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

[brmj.livejournal.com]

1. Shorthand.

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.