![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Two sets of questions
2008-10-21 07:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mdlbearTwo sets of questions for you, inspired by my post on social answers and calibration. The first set doesn't have "right answers", it's just a kind of survey.
- Do you consider a "social answer" a form of dishonesty (i.e., a lie), or a convenient shorthand based on a social convention that certain socially-incompetent geeks like me never learned to understand?
- Do you give "social answers" yourself?
- If so, is there usually a subtext, and do you expect the listener to understand it?
I'll give mine: 1: shorthand; 2: only rarely except with strangers; 3: not a conscious one/no.
The second set is stuff I don't have a clue about. I'm asking because I very much want -- and need -- to learn how to get better at interacting with people.
- Is it usually safe to ignore the subtext, or is it usually something very important that will cause problems if I miss it?
- Is it socially acceptable to probe for further details?
- If that's situational, is there any way to tell when it's acceptable?
- Can a 61-year-old geek learn this arcane skill, and if so, how?
I don't have answers for those, obviously.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 02:57 pm (UTC)to the second: no, it is usually important; depends on one's level of mutual intimacy; this will already be established (everyone starts at 5 out of 10, and moves up and down that scale based upon experience) ; yes, I should think so, but listening attentively and working to hear things in the way that others would hear them.
I applaud your insights!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 03:45 pm (UTC)My answers
Date: 2008-10-21 03:47 pm (UTC)2). Yes, sometimes with screaming non-verbals (i.e. Large Print for the blind). But I like to think I can adapt to my audience. I usually go into "cleartext" mode with children and other people with perceived communication problems.
3). Yes, but if it isn't then I'll decode.
1). Sorry, yes. If someone is talking that way (which I usually call "saying without saying") you need to pay attention. I got into trouble with a boss once, because his explicit and subtext message were diametrically opposed. Of course his subtext was, "I don't want to see you succeed"
2). It may not be too good, but sometimes it can't be avoided.
3). If you have a clear need to know (which, depending on the relationship you might) then even if you get blown up at, you're right.
4). Sure, by the numbers, which is exactly what you're doing. I used to go crazy watching ST:TNG, when Geordi was so inarticulate explaining human emotion to Data. I could do a better job than THAT.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 04:39 pm (UTC)I tend to judge whether to go poking around on a case-by-case basis. If it's a sweetie and I'm pretty sure she's not upset with me, I definitely say, "what's wrong?" (or, "my, you're all bouncy this morning!" if she is)... it's a way of showing caring. If it's a distant acquaintance? I let it lie.
And here I have to laugh because one of the interesting situations I... lemme rephrase that... we-meaning-me-and-mine-but-not-you (damn English ambiguity) are faced with is teaching an Aspie, someone who is *far* more literal and analytical even than you, this sort of thing. And what's come to mind so far is heuristics... it's basically, come up with a set of guidelines for your milieu, along with what to do in the event of a failure event that doesn't include "panic" and how to re-incorporate that learning into the heuristics. In other words, the same way you get to Carnegie Hall: prrrrrrrrrractice.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 05:21 pm (UTC)2. Yes, when I'm in a situation where I do not want the drama or hassle of giving a truthful answer, and nothing good could possibly be gained thereby. Eg, in a brief interaction with a relative stranger. Honest disclosure and the attendant effort necessary to clearly communicate and negotiate the details is worthwhile for people I am going to spend regular time with, but not otherwise. But I am more likely to give no answer or a noncommittal answer than an outright lying answer, as it is actually difficult for me to actively lie as opposed to omitting some truth that is going to cause annoyance if I tell it.
1. It's situational, and also largely dependent on the individual's communication style. The way I handle it is that I clearly educate people who communicate like that so they have a chance to understand why their strategy is going to backfire with people who are "geek wired".
2. Again, it's situational and individual. Some people really want you to ask, some people will be OK with you asking, and some people really do not want you to ask. There is no way to tell which is which without asking. Again, I tend to take some time to educate anyone I'm likely to have repeated social contact with so they can pick their options.
3. No. People who can successfully read facial expressions, body language and social currents will be able to tell. If you have "geek wiring" and are on the aspie/autie spectrum, you do the best you can with the limited tools you have, but they are likely to fail. Refer back to the basic idea of pre-educating people you are regularly spending time with.
4. I don't know. My guess is that you're wired a lot like me, missing some of the basic brain circuits, but optimized intellectually to be able to compensate by analysis and clear communication of factual data. I wouldn't trade my own brain wiring for a "normal" set because I like what else it gives me, but the fact is that there are some handicaps and weaknesses that I need to work around with the strengths I do have. I use what I've got, which is the ability to analyze, communicate, negotiate and pre-educate the people I care enough to want to spend time with.
