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

[hsifyppah.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a lie or shorthand - the point isn't to trick or deceive and the point isn't to convey coded social information. The point is to conceal information that is polite to conceal. For most people, asking "How are you?" etc. is itself a social question, and the social answer that goes with it is like a matching dance move. Giving an honest, intimate answer is not appropriate in most situations in casual conversation. If you aren't asking the question to be polite or to lubricate the wheels of conversation but because you are genuinely curious, of course the social answer won't make sense to you. It's not that you're missing the code book more socially ept people have, I think. You're missing the signs that tell you when you're having a surface level conversation when it's expected and polite not to go too deep in to what's really going on - both when you are getting those surface answers from people and when you are sending a sign that you expect them, even though that's not what you're trying to signal.

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?

[mdlbear]

I'm getting a little better at figuring out when I can ask for clarification and how to go about it, but it still all too often leads to more problems. Even with Colleen. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

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.