A->B->A conversation protocol
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
A->B->A conversation protocol
Most of the things that I have anxiety about are related to communication. I have no friends except for my ex-girlfriend. There is no one that I can call or send email to, except for her and family members. But, I can not talk to them about anything that I feel a need to talk about.
When I try to talk in groups, in person, the right group does listen and respond. If I write about what is important to me, usually it seems like people can't understand what I am saying. A big difference between the two scenarios is that in person there are time limits to how much I can talk and there is noticeable non-verbal feedback that limits me from putting out too much information in too few words.
This problem most recently was a major reason for why I was fired from my job and am now in severe crisis financially. So, it's very important to me.
I think that I might have thought of a way to address the problem. Conversations seem to go like this:
Person A: Assertion
Person B: Response
Person A: Acknowledgement
the end. In rare situations, it goes:
Person A: Assertion
Person B: Response
Person A: Clarification with indication that the person is sorry for bothering people with more conversation
Person B: Response
Person A: Acknowledgement
When the exchange goes beyond A->B->A->B->A, then the person is breaking a social convention and imposing themselves on others.
So, for me, this usually means that I should say something, the other person doesn't understand, and I thank them. Without having done this yet, it seems like it means that I will not be understood most of the time, which is already the case, but I will be being polite and less difficult to be around. What do you think?
When I try to talk in groups, in person, the right group does listen and respond. If I write about what is important to me, usually it seems like people can't understand what I am saying. A big difference between the two scenarios is that in person there are time limits to how much I can talk and there is noticeable non-verbal feedback that limits me from putting out too much information in too few words.
This problem most recently was a major reason for why I was fired from my job and am now in severe crisis financially. So, it's very important to me.
I think that I might have thought of a way to address the problem. Conversations seem to go like this:
Person A: Assertion
Person B: Response
Person A: Acknowledgement
the end. In rare situations, it goes:
Person A: Assertion
Person B: Response
Person A: Clarification with indication that the person is sorry for bothering people with more conversation
Person B: Response
Person A: Acknowledgement
When the exchange goes beyond A->B->A->B->A, then the person is breaking a social convention and imposing themselves on others.
So, for me, this usually means that I should say something, the other person doesn't understand, and I thank them. Without having done this yet, it seems like it means that I will not be understood most of the time, which is already the case, but I will be being polite and less difficult to be around. What do you think?
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Originally Posted by BobArctor 
This problem most recently was a major reason for why I was fired from my job and am now in severe crisis financially. So, it's very important to me.
Sorry to hear that you are struggling financially from job loss.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
I'm struggling to come up with a good scenario. Probably there is more too it. My "solution" needs to not be repetitive. The repetition seems to me to escalate the discomfort. So, not just shortening the exchanges but varying the approach, I guess.
A problem scenario:
A: When we move to the new software, because the environment will be completely different, we should expect that there will be issues that we have not imagined yet, that we will face. So, in addition to the planning we have been doing, I suggest that we start small-scale implementation in the new format without the new software, to see what issues might arise.
B: If we don't plan for the move, we won't have a way to judge the rate of our progress. We can't simply start implementing without planning.
A: I don't mean that we should start implementing without planning. In addition to our current planning, we should allow for some time to implement as an exploratory exercise.
B: We can't simply explore. We have to have a plan.
A: I don't mean implement instead of plan. Plan and also implement.
B: But, if we don't plan, we will be lost.
A: Not only implement. Also, plan.
B: But, we can't simply implement. We have to have a plan.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
.
.
.
The supposed solution:
Day 1:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: If we don't plan for the move, ...
A: Yes, the planning is very important. I still worry about there possibly being scenarios that we can't account for yet.
Day 2:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: If we don't plan for the move, ...
A: Yes, the planning is very important. I still worry about there possibly being scenarios that we can't account for yet.
.
.
.
Day 14:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: Ok
A problem scenario:
A: When we move to the new software, because the environment will be completely different, we should expect that there will be issues that we have not imagined yet, that we will face. So, in addition to the planning we have been doing, I suggest that we start small-scale implementation in the new format without the new software, to see what issues might arise.