There is no question that you will be able to geek-hack some workarounds to these social situations with the abilities and the smarts you have. You will also be able to learn specific rules for specific situations and certainly for individuals, though variance is likely to break the flow chart, so you will need to collect a lot of data to cover all the if-then situations. You may even be able to make the hacks work well enough that most people will never know that they are hacks around parts of the CPU that are missing.
As to fundamentally changing your brain wiring to make you more socially perceptive and empathetic, I'd say that's probably unlikely. The parts that process those functions are broken or missing, and you can't get them at Radio Shack. So no, I'd say you can't fix the machine to make it "normal". But you probably *can* hack the machine so it performs the same functions, and a good enough hack will be invisible to the casual user.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 05:33 pm (UTC)2. I usually don't, unless I have reason to believe one is expected, I am dealing with a stranger, or I want to get out of talking with someone more than is necessary (usually if I dislike them or really don't feel like talking).
3. Occasionally and I don't really care too much. In most cases, there is no subtext and the social answer is simply part of the ritualized zero-content exchanges that society demands (such as the classic "How are you?" or similar when used by a near stranger who probably doesn't really want to know anyway). In the special case of using social answers as a tool to avoid unwanted conversation, there is a bit of a subtext, though I really don't much care if they understand it because with most people, it has the desired effect either way.
1. I think it is rarely safe to ignore subtext. It is too important to the way many people communicate to be ignored.
2. Sometimes.
3. In the case of polite interactions with someone you don't know very well, probing isn't a good idea. The better you know someone, the more acceptable it becomes. If it seems like they may be going out of there way to hint at something, probing is probably expected. Finally, I think anyone worth knowing well will at least make an effort to be more understanding than usual once you have explained your difficulties with reading people.
4. I think you can at least get a lot better at it. For most people, it is probably more an innate ability honed with practice than an entirely learned skill, so the best you can ever do might be to imitate it convincingly. Other than practice, there are two things I can think of that might help. The first is learning to recognize a few situations in which there probably isn't subtext and what subtext there might be can be ignored, such as those zero-content exchanges. A word of warning, though: this only seems to work well with people you don't know very well or aren't particularly close to. The other thing that might help is movies, oddly enough. In movies, the clues for these subtexts are often a bit exaggerated to make sure the audience gets it, so watching for subtexts in movies might be good practice.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 05:45 pm (UTC)So yes, I give social answers; it's sort of a basic expectation of conversation. I have learned over the years in my dealings with nerds, fen, aspies, etc. to recognize when I'm talking to someone who doesn't "get" conversation and to try to make things clearer to them a bit, but the default behaviour is to give social answers.
I expect most people to recognize whether or not we're having a deep, intimate conversation or not and to weigh what I say accordingly. There's not a secret message. Some people who know me very well can read more in to my tone of voice and phrasing than others, but usually with people who know me that well, I would give a more explicit answer anyway.
======
I think it's safe to ignore the subtext, if any, in most cases, but a huge exception is with people you are very close to. There's an expectation that your intimates will have more insight in to how you say things. If this is something you just can't do, a language you just don't speak, your strategy of probing for more information sounds very, very important. It gets you the information you need to proceed, but it also tells that person that you don't get it, and maybe it will help them communicate more effectively with you in the future, if it's clear again and again that you are not picking up on subtle.
It's acceptable to probe for details with people you are very close to. In casual conversation it would be a bit weird and often inappropriate - and if you're not confident enough in your skill at figuring out when you've been appropriate, just leave the social answers where they are and take what people say at face value - if they say they're OK, they're OK - or at least, if they're not OK, now is not the time. You might miss some things, it's true. With people you know better and who know you better, sure, that secondary questioning is a good idea. And close friends who are skilled conversationalists do it too, not just geeks trying to get a clue. If you practice that on your close, close friends, you may find you get better at guessing at what's going on with people you aren't as close to.
It's a bit situational from moment to moment, but I think your relationship to the person you're talking to is more important than the situation - are they a very close friend? If this is unacceptable and I've guessed wrong, will they forgive me and move on?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 04:20 am (UTC)Part of the problem is that some people are so used to looking for subtext that they find it when it isn't there; so used to reading people that they trust their (incorrect) reading of me more than my words.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 05:48 pm (UTC)Can a 61 year old geek learn this? Yes! There are books about reading people (and that's all we're talking about here) I've found that sometimes asking people I know and trust will tell me what they are thinking when I'm stumped. It's a lot of work, but it's well worth it. It's especially useful in the work place, in social situations it's still important, but it's a better place to pick up hints and tips by talking to people.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 06:18 pm (UTC)2. Sure.
