Two sets of questions

[mdlbear]

Two 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.

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?
2. Do you give "social answers" yourself?
3. 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.

1. Is it usually safe to ignore the subtext, or is it usually something very important that will cause problems if I miss it?
2. Is it socially acceptable to probe for further details?
3. If that's situational, is there any way to tell when it's acceptable?
4. Can a 61-year-old geek learn this arcane skill, and if so, how?

I don't have answers for those, obviously.

Comments

[danceswthcobras.livejournal.com]

1. Yes. Neurotypicals drive me crazy with their posturing and pretending and expecting everyone else to be psychic. News flash: I'm not psychic, so say what you mean. If we talk a lot, I probably respect you enough to believe that you are not lying when you tell me things, ergo I will be taking your words at face value as a default setting. If you don't want me to believe it, don't say it.

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.