B: If we don't plan for the move, we won't have a way to judge the rate of our progress. We can't simply start implementing without planning.
A: I don't mean that we should start implementing without planning. In addition to our current planning, we should allow for some time to implement as an exploratory exercise.
B: We can't simply explore. We have to have a plan.
A: I don't mean implement instead of plan. Plan and also implement.
B: But, if we don't plan, we will be lost.
A: Not only implement. Also, plan.
B: But, we can't simply implement. We have to have a plan.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
B: We have to plan. We can't just implement.
A: Both plan and also implement.
.
.
.
The supposed solution:
Day 1:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: If we don't plan for the move, ...
A: Yes, the planning is very important. I still worry about there possibly being scenarios that we can't account for yet.
Day 2:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: If we don't plan for the move, ...
A: Yes, the planning is very important. I still worry about there possibly being scenarios that we can't account for yet.
.
.
.
Day 14:
A: When we move to the new software, ...
B: Ok
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Originally Posted by BobArctor
My "solution" needs to not be repetitive. The repetition seems to me to escalate the discomfort. So, not just shortening the exchanges but varying the approach, I guess.
Do you have a tendency to be quite literal and exacting when communicating? It would be interesting to take a look at how your personality type versus the other dominant types in your field generally approach change and uncertainty. Then determine strategies for each interaction scenario so as to accomplish your goal while acknowledging and accommodating others' concerns.
Is this far off? Actually, yeah, there is more to it. The 'soft skills'.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
My hypothetical example is not really demonstrating the problem very well. I have been thinking about it. It's difficult to describe without the example indicating problems that don't occur in a real conversation.
I am told that I am very literal in conversation. I'm not sure about exacting.
When I think of someone being exacting and literal it refers to paying an unusual amount of attention to the literal meaning of some words and missing the point. From my perspective other people are often straying from the point that was raised initially.
For a contrived example:
There is an instruction for how to send a document to someone that says "put the document in an envelope".
Someone asks: "If I want to send someone more than one document, do I have to have a separate envelope for each document"?
The answer given is: "Joe the document sender can send documents. So, give him the documents and he can send them".
The answer doesn't address the question. Usually, when this happens to me, there was a reason why I asked the question that I did and the answer I am given is incongruous. Instead of answering the question, the other person has tried to guess what the person wants to do and given a suggestion for how to accomplish that task.
An answer to the question that was asked would be, "No. You don't need a separate envelope for each document".
So, in that sense, I think I tend to be unusually literal.
An example of being exacting would be like reading a sign that says "take a seat", picking up and carrying off a chair and arguing with people about it referring to the sign.
But, what I was thinking about when I started this thread is how to function with people socially as a priority over being understood. Talking is a social activity, sort of like playing a game. It seems to me that people treat it that way even when they think they are exchanging information.
The phenomenon of "necro-posting" being bad is possibly an example. It's considered bad in some web forums to reply to a thread that is old, even when the forum is for the exchange of information. Why would it be bad to have information on a topic together in one place? The posts, I guess, are considered transient blather that is only useful during a particular instance of social activity. It's not exchange of information.
The problem for me is that it is often important to exchange information. If I violate the social convention, the information is not exchanged and I earn social debt that makes it more difficult for me to interact later. So, my thought is to be more in keeping with the social convention, in which case initially the information is not exchanged but I don't earn social debt.
I am told that I am very literal in conversation. I'm not sure about exacting.
When I think of someone being exacting and literal it refers to paying an unusual amount of attention to the literal meaning of some words and missing the point. From my perspective other people are often straying from the point that was raised initially.
For a contrived example:
There is an instruction for how to send a document to someone that says "put the document in an envelope".
Someone asks: "If I want to send someone more than one document, do I have to have a separate envelope for each document"?
The answer given is: "Joe the document sender can send documents. So, give him the documents and he can send them".
The answer doesn't address the question. Usually, when this happens to me, there was a reason why I asked the question that I did and the answer I am given is incongruous. Instead of answering the question, the other person has tried to guess what the person wants to do and given a suggestion for how to accomplish that task.
An answer to the question that was asked would be, "No. You don't need a separate envelope for each document".