3. Usually? Probably not, or not an important one.
A point that may be useful is that subtext is not always, and perhaps not usually, consciously intended. People who intentionally use this channel for high-bandwidth communication are the advanced class.
An interlude between answers:
Lara and I have a shorthand for talking about this kind of issue: we refer to "boy talk" and "girl talk". Lara originated the terminology when I asked her to unpack the contents of a conversation with her mother. I could tell, or at least suspect, that there were levels I was missing; Lara could decode, at least to some extent. This also gives us a means of avoiding the classic failed conversation: "you said X"/ "no, I said Y" / "no you didn't; you said X". Now we can shorthand to "what you said interprets as X" and the successful communication "no, I _meant_ Y".
Second Half:
1. Unfortunately, you can't decide to ignore it until you've figured it out. In a work context, I'd be particularly on guard whenever people are talking about administrative or management issues -- this is the channel that gets used when there's stuff that can't be said out loud.
2. It depends -- the more trusted your conversation partner is, the more likely they'll work with you. They may still get frustrated, but communications problems are inherently frustrating.
3. What
4. Yes. It's a language skill; it's just a largely somatic language. As with physical and language skills, you learn by a little bit of reading and cogitating, and by speaking and listening to the language. A translator will help, as well as somebody to practice with who can exaggerate the cues. Cultivate the actors among your acquaintance -- I'll bet at least one or two of them could be interested in the project. At all accounts, you have a set of potential helpers every Wednesday. Remember that you have to practice sending, as well as receiving.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 06:19 pm (UTC)With people I do care about or know or want to know better, I'll generally be quite open and honest and what you see is what you get, but there is a lot of conditioning there from my background that makes it very hard for me in conflicted situations to really say what I mean or feel, to be open about my wants and needs. I do believe most women in our society are conditioned not to ask for what they need or want, and I am guilty of that. Just ask Paul; I know I have driven him crazy at times because I haven't been able to just come out and articulate what I really want; it's as if there's a block there. Still working on that one, and fortunately Paul is a patient fellow.
On another note, I have a friend with a young son who has Asberger's; she said it was as if they'd been given a computer with some very sophisticated software already installed and running but the basic system software was missing. And they couldn't just upload it all at once, it had to be put in line by line. ;)
They've been working with him pretty intensively (he's 4 now) on social cues and how to know what to do under various social circumstances. He approaches it all very analytically, asking them how he's supposed to know what to say or do in various situations, and he listens carefully, asks why on some things, and files it away in his brain. And interestingly, he's really come a long way in his social abilities over the last year, so perhaps if it's caught early and the kids are trained in what to look for and how to react, they can teach themselves how to become more socially adept. I'd expect that anyone of any age could learn but it would take concerted effort and some of that basic line by line coding...
First set
Date: 2008-10-21 06:37 pm (UTC)2) Yes, as noted above.
3) Yes and no. There may be a subtext, but I do not expect the listener to pursue it. If a stranger or very casual acquaintance picks up on something I didn't school out of my tone, I may be a little uncomfortable with it, but I won't be upset with them for being observant! Neither will I be at all unhappy if they don't: I chose my words, and they said what I wanted to communicate. If the listener takes me up on that, and I don't like it, that is entirely my problem. If I want someone to follow up, I will use a leading statement such as "I've been better" or "Not that great, but I'll survive" or whatever - something that lets them not follow up if they don't want to, but that makes it a little clearer that no, I'm not hunky-dory-fine.
(Conversely, if life is going good, my response may be "Okay" or "Pretty good" or even "Great" - and I'm more likely to provide more info if I want to have a conversation about it, and shorter answers otherwise. Again, no harm and no foul if someone follows up on the short answers.)
Second set
Date: 2008-10-21 06:37 pm (UTC)2) IMX, yes, although be prepared to accept (assuming it's polite) a response like, "I'd really rather not talk about it." (Anyone who uses that and still expects you to probe is being amazingly passive-aggressive, in my opinion. Although you can safely respond to it with "Okay; if you do want to talk about it at some point, I'm here." or some variation thereof. That's a safe response most times, if you are dealing with someone with a past history of saying they don't want to talk about it, then getting annoyed at you if you don't talk about it.)
