How come this is hard for me?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't tend to go off on tangents, but I do often have problems explaining things. I never know how much or how little detail to give, and there are often parts of the story that I'm unsure of, so I feel awkward. I tend to give a really long, detailed description, or