So, in that sense, I think I tend to be unusually literal.
An example of being exacting would be like reading a sign that says "take a seat", picking up and carrying off a chair and arguing with people about it referring to the sign.
But, what I was thinking about when I started this thread is how to function with people socially as a priority over being understood. Talking is a social activity, sort of like playing a game. It seems to me that people treat it that way even when they think they are exchanging information.
The phenomenon of "necro-posting" being bad is possibly an example. It's considered bad in some web forums to reply to a thread that is old, even when the forum is for the exchange of information. Why would it be bad to have information on a topic together in one place? The posts, I guess, are considered transient blather that is only useful during a particular instance of social activity. It's not exchange of information.
The problem for me is that it is often important to exchange information. If I violate the social convention, the information is not exchanged and I earn social debt that makes it more difficult for me to interact later. So, my thought is to be more in keeping with the social convention, in which case initially the information is not exchanged but I don't earn social debt.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25,373
I wouldn't look at it as a social debt. It is simply a different style of communicating.
If you need more information in order to perform a task, ask for it.
In the document-sender scenario above - if Joe is the guy who sends the documents, no one else needs to know how many envelopes it takes. It is done for efficiency of discussion and production. People have tasks assigned and they do their tasks, but they don't need to know how to do everyone else's task.
If at some point you have to send the document, that is when you have a need to know.
In social settings, discussions can quickly go down all sorts of rabbit holes. In work settings, things need to be more structured.
I don't think people are keeping score on you, though.
If you need more information in order to perform a task, ask for it.
In the document-sender scenario above - if Joe is the guy who sends the documents, no one else needs to know how many envelopes it takes. It is done for efficiency of discussion and production. People have tasks assigned and they do their tasks, but they don't need to know how to do everyone else's task.
If at some point you have to send the document, that is when you have a need to know.
In social settings, discussions can quickly go down all sorts of rabbit holes. In work settings, things need to be more structured.
I don't think people are keeping score on you, though.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
The document sending example is contrived. I never was in a situation where I needed to know how many envelopes, etc.
Imagine that there were such a situation and person needed to know if they need one envelope per document, for whatever reason. Assume that is true. Then the rest of the example is demonstrating a pattern that I often encounter. The idea that the imagined guy Joe is the only person that needs to know is an inapplicable analogy.
I don't think any or many people are keeping score consciously. The phenomenon that I am referring to is one in which my communication pattern causes discomfort in social circles and me reasoning about how to address the problem. Simply denying that I experience what I claim to experience doesn't really give me anything that I can consider.
My initial assertion was that there is a social convention about the acceptable number of communication transactions per conversation.
Imagine that there were such a situation and person needed to know if they need one envelope per document, for whatever reason. Assume that is true. Then the rest of the example is demonstrating a pattern that I often encounter. The idea that the imagined guy Joe is the only person that needs to know is an inapplicable analogy.
I don't think any or many people are keeping score consciously. The phenomenon that I am referring to is one in which my communication pattern causes discomfort in social circles and me reasoning about how to address the problem. Simply denying that I experience what I claim to experience doesn't really give me anything that I can consider.
My initial assertion was that there is a social convention about the acceptable number of communication transactions per conversation.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25,373
But there isn't such a number.
If someone is getting annoyed with you because you ask for additional data/information/clarification, that is their problem and not something you need feel badly about or feel like you've done something wrong.
This seems to be just something that happens to all of us. What is the emotion that you are feeling? It sounds like embarrassment or guilt or something. Nothing to do but press onward and not let what other people think bother you. If you need to know something, keep asking until you understand it.
If they act in a way that makes you uncomfortable, shrug it off.
I sometimes feel like people are judging me, but we all make little judgments about people all day long.
Have you tried therapy? I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding your issue and it is causing you problems, so maybe face-to-face therapy would be helpful - so someone who is objective can observe this issue.
If someone is getting annoyed with you because you ask for additional data/information/clarification, that is their problem and not something you need feel badly about or feel like you've done something wrong.
This seems to be just something that happens to all of us. What is the emotion that you are feeling? It sounds like embarrassment or guilt or something. Nothing to do but press onward and not let what other people think bother you. If you need to know something, keep asking until you understand it.