3) It is more likely to be acceptable and appropriate the closer your relationship with the person. With a stranger, it's usually best to let it go. With a close friend, at least some hint of being willing to listen, if they've given you cues that they might need it, is appropriate. When in doubt, phrase it as an "If you want to talk...." and let it go at that; it leaves control in their court. While a few people and personality types will get twitchy about that, most will be grateful or at least handle it well because it leaves them in control and thus removes any chance of feeling pressured to say more than they wanted to, but it also lets them know you're available if they do want to talk (thus removing the isolation factor of not seeming to care about whatever-it-is).
4) Probably, and you'll probably never get it perfect. I'm a bit of a geek but also very much a people person and very much a neurotypical. I don't get it right all the time, even though I can break down how I handle it. Some of it depends on the personality (and possibly neuroses and current mood) of the person you're talking to. Some of it may depend on who is around you (I have had a friend blow my off as if I were a stranger because someone nearby was someone she absolutely did not want to have that conversation in front of - and I had no knowledge of that).
Don't hold yourself to the expectation that you'll get it perfect, though, and you can probably improve it, especially with the people you know best (and aren't those the ones it's most important to get it right with, as far as comfort levels?).
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 07:27 pm (UTC)1 - shorthand, but I think a lot more people have problems with it than you might think.
2 - Yes I do.
3 - Sometimes there is and yes sometimes I do expect understanding but I'm pretty good, and getting even better, at breaking it down to the other person myself when I'm irritated. In other words I realize that some of the problem is on each side.
Second set:
1 - Sadly I can only give you the answer "it depends". I don't think by definition ignoring subtext is wrong or bad. I think sometimes people use it when they don't want to deal. So based on particular person and particular issue it might make sense to have either code words or at least a discussion that this is an issue.
2 - Arrrgghhh. Again, it depends on person and issue with that particular person. This is really unfair isn't it.
3 - Sort of. I've made mistakes many, many times in my life. I've learned that not only is everybody different, but many of them think they act in ways that are universal. I kind of try to aim for what I've learned often works but am ready to back track and figure out what went wrong. I think, if you aren't good at picking up on these ques that something has gone very wrong, a discussion on the possibility of not noticing but willingness to adapt would be helpful. I'm assuming we're talking friends here, since this discussion would add it's own awkwardness to strangers :).
4 - I think you can but I'd take it slowly. At first deal with compromises, discussion and memory (remembering "this happened last time we talked about this").
I really think that most people don't have intuitive conversation and interactions down as pat as they claim. To make my point, I have often been accused of expecting too much when I want people to understand subtext so my theory is that most of us have one issue or the other (or some other, or both!) and we can all work at communicating better. So take it slowly and most people will appreciate the effort.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 04:27 am (UTC)3. I'm slowly getting better at noticing that a discussion has gone off the rails, and sometimes even figuring out why. Usually a day or two later, unfortunately...
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 07:37 pm (UTC)2. Yes.
3. No subtext that I'm aware of.
1. I work on the theory that unless the subtext is so blatently obvious it's practically text, I'm intended to ignore it or it would have been text.
2 & 3. I figure that probing escalates with the depth of relationship - a friend might get "Are you sure you're fine, because you don't sound fine." but I'd let it go if they said something like, "I'm just tired." A close friend, might get a "Anything I can do?" added on. The beloved would get, "Sweetie, something's clearly the matter. What is it?"
4. I'd say yes, just because I figure people can learn anything if they really want to, the only issue is time. Somethings take longer than others. How, however, I have no idea.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 08:57 pm (UTC)In some instances, I could. Depends on the question, usually. Otherwise, it is short hand.
Yes. I try not to, but there are moments where I need to end the conversation quickly and move rapidly to something else, such as call waiting.
Again, it depends on what circumstances I give the answer. Off to class I will give such an answer with th subtext "I will explain later" and either I will remember to tell them or they will remind me I was supposed to explain it.
No. In the off chance it could cause problems if you weren't listening, ignoring it won't help.
I believe it is who you are talking to and what the person is doing when you receive this shorthand answer. When I do it in the house, I try to always explain and apologize for cutting you off. If you're cut off by
practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-21 09:13 pm (UTC)>> 1. Do you consider a "social answer" a form of dishonesty (i.e., a lie), or a convenient shorthand based on a social convention that certain socially-incompetent geeks like me never learned to understand?
Not at the casual level. Politenesses, social etiquette, etc. is like lubrication when people bounce off each other. The expected answer to "How are you doing?" is "Fine, thanks, how are you?"
Answering a pro forma question with a "real" answer burdens the recipient with too much information. They aren't really asking, so don't really answer.
I think that you overstate your own social incompetence in comparison with many people in the world. More are like you than like the social butterflies.
