A. You asserted that you had Asperger's and then proceeded to explain why you believe that. Forgive me for then expecting your explanation to actually have something to do with Asperger's and not be a list of generic personality traits. Read your other comments--I'm obviously not the only one who thought so.
B. Your "pain and anguish" is not relevant to the fact of whether or not you have Asperger's. Social anxiety causes pain and anguish.
C. People "do something" about social anxiety all the time, as they should. Good for them and good for you. Really. I still don't see what that has to do with Asperger's syndrome.
D. Pointing out that a common personality trait is not a brain disorder is not "quibbling over terminology".
E. No offense was intended.
Perhaps you should write this down as a concise theory with falsifiable predictions of what kind of social behavior people really expect.
1. Smiling and making eye contact are both HUGE levers (but you have to be careful not to overdo it). (And an interesting thing about smiling is that it has a reverse-feedback effect: if you smile, it actually makes you feel happier.)
2. What you wear matters. It shouldn't, but it does. Read "Dress for success."
3. Spend more time listening than talking. Ask more questions than you answer, even if you know all the answers. The object of the game is not to show off how much you know, it is to provide others with opportunities to show off how much they know.
4. Help with the grunt work even when you think it is beneath you.
5. Con't complain. Ever. About anything. (This is just a first-order approximation. There are situations under which it's OK to complain, but that's an advanced course :-) And this is one of the few situations where erring on one extreme will not get you into trouble. To the contrary, if you cement a reputation as someone who never complains even when you have good cause to, people will like you more. I'm personally still working on this one.)
One thing I learned only post-diagnosis is that all the stuff I thought I did to figure out how to fit in, in hindsight, was extremely scattershot and not very rational. A lot of the lessons I never learned as well as I thought I did.
These days I try to be more methodical (keeping logs, lists of lessons, etc), in part because I'm allowing myself to lean more into my 'nature', and it's already proven effective.
It is not completely obvious to me what kind of elaboration you desire. So if my longer explanation here misses the point this is probably the reason. :-)
In your trial to find out the strange rules of society you surely made unwillingly lots of accidental experiments that often went wrong. At the end you probably developed some kind of theory of how humans seem to behave, where each rule that you developed is backed up by evidence from an accidental experiment.
If you are interested in history of physics, you surely are aware that developing even what is called "classical mechanics" (I don't even want to start with electromagnetism, relativity or quantum physics) was a lifetime work of many generations of scientists. What a waste of time would it have been if everyone of them had to start from point 0.
So you accidentally have developed something that might be a start of some kind of theory of how people/society really behave(s) (rather think of pre-Newton physics, e.g. Galilei already found out that (ignoring air resistance) the falling time is independent of the mass and the falling time increases by square root of the height; of course where these "strange" laws with strong experimental evidence come from needed the invention of calculus).
So back to "What a waste of time would it have been if everyone of them had to start from point 0.". What a waste of time is it when people all the time had to derive all those laws to which "ordinary" people in society behave (and cannot explain why) from ground up.
So document the rules about people/society/... that you found out and document the experimental evidence that gives strong evidence to you that these rules that you state do indeed hold (a scientific theory is worth nothing if it is not accompanied by a proper documentation of the experimental evidence for it).
Perhaps (if it not embarrassing to you) it is a good idea to use tools that the web provides (e.g. some kind of wiki or Github) so that other people can cross-check your theories, validate your evidence or present counter-theories which also explain your experimental evidence.
You are in a very early phase in a theory of the hidden rules of society (as I told: think where Galilei was in terms of classical mechanics), so this means you probably have to consider lots of frustrating foundational questions. So you are perhaps a true pioneer. But I believe it is worth it, because this might enable researchers who work in AI better understand humans/society.
I actually think some people get attached to the idea of their victimhood and helplessness, and this can easily become a disincentive to making positive (and very difficult) change.
(Yes I know there is the other side of it which is real, that medical expertise can help too. But like everything else, oversimplifying into a clear binary of diagnosable vs not, is not always useful.)
Elaborating, I think, rather than disagreeing: Self-treating into passable normalcy is basically life. One of the characteristics you have to have in order to be diagnosed with any psychological disorder is that it has to be interfering with your life. Absolutely everybody can read the DSM and find a good half-a-dozen things they may have tendencies towards, but if it's not interfering with your life, it's not a disease/diagnosis. Liking a clean space does not mean you're on the "OSD spectrum", being a bit nervous around spiders does not mean you're on the "phobia spectrum", etc.
"Healthy" isn't a single point in psych space, if for no other reason then that there isn't a "perfectly healthy" person available to define that point for us! It also certainly isn't a well-delineated boundary, but it is clearly not a single point, and even within the space of "healthy" there is clearly a lot of diversity.
Yes, and this is true of any mental issue. Hell, it's also true of physical ailments that don't leave obvious visible markers. Depressed? You don't seem depressed. Anxiety? You talk with people all the time. People don't always understand that this functioning is the result of a lot of invisible effort.
I'm sure that their are people out there that like to play the victim, but that doesn't mean that people's struggles aren't real.
Wow, you really hit the nail on the head with this. Just look at all the people here trying to second-guess my own self-assessment!