If they act in a way that makes you uncomfortable, shrug it off.
I sometimes feel like people are judging me, but we all make little judgments about people all day long.
Have you tried therapy? I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding your issue and it is causing you problems, so maybe face-to-face therapy would be helpful - so someone who is objective can observe this issue.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
Here is another way of putting it, maybe. What is the difference between discussion and debate? With the way I engage in conversation, I often am told that I am debating, when I think I am conversing. Also, people will refer to "agreeing to disagree", which baffles me. I am not having a contest by talking to people. But, it seems to be perceived that way. I was suggesting that the difference could be in the number of transactions in a conversation.
I don't have health insurance and can't really see a therapist right now. Some day I want to show a therapist some text of mine and have them comment on what I am doing that is strange in my way of communicating. In a typical one on one session, I don't think I would exhibit the behavior.
I don't have health insurance and can't really see a therapist right now. Some day I want to show a therapist some text of mine and have them comment on what I am doing that is strange in my way of communicating. In a typical one on one session, I don't think I would exhibit the behavior.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
Here is another way of putting it, maybe. What is the difference between discussion and debate? With the way I engage in conversation, I often am told that I am debating, when I think I am conversing. Also, people will refer to "agreeing to disagree", which baffles me. I am not having a contest by talking to people. But, it seems to be perceived that way. I was suggesting that the difference could be in the number of transactions in a conversation.
I don't have health insurance and can't really see a therapist right now. Some day I want to show a therapist some text of mine and have them comment on what I am doing that is strange in my way of communicating. In a typical one on one session, I don't think I would exhibit the behavior.
I don't have health insurance and can't really see a therapist right now. Some day I want to show a therapist some text of mine and have them comment on what I am doing that is strange in my way of communicating. In a typical one on one session, I don't think I would exhibit the behavior.
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Originally Posted by BobArctor
My initial assertion was that there is a social convention about the acceptable number of communication transactions per conversation.
Perhaps a source of your frustration is in not necessarily picking up on social cues or social 'norms' during interaction. For example, I sometimes scare the crud of of people during high stress situations if I do not slow down the flow and volume of information. There are many, many ways people have responded to me in the past. If I wish to make my day more comfortable then I will hold back, slow down...essentially 'know my audience'.
My preferred way of interacting is to be silent, thoughtful, formulate my thoughts and then 'bluh' - get it all out at once and ask for questions at the end. And I would keep doing this because it works for me. But it only works for other people if they are "like me". Most other people interpret my preferred style as information overload. Too much. Too detailed. Too this, too that and then I will get this cricket chirping, vacant stare, smile response before the person walks away and concludes that I am "out there" on my own planet.
What I absolutely have to do now is assess how the person is receiving my delivery and then make adjustments as the interaction progresses. In this way I am including and "hearing" the other person even if what is being verbalized is regarding a very specific subject...the way they are hearing it and understanding comes out in the way they respond to me via body language, comfort level, willingness to continue.
There are methods to ask for clarification of a person's interpretation of your message that make interacting a 2-way street even if you are the primary deliverer of a specific message and delivery of the message is your only goal.
I have a good friend who is intellectually brilliant but a social disaster. This is because he usually is the smartest guy in the room, but social convention says that "if you are the smartest guy in the room then you are in the wrong room." It is extremely difficult for him to pick up on others' social cues. The problem for him lies in his unwillingness to change his personal style of interaction to accommodate the needs of another. He is a really good guy, but has a very hard time making and keeping friends. You have to get to know him in order to accept his unconventional style of interacting. This takes interaction. Conundrum.
So maybe you can begin to ask people "where's the rub" during the discussion. Take mental notes. Be willing to learn and adjust for the benefit of both yourself and the other.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
What you say about volume of information seems similar to what I'm thinking about in this thread. I think the problem is with my failing to pick up on social cues, like you say.
There was one interesting NLP idea that I heard talked about on youtube, which was called "chunking". It said that effective communication (I think they are actually talking about persuasion, but I'm ignoring that) requires judging the amount of abstraction that is appropriate in the situation.