>> 2. Do you give "social answers" yourself?
Often in connection with my employment. (I am expected to not merely teach but model appropriate behavior at work or work-like settings.) Sometimes in social settings. Rarely with friends or people I trust, and even then, the subtext is obvious. ("I'm fine" with blood running down my leg, for example.)
>> 3. If so, is there usually a subtext, and do you expect the listener to understand it?
Always. Otherwise a social answer would be inappropriate to give, and thus a lie of one degree or another. I will lie when my ethics require that I do so, to avoid a greater evil. ("Got any change, bub?" "No, sorry" where the more honest answer "Yes, but I won't give you any" would provoke a violent confrontation.) I will NEVER 'accidentally' lie, or tell a falsehood for my own convenience. Lying is inherently immoral.
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-21 09:13 pm (UTC)>> 1. Is it usually safe to ignore the subtext, or is it usually something very important that will cause problems if I miss it?
It is never 'safe' to avoid the subtext. For example, if someone were to invite me over to dinner with less than complete enthusiasm, THE EXPECTED ANSWER IS NO. It is often socially appropriate to politely but with regret decline an offer once then twice, and only accept on the third round.
Host: "John, can't you stay for dinner? We've a lovely lasagna tonight."
Guest: "Thanks for the offer, but I should be getting home eventually."
H: "I've got it heating in the oven right now, it'll be ready in twenty minutes. Are you sure you can't stay?"
G: "I wouldn't want to put you to any trouble."
H: "No trouble at all! Doug and I are always happy to have you over."
G: "In that case, you talked me into it."
Note that the voice tone is critical, as is the choice of words.
Host: "John, we're serving dinner soon. I don't suppose you can stay?
Guest: "Thanks for the offer, but I should be getting home eventually."
H: "It's been a nice chat. We must get together next week. Will you be free Tuesday?"
Notice that the guest's first answer is still the same. This gives the host the opportunity to show whether the offer is sincere or made out of social expectation.
This avoids the awkwardness for the host of having to kick someone out so you can eat, while not being stuck with an unwanted dinner guest. Conversely, this protects the guest from insult direct or indirect, or being someplace they are not clearly welcomed.
>> 2. Is it socially acceptable to probe for further details?
Depends on the social setting. The thing to do is to establish with certain trustworthy friends and acquaintances a form of 'permission to ask.' This allows you trial and error to avoid positive feedback loops of the type that will happen with 'normal' people who don't know what you're doing.
Most social settings in which social answers are given, have too low a bandwidth to support meta-conversations with people who aren't otherwise motivated to educate the participants.
Asking for details in the casual sense ("What vegetables are you having?") can look petty, finicky or invasive. Volunteering critical needs is more effective, i.e. "I'm allergic to peanuts" but should best be done in later stages where it's clear that it's going to matter.
>> 3. If that's situational, is there any way to tell when it's acceptable?
In the sense of meta-communication, the only answer is prior negotiation, particularly with people who are adept at several communications styles and are willing to invest the effort.
With family and close friends, fussing about details is perfectly OK, depending on what limits have been set -- and they'll tell you if you're being too pedantic, etc.
>> 4. Can a 61-year-old geek learn this arcane skill, and if so, how?
Absolutely you can. There are certain logical rules, which unfortunately are fraught with exceptions. What is needed most is people who are able to explain what is going on, un-selfconsciously, as if they were explaining to a child, at an adult level without judging or rancor.
Practice, practice, practice!
There is also a huge difference between "normal politeness" or mainstream etiquette, which you can read about in business books . . . and what is considered fannish etiquette. They are NOT interchangeable, not even as much as two computer languages (which at least share underlying logical structures).
One of the differences is captured aptly in several essays on "Geek Social Fallacies."
Another form, more subtle, is a form of question and answer communication where both sides are testing for the 'correct' (i.e. negotiated) answer.
Q: "What is two plus two?" A: "Four." (subtext= rudeness by direct question)
Q: "What is greater than two?" A: "Five or six are greater than two." Q: "Can we meet somewhere around three or four." A: "The higher of the two, perhaps?" [subtext = agreement on four is within reach]
Q: "What is greater than two?" A: "Four, or nothing." (subtext = rudeness by direct answer/ultimatum)
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-21 11:42 pm (UTC)People from groups/areas which do not practice that will likely end up getting annoyed at being repeatedly asked/pressured about something which they have already refused. This is just a note from someone who has had to function under both sets of rules. Presenting it as a universal social rule is likely to be harmful for where he is in California where it is not nearly so common. Or at least is not common in the areas of California in which I've lived.
