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

[ocelotn.livejournal.com]

1) People act based on what they feel/think more than what they say they feel/think, so knowing is useful.
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.]

[mdlbear]

I think the biggest hurdle for me is the first step under 3), and the unmentioned step before it: noticing that there's additional information in the first place.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Hearing that there's unsaid stuff is hard - like learning to hear French when you keep listening for consonants and the language is oriented around vowels. It doesn't help that you're watching not just variations in wording and vocal tone, but in posture, gaze, and timing all at once. Motives...

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.