If you use a lot of abstraction, you are communicating a larger amount of information unless people aren't understanding the abstractions. Similarly, if you are too explicit about details, it takes longer to communicate which strains people's patience.
I am usually way too abstract but wouldn't be able to get someone to sit through, remember and piece together, a very detailed explanation. So, I don't know what to do.
The scenarios you describe in which one would judge how they are being perceived and having a way to ask for clarification about how you are being interpreted are more likely to occur in situations where I don't encounter a problem, I think.
If I could live in a group therapy session, I would have little trouble communicating. Where I have trouble is when there is something critical to communicate to people at work. It also comes up in forum posts sometimes where there isn't realtime feedback. At work, the consequence is being fired. Or, my last time being fired was partly about a misunderstanding around this communication problem I am claiming to have.
The thing about a social convention that if you are the smartest guy in the room you are in the wrong room, reminds me of how if people have interests they are called nerds. Cool people talk about how much vegetables cost when they walked by a supermarket or other incidental things. You are uptight if you talk about anything that causes thinking.
That is like what I was getting at by this thread. How do I adopt the social convention where communication is transient blather, so that I'm not seen as uptight and nerdy, while also somehow communicating information?
I think it is like how when birds meet each other they do a little ritual involving gestures of agreement. I am failing to do the ritual correctly. It seems like I need to get that down before I have a chance of communicating information.
I am implying that the social conventions are stupid. And, I think they are. But, I am certain that I do the same thing in some other way. So, I'm pointing out what I think is something stupid that we all do and how to deal with different variations of it.
There was one interesting NLP idea that I heard talked about on youtube, which was called "chunking". It said that effective communication (I think they are actually talking about persuasion, but I'm ignoring that) requires judging the amount of abstraction that is appropriate in the situation.
If you use a lot of abstraction, you are communicating a larger amount of information unless people aren't understanding the abstractions. Similarly, if you are too explicit about details, it takes longer to communicate which strains people's patience.
I am usually way too abstract but wouldn't be able to get someone to sit through, remember and piece together, a very detailed explanation. So, I don't know what to do.
The scenarios you describe in which one would judge how they are being perceived and having a way to ask for clarification about how you are being interpreted are more likely to occur in situations where I don't encounter a problem, I think.
If I could live in a group therapy session, I would have little trouble communicating. Where I have trouble is when there is something critical to communicate to people at work. It also comes up in forum posts sometimes where there isn't realtime feedback. At work, the consequence is being fired. Or, my last time being fired was partly about a misunderstanding around this communication problem I am claiming to have.
The thing about a social convention that if you are the smartest guy in the room you are in the wrong room, reminds me of how if people have interests they are called nerds. Cool people talk about how much vegetables cost when they walked by a supermarket or other incidental things. You are uptight if you talk about anything that causes thinking.
That is like what I was getting at by this thread. How do I adopt the social convention where communication is transient blather, so that I'm not seen as uptight and nerdy, while also somehow communicating information?
I think it is like how when birds meet each other they do a little ritual involving gestures of agreement. I am failing to do the ritual correctly. It seems like I need to get that down before I have a chance of communicating information.
I am implying that the social conventions are stupid. And, I think they are. But, I am certain that I do the same thing in some other way. So, I'm pointing out what I think is something stupid that we all do and how to deal with different variations of it.
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Hi Bob,
Not to minimize [social convention intro based on not wanting to hurt your feelings so you will read my post with your hackles down], this reminds me of the first time I heard the story of "the fed-up computer support specialist who finally tells a particularly frustrating customer that she is 'too stupid to own a computer'".
I rolled on the floor howling and laughing in disbelief.
The original and true account given by the tech (found it linked on snopes):
This woman was good friends with my supervisor, who was also a French professor (still is, matter of fact--and in addition, she's now also my wife), so I couldn't deal with her the way I really wanted to, and was forced to explain sweetly and gently to her that computers needed power just like office lights, and if the office lights were out, then the computer was too, and that yes, if she hadn't saved her work she had probably lost everything she'd done so far in WordPerfect.