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-22 12:01 am (UTC)I was trying to capture the flavor of the interaction, the subtle give and take. I did not intend to present these as if they were solid rules.
You are correct that some people, especially from other cultures, become frustrated with the repeated asking. This may also be a generation issue; older people tend to do it a lot more, misinterpreting a politely intended refusal for a pro forma one.
A host should not press after a firm refusal, "You know, I'm really sorry, I'd love to, but I've got to catch a plane at 7 PM."
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-22 02:00 pm (UTC)Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-21 11:51 pm (UTC)OK, how in flaming hell is a person like me, who is totally deaf to subtext, supposed to deal with this?
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-22 12:44 am (UTC)The first problem to determine is whether the encounter in question is a "social situation" or something else. Going back and reading your earlier post about your interactions within your family in the car, I can see some non-trivial issues there. It is common for couples especially to have a protocol worked out to postpone an issue or discussion for later (but before going to bed that night), and work together on the present problem in the meantime. It is neither my place nor my intention to get involved in your dealings with family members, friends, intimates, etc. Many if not most families make up their own rules for such things, and adhering to the different set is one sign that it's family time, private, etc.
Social answers are only for use in social situations. Whether or not it's a social situation depends on a number of variables: are these people I know? Will I see them tomorrow, or ever? Am I just being me or am I working? Is this a routine or out of the ordinary interaction? Is our interaction occurring because of outside influences which dictate how we are to interact?
Limiting the discussion to people who are "the common public," there is always an implied subtext in any situation where people casually interact.
If I am riding public transport and bump into someone, I'm expected to say "Excuse me" or equivalent with matching body language, and they are expected to do or say something to acknowledge (wave a hand, mutter 'That's OK' or even 'Hmmph.') If I fail to apologize, or they fail to acknowledge, awkwardness results. I may not feel like saying, "Excuse me," but it's a social obligation, and not to do so is rude at best, potentially even provocative towards a fight.
How I say it, however, could completely negate the words used. Only 7% of the communication is the words and phrases used. Over 40% is the voice tone, and over 50% is the body language of the person speaking. If someone is only listening to the words, that's 90% of the communication being lost.
I'm reluctant to keep using the phrase "subtext" and I'm thinking instead a better way to talk about it might be "context."
If I'm giving a social answer at all, it's because I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the shared context of the interaction carries most of the information required. I walk through the door, the receptionist says "Good morning, how are you doing today?" I say, "Doing OK, how are you?" back, as if either of us were listening (we aren't). I may have had a horrible morning, and I know the receptionist has (I know where she works) but both of us are going to smile and bravely pretend.
If I walk in covered in blood (yes, it happened) it's no longer an ordinary social situation and a social lie isn't OK anymore. A shocked gasp and exclamation "What happened?" is answered with "I'm not hurt, I'll explain in a minute, could I have someone open the door to the men's restroom for me?"
It occurs to me that you could do well to stick with your current position that you don't choose to use social answers. This requires more mindfulness and thoughtfulness, but it rewards the other person with personal and sincere attention, if more than they expected / had a right to / wanted.
Understanding social answers is another issue, and a thornier one. I don't know of any steadfast rules for decoding what are essentially polite lies, except that a weak "Yes" is in fact a strong "No," and that defaulting in the "No" direction (least burdensome to a host, most thoughtful for a guest, etc.) seems most prudent.
I'm reading both your posts and the comments of others with great interest and appreciation. Thanks to all.
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-22 04:35 am (UTC)If you're right, and I'm missing 50% of all human communication, then I'm simply screwed, aren't I?
I'm not offended. I am upset, because, again, if you're right I'm screwed.
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-22 06:56 pm (UTC)Many people can learn to read other people's body language. It's a learned skill and can be quite difficult, because it varies so much especially between cultures. Sometimes it requires learning by rote, for example I teach my employees the classic "fight precursors" which broadcast the potential for violence. Other times it means investing considerable attention in a person's particular body language unique to them, which can be even more difficult if one is easily distracted.
Believe it or not, watching movies with lots of personal interactions can be helpful in this form of learning to 'read.'
Animals also have strong body language as well -- as it's the only channel household pets have, it may be the only clue to the pet's needs. (Cats can get downright cranky when the stoopid hooman just Doesn't Get It.)
Controlling one's own body language is more difficult. This is one of the primary skills in acting and drama. From hand gestures to posture. As an aside, the reason why many people find it easier to lie on the phone is because the body language channel is muted.
