other action hero in that realm, but if I showed up with a bunch of Archies, and Jughead’ than I would be disappointing my nephew because he was expecting what he considers ’comic books’ but instead he received something that is basically just might as well be just lining for his hamster’s cage.
Most folks would understand the unsaid inference of what the heckler ’meant’ when he said it’s only a comic book unless it has Batman in it. In his eyes, (and in the eyes of the majority of people fully understanding the full scale of the comic book experience only a comic book with Batman (or other equal superhero) is fit to be worthy enough to bear the name “Comic Book”, the rest is just hamster cage lining.
You completely missed the point of what he was saying because you were only taking in the literal and very limited meaning of what was said.
But the reality is that just because say maybe Danielle Steele writes a book where her characters are Martians and they drive spaceships instead of cars won’t make her book a sci fi, if it is still her typical drama than it’s her typical danielle Steele drama that just happens to be in a sci fi setting.
If I say that there is nothing new in the sci fi channel you may argue that since Caprica is on then my assessment is incorrect, but just because there are robots in it and it’s based on another planet or planets the reality is that it is basically still a soap opera type drama and it is no way near the same category of sci fi the way Battlestar Galactica, or Star Trek is understood to be.
Just as one can not generalize that simply because ’technically’ an Archie comic book is ’a’ comic book that it is as much of comic book in the same way that a Batman comic book is. You would be incorrect and not seeing that an Archie comic book is so far removed and separate as to how a ’comic book with Batman in it’ is interpreted and understood by others that the Archie type comic book is so far removed from the typical understood comic book experience that it is often not even sold in the same place as a Batman comic, a comic book store.
Now consider that people are walking on two legs, one leg can be described as the actual stated text or spoken statement, and the other leg is the inferred invisible meaning behind it. So folks are walking about using language and communicating with each other using these two legs..
But if you are taking in only the literal stated text or spoken statement you are basically just hoping on one foot.
And you can not expect the rest of the world to follow you along simply because you don’t have the other leg accessible to you.
No one is going to cripple themselves just because you have a crippled perception to the meaning behind what is said… And no one can expect them too. Just because some people were born blind doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is going to gauge their eyes out just to see and experience and express the world the same as the blind person. No. The blind person must adapt and relate to a seeing world that the others are seeing.
Take another example of what is happening here. Everyone else was born with sight, but say for example you and me were born blind. Now a question is asked: “Is this particular table square or round?’
The seeing folks look at the table and reply that it is round, now you being blind touch JUST the surface of the table and feel that it is flat, since it is not round like a ball, but it’s surface is flat like a square you incorrectly assume that because it’s surface was flat like the surfaces of a square block is also flat that the table is square”
Unfortunately you are basing this assessment by only half of the information which is what is available to you within your perceptual limitations.
I, understanding that I’m blind but wanting to visualize what everyone else is seeing so I do not stop at the surface but move my hands over the edges of the table to feel my way around into ’seeing’ what the others are seeing. I realize that although the surface is flat, (which makes sense because we can’t eat at a table that is completely circular like a ball), that the edges are circular not linear. Thus using other senses and other compensatory skills I was able to visualize what others were automatically already seeing. And I could respond like the others that the table is indeed round.
To take thing in a literal sense is to assess things many times incorrectly. You can visually see that the literal ground you stand on is flat but if you assess that because of this limited view of what you are able to see, that the Earth is actually as flat as you see it than you would be incorrect. For it is round.
Native Americans and others understood seeing the roundness of the sun, and the moon, (even it its’ crescent shape) that the earth must also be round as well even if they didn’t perceive the roundness of it.
One can believe in the idea that they are blonde and even tell others and convince others to this ’false’ information that they in that moment believe to be true but they can not escape ’the reality’ that the individual is actually in fact a brunette”
No matter how much they believe otherwise, they are not only lying to others but also to themselves. And no matter how much the person authentically proclaims and in that moment also believes that he is blonde there is no escaping the fact that his hair is actually black as ink.
Believing in the idea of love is not the reality of love. Not lying because one believes in a lie does not change reality. The falsehood is still there even though at the moment the truth of the situation isn’t accessible to ’him/her’ at that moment.
Which everyone, except you, understood that in Steve’s article. Because as you mentioned you are basing what Steve is saying on your ’literal only’ interpretation of what he is saying. But Steve like most everyone else, is walking on two legs, the literal world and the inferred world using both the one leg of what is actually stated and the other, the implied meaning behind it, which he can convey effectively because everyone else also have these two legs to stand on as well.
You are having a problem understanding the article because you want it all in the same form accessible to you in the way that you can understand it in your literal one leg only sort of way, but you missed the rest of what was communicated in this manner and it is an impairment and you can not force people to see or experience or use language in the limited literal way that you do.
Like a blind man you have to adapt and build up compensatory skills to be able to ’visualize’ what everyone else is already automatically seeing and understanding. I was born with that one leg only literal perception of the world but I understood early on that I had to adapt, to be able to navigate and understand the world in ways others do. That invisible inferred meaning that was the second leg that everyone else had I did not have. But I developed compensatory skills to access that reality even if it is by having a metaphorical manufactured prosthetic limb, so that I can converse and communicate effectively so that I can now understand others and be understood by others…
I hope this gets to you okay and you can understand what i’m trying to say and what is happening in your comprehension of what is said. if you like you can email me offlist at autisticsouls@gmail.com and i can try to find resources for you in your area if you are interested.
Mike