But I could still fantasize:
"A power outage? Aha! Okay, we've got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in?"
"Well, yes, I keep them in the closet."
"Good! Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from."
"Really? Is it that bad?"
"Yes, I'm afraid it is."
"Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?"
"Tell them you're TOO STUPID TO OWN A COMPUTER!" [slam]
But that wouldn't have been a very nice thing to do, now would it?
Not to minimize [social convention intro based on not wanting to hurt your feelings so you will read my post with your hackles down], this reminds me of the first time I heard the story of "the fed-up computer support specialist who finally tells a particularly frustrating customer that she is 'too stupid to own a computer'".
I rolled on the floor howling and laughing in disbelief.
The original and true account given by the tech (found it linked on snopes):
This woman was good friends with my supervisor, who was also a French professor (still is, matter of fact--and in addition, she's now also my wife), so I couldn't deal with her the way I really wanted to, and was forced to explain sweetly and gently to her that computers needed power just like office lights, and if the office lights were out, then the computer was too, and that yes, if she hadn't saved her work she had probably lost everything she'd done so far in WordPerfect.
But I could still fantasize:
"A power outage? Aha! Okay, we've got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in?"
"Well, yes, I keep them in the closet."
"Good! Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from."
"Really? Is it that bad?"
"Yes, I'm afraid it is."
"Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?"
"Tell them you're TOO STUPID TO OWN A COMPUTER!" [slam]
But that wouldn't have been a very nice thing to do, now would it?
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Originally Posted by BobArctor
That is like what I was getting at by this thread. How do I adopt the social convention where communication is transient blather, so that I'm not seen as uptight and nerdy, while also somehow communicating information?
I think it is like how when birds meet each other they do a little ritual involving gestures of agreement. I am failing to do the ritual correctly. It seems like I need to get that down before I have a chance of communicating information.
I am implying that the social conventions are stupid. And, I think they are. But, I am certain that I do the same thing in some other way. So, I'm pointing out what I think is something stupid that we all do and how to deal with different variations of it.
You are in financial straits and everyone has to eat. Since your firing involved an area of weakness that needs improvement, it would probably be a good idea to find a job not involving your weakness so as to feed and clothe yourself as well as put a roof over your head.
Can you do technical writing with your current knowledge base? A job independent of social interaction or people management and team work?
Then, dip your toes in the social skills development pond. Maybe create your own meetup.com group and make it interesting (although a group such as that would inherently be interesting, I think - at least I would love to be fly on the wall and learn a thing or two). A therapist would be good for hangups and things that need to be 'gotten over'. It sounds like a life coach would be more useful - someone who is in the same boat who figured out how to do what you seek. If you live near a university, you could advertise for this 'teacher' in exchange for tutoring or something.
Once you learn some skills then it will be your choice how often and when to apply them in a workplace, if at all.
What I really would like to know is what is wrong with being uptight and nerdy (other than being fired for it)? It takes all kinds, right?
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
There is nothing wrong with being nerdy. There are problems with being perceived as nerdy. The first post in the thread is sort of about that. Usually, it is good to try to get along with people you have a relationship with. I suffer when I cause people to distance themselves from me. The first post is trying to invite ideas about how to converse in a way that doesn't make people feel uncomfortable.
If you don't see the number of transactions as in issue, maybe this shows that:
A typical tactic for a politician to use when they don't want to say something damaging in an interview is they simply repeat nonsense 2 or 3 times until the social convention requires the subject to be changed, e.g.:
Interviewer: In light of the recent event in which you were recorded saying that you hate puppies, have you had contact with puppies, and how long have you hated them?
Politician: I feel that is my duty to promote progress and change and pie, which is why I am a strong supporter of motherhood.
Interviewer: Can you explain how that relates to your alleged hatred of puppies?
Politician: I feel that we as a nation must come together to fight badness and I am certain that in time we can triumph, because this is the greatest nation in the world.
Usually, the interviewer gives up here. Sometimes, the interviewer will press forward apologetically as the exchange violates the social convention and goes beyond A->B->A and even A->B->A->B->A
Interviewer: I am sorry to press the issue. But, can you explain how that relates to your alleged hatred of puppies?