When a salesperson, especially a used car salesperson, is trying hard to make a sale, the target often feels "off" or "wrong" because the person is transmitting so comparatively loudly on the body language channel. An advanced technique more often used by sophisticated salespeople is called mirroring, itself derived from neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).
Voice tone is a big chunk of communication -- this is where people are most likely to mistake your meaning. This can be as simple as lifting the tone at the end to signify a question, or the difference between 'firm' and 'hesitant' based on pacing.
I don't think you're screwed. What concerns me is the likelihood of a gap between what you can learn to spot or transmit (which is probably quite a lot), and any missing wiring that would limit your potential.
Re: practice practice practice
Date: 2008-10-23 12:38 am (UTC)Other emotional cues are probably there in my voice, but I'm not aware of them and have no idea how close to normal they are.
I really have no idea how to work on that.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 11:17 pm (UTC)2) Sometimes. It really depends.
3) Often there is a subtext if I am giving a social answer, that said, it is not always an intentional subtext and I do not usually expect (or even want) the listener to understand it. (Okay, when the subtext is "GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY, You annoy me!!" then I'd kind of like the listener to stop bugging me, but I don't actually /expect/ them to. For the record, that's not ever the subtext with you. That is the subtext with some of the passive-aggressive, overly-nosy, whiny, stupid, prying busybodies I run into other places. Also, sometimes, close to the subtext with, say, my ex-fiance or other people who are no longer my friends whom I still run into occasionally.)
1a) Mmmm, /usually/, yes, unless you spend a lot of time around people who communicate constantly in subtext and expect you to understand it. That said, when it /is/ important, it's usually REALLY important.
2a) I think it is acceptable to /ask/ whether they want you to probe for further details. A lot of the time the subtext is 'I don't want to talk about this right now.' There may be variations on that theme, but that is probably the most frequent subtext. (The complication being that I'd say one of the other most common subtexts - intentional or otherwise - is 'I really want to talk about this, but I'm not sure you actually want to know.') This is why I would say that rather than asking direct questions about the subject, it's better to first ask the question of /whether they actually want to talk about it/. Most people, if asked that question as a follow up to the other will answer honestly, or at least as close to honestly as can be expected. /And/ if they don't answer honestly, then it really is not your fault for missing that they wanted to talk about it.
3a) The times it is least acceptable to pry are a) big social occasions, particularly happy ones, b) right before the person you're talking to has to do something requiring focus, composure, energy, vocal control, and/or 'being on', c) large gatherings of people, particularly ones on whom the person to whom you are talking hopes to make a favorable impression or with whom the person you are talking to needs to continue to have a working relationship, or d) anywhere the discussion might "cause a scene", though if the discussion is handled properly, hopefully that won't be an issue. But, since handling discussions properly often relies on subtext and social context, that's... not necessarily so helpful.
4a) Maybe. I'm not sure. I'm more likely to have the problem of extra false signals, which sometimes leads to my ignoring real signals because I assume that they're false. I think some level of it /can/ be learned, but it's difficult when you don't process the information in the same way, and it can take more concentration and focus than for a lot of people who handle it on an instinctual level.
It's like singing - some people have a natural talent for it and can just do it beautifully without working on it, and if they do work on it, they can be phenomenal, most people can do it at least somewhat naturally (and fairly well if they work at it), some people have to work to get to the 'okay' level, and some people, even with hard work, will just always be sub-par. Now... those people who will always be sub-par may find other ways to make music, or may go into rap, or may be happy just listening, or may decide that they hate music and try to ignore it all.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 11:17 pm (UTC)(continued from previous comment.)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:19 am (UTC)1. no, it is a social pattern we fall into that isn't really meaningful. I liken it to a ceremony/ritual that lost true meaning long long ago
2. yes, if the situation fits. i.e. if I think the other person isn't truly interested and is only going through the motions
3. there can be subtext, but not always
set B
1. no, ignorning subtext leads to hurt feelings.
2. yes, if you can learn to do it nicely - not bluntly - saying you care and only want more info if the other person is comfortable
3. n/a
4. I firmly believe so. Try the old book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for tips on interacting with others. It might not help you see the subtext w/out help, but can teach you how to ask in a socially acceptable way.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:13 pm (UTC)I don't do subtext either.
Date: 2008-10-22 03:55 am (UTC)I give social answers, but usually only when I do not want to talk.
"Fine" instead of "I have a splitting headache and a deadline..."
I do not do subtext unless it is mutually agreed on and understood
or unless I am being deliberately unkind; as in, to hecklers.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 05:03 am (UTC)1. Shorthand. Slightly dishonest but benign shorthand.