Politician: My friends in the opposition say that we should welcome badness, but I disagree. Liberty, freedom, strength! We must send a message to the scary evil bad and unite in liberty to bring freedom and strength justice!
Interviewer: Food for thought. Regarding your position and the transatlantic pipeline, where do you stand on....
Maybe you recognize the protocol in that?
If you don't see the number of transactions as in issue, maybe this shows that:
A typical tactic for a politician to use when they don't want to say something damaging in an interview is they simply repeat nonsense 2 or 3 times until the social convention requires the subject to be changed, e.g.:
Interviewer: In light of the recent event in which you were recorded saying that you hate puppies, have you had contact with puppies, and how long have you hated them?
Politician: I feel that is my duty to promote progress and change and pie, which is why I am a strong supporter of motherhood.
Interviewer: Can you explain how that relates to your alleged hatred of puppies?
Politician: I feel that we as a nation must come together to fight badness and I am certain that in time we can triumph, because this is the greatest nation in the world.
Usually, the interviewer gives up here. Sometimes, the interviewer will press forward apologetically as the exchange violates the social convention and goes beyond A->B->A and even A->B->A->B->A
Interviewer: I am sorry to press the issue. But, can you explain how that relates to your alleged hatred of puppies?
Politician: My friends in the opposition say that we should welcome badness, but I disagree. Liberty, freedom, strength! We must send a message to the scary evil bad and unite in liberty to bring freedom and strength justice!
Interviewer: Food for thought. Regarding your position and the transatlantic pipeline, where do you stand on....
Maybe you recognize the protocol in that?
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Hi Bob,
You hit on a good point with your last example. Many politicians have sociopathic tendencies so interpersonal interaction is formulaic with responses to people being physically expressed but not internalized. Many in the 'C-suite' as well.
From what I read, and I know very, very little, those with ASPD have lower levels of oxytocin and less capacity to "feel" empathy. But can socialize or learn to physically, outwardly express empathy for the benefit of a relationship. I have also heard that one of the benefits for a person with ASPD is not feeling guilt - which can also be a drawback, obviously. It would take quite a bit of motivation and practice, I imagine, to get to the point of being comfortable in pretending to feel for the benefit of others what you physically cannot. How exhausting.
You wrote that most of the things that cause anxiety in your life are related to communication. Have you looked into the characteristics of ASPD? Maybe one of the reasons you are getting the responses you are getting is because you truly do not 'feel' like talking about the price of fruit and it could bother you, but it does not.
So I suppose the next question is "what does a person feel like to walk past a fruit stand and feel like talking about the price of fruit?" And how is this expressed. This is actually very interesting to think about. Thanks.
Fill-in or correct me if I am way off base. I am going to have to read more about this. It is on my list.
You hit on a good point with your last example. Many politicians have sociopathic tendencies so interpersonal interaction is formulaic with responses to people being physically expressed but not internalized. Many in the 'C-suite' as well.
From what I read, and I know very, very little, those with ASPD have lower levels of oxytocin and less capacity to "feel" empathy. But can socialize or learn to physically, outwardly express empathy for the benefit of a relationship. I have also heard that one of the benefits for a person with ASPD is not feeling guilt - which can also be a drawback, obviously. It would take quite a bit of motivation and practice, I imagine, to get to the point of being comfortable in pretending to feel for the benefit of others what you physically cannot. How exhausting.
You wrote that most of the things that cause anxiety in your life are related to communication. Have you looked into the characteristics of ASPD? Maybe one of the reasons you are getting the responses you are getting is because you truly do not 'feel' like talking about the price of fruit and it could bother you, but it does not.
So I suppose the next question is "what does a person feel like to walk past a fruit stand and feel like talking about the price of fruit?" And how is this expressed. This is actually very interesting to think about. Thanks.
Fill-in or correct me if I am way off base. I am going to have to read more about this. It is on my list.
pray for strength
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New England
Posts: 2,414
Ok, I read a little more about the things I just wrote about and must offer apologies for writing about something I know very little about. Not meant to be offensive and, yes, it does read as ignorant.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
Well, the point of the politician example was that the interviewer is compelled to stop after some number of interactions due to a social convention. So, I take it that you don't recognize this phenomenon.
It's not necessarily 2 or 3 but around there. Like the bird analogy. When we meet you are supposed to do this little dance then they do that dance then I do this dance and then the ritual is complete. Meanwhile, people think they are exchanging information in the process. So, how can people cope when it's important to exchange information but it doesn't fit into the ritual.
Regarding the tangent:
I feel excrutiatingly empathic. So, I don't think that is an issue.
I'm still not sure I understand what the overall meaning of "personality disorder" when I've read about BPD, at least. If your personality is different than the norm that is not a disorder in and of itself.
My communication patterns that the topic of this thread relates to, only occurs in some situations, it seems to me. It's a social disorder. Usually, when it's not these situations, people don't seem to regard me as difficult to deal with and I am chatty and people notice that I adore them.
It's not necessarily 2 or 3 but around there. Like the bird analogy. When we meet you are supposed to do this little dance then they do that dance then I do this dance and then the ritual is complete. Meanwhile, people think they are exchanging information in the process. So, how can people cope when it's important to exchange information but it doesn't fit into the ritual.
Regarding the tangent:
I feel excrutiatingly empathic. So, I don't think that is an issue.
I'm still not sure I understand what the overall meaning of "personality disorder" when I've read about BPD, at least. If your personality is different than the norm that is not a disorder in and of itself.
My communication patterns that the topic of this thread relates to, only occurs in some situations, it seems to me. It's a social disorder. Usually, when it's not these situations, people don't seem to regard me as difficult to deal with and I am chatty and people notice that I adore them.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,666
This is an interesting thread.
Yeah, I have communication problems at this stage also.
To say alcohol was hampering my communication would be an understatement.
However now that I'm sober it's just hampered by the same thing it was becoming hampered in the first place which is a headful of unresolved lifelong issues pretty much. Although I am working towards resolving them, and my communication skills are slowly improving as a result. It's the same reason I have been seeking professional help, to tease some of it out in a safe space that isn't just my head or some sketchy accommodation pretty much.
Anyway some recent examples of my miscommunications...
The trolley guy offering me booze on the train, a list of it in increasing strength right up to my old favourite blackout tack (whiskey). I just wasn't expecting it so it was putting images in mine, i told the guy to calm down and that he would not like to see the result if I were to take him up on his offer. I realised afterwards that a simple no would have sufficed! Il know for again.
Another example, I was chatting to a guy who asked me where I was going. I said the truth, I dunno just drifting around. He asked me where I was from, I said Saturn apparently.
Now that one always catches me out. I used to say 'here there and everywhere' but that implies ambiguity.
What does one say, not my mother? the universe? I dunno what to say really as I don't know, it's a few different places.
I don't know where I'm from and I don't know where I'm going, and even though that's true I realise it's probably outside of social convention to say it in a casual conversation somewhy
Yeah, I have communication problems at this stage also.
To say alcohol was hampering my communication would be an understatement.
However now that I'm sober it's just hampered by the same thing it was becoming hampered in the first place which is a headful of unresolved lifelong issues pretty much. Although I am working towards resolving them, and my communication skills are slowly improving as a result. It's the same reason I have been seeking professional help, to tease some of it out in a safe space that isn't just my head or some sketchy accommodation pretty much.
Anyway some recent examples of my miscommunications...
The trolley guy offering me booze on the train, a list of it in increasing strength right up to my old favourite blackout tack (whiskey). I just wasn't expecting it so it was putting images in mine, i told the guy to calm down and that he would not like to see the result if I were to take him up on his offer. I realised afterwards that a simple no would have sufficed! Il know for again.
Another example, I was chatting to a guy who asked me where I was going. I said the truth, I dunno just drifting around. He asked me where I was from, I said Saturn apparently.
Now that one always catches me out. I used to say 'here there and everywhere' but that implies ambiguity.
What does one say, not my mother? the universe? I dunno what to say really as I don't know, it's a few different places.
I don't know where I'm from and I don't know where I'm going, and even though that's true I realise it's probably outside of social convention to say it in a casual conversation somewhy
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