2. Yes, to strangers, co-workers, and most of my relatives. Close friends and immediate family almost never get the "social answer", a fact they may view with mixed emotions. A third category, people I like but don't know well, may get an initial "social answer" but it can be followed up with a more frank response if I perceive them as receptive.
3. Usually a subtext? No. Sometimes? Yes. And while I may hope that they might understand it or at least detect its presence, I have no such expectation. The subtext is really my problem, not theirs.
Second set of questions:
1. That depends on so many variables, I'm tempted to answer "Both".
2. Yes, but caution is the key because it can be situational and you have to take your cues from how the other person is reacting. It's usually going to be pretty obvious when someone doesn't want to reveal the nature of the subtext or merely doesn't want to discuss it then and there. On the other side of the equation, just the indication of concern may be all the reassurance the other person needs to start telling you what's really going on with them. Still, it's a delicate matter and one needs to be careful in approaching it.
3. See reply to 2.
4. Yes, I think so. Mostly by doing exactly what you're doing here - asking questions, collecting information, seeing what fits together and what doesn't, and then figuring out what parts of that information can be applied to the particular way your brain is wired. It may take some trial and error to get there, but whether it's hacking that's required or hairpins and duct tape, most of us are works in progress.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:41 pm (UTC)I try to be a little more informative, when I have time, just to indicate that there _is_ more if they want to follow up. "Pretty good" or "not so good" are reliable indications of the direction the follow-up is likely to take.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 03:24 pm (UTC)Whether it's mandatory depends on the issue and the speaker (which is no help, I know). =
2) Sometimes. The better you know someone, the more appropriate it is, but it's another "it depends" problem.
3) Well, practice is a start, but some rules of thumb
- think about why the information is not verbalized. If someone's just shortening something they want you to know, or has given you a "do you really want to know" answer, then no problem.
If they gave you a non verbal answer because they aren't comfortable saying whatever it was out loud... you're going to have to work out why they might be uncomfortable. Keep track of what a person's usual answer pattern is to social questions and note that a strong variation is probably (but not always) a signal.
- If you do follow up,
- with geeky people, it's often (but not always) safe to just explain your problem, but remember that we can get frustrated articulating something that's fundamentally not verbal
- don't start at all if there isn't time or a reasonably private context in which to discuss things
- back off quickly if they seem to get more tense
- be extra careful about perceived or real power imbalances in your relationship with the speaker. An imbalance in either direction makes the questioning more threatening. [Which is what makes things extra hard at work.]
- avoid poking directly at the problem, especially repeating the original question too closely - this can be seen as a challenge/threat. Instead, come back tot he subject a little later, and possibly after providing some socially appropriate bit of personal information, ask questions just next to the topic of interest.
- if you do need to ask directly, give the speaker an easy way to bail - either by asking a two parter with on half on a neutral subject, or even by somethign like "or shouldn't I ask?"
- keep your voice and body relaxed and open
- remember that the further apart you are culturally, the harder this is going to be.
4) Sure. I've coached an Asperger's co-worker, and I've seen friends learn basic social clue in their sixties. I don't guarantee you'll get perfect fluency (but many of us do ok with a mere working knowledge).
- Collect friends (or hire professionals) who are willing to explicitly practice with you. [Feel free to ask V or myself whatever you like when you see us. We're used to it. If I don't want to answer, I'll tell you.]
- Ask them to explain exchanges (sometiems it's easiest to start with casual exchanges with a third party which you observed - taking some of the personal strain out of the question).
- See if they agree with your parsing of an exchange
- Try using 'social' language and seeing if your partners read what you intended.
- Keep it to very short sessions as it is exhausting.
- Watch movies and/or take acting classes. See how the actors convey unspoken content. [The Big Sleep, Casablanca, To Have and Have Not, or may of the recent Austen flick do a LOT of non-verbal cueing.]
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 05:56 pm (UTC)Even given that I might notice, figuring out why the information isn't verbalized is hard for me -- I don't think like normal people, and often guess wrong.
4) There are professionals? What are they called? (Not that I could afford professional help, unless Kaiser offers classes.) I wouldn't know how to go about practicing; I think it would require a close friend with expertise I don't even know how to ask about.
The older I get, the fewer movies I watch; Austen is out of the question. I'm familiar with Casablanca and we have a copy; that might be a possibility.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 05:03 am (UTC)The pros come under a number of names since it's a newish field. Magic words include "pragmatic language therapist" or a "social language therapist" - though whether you can find and afford their services without convincing Kaiser that you have a diagnosable disorder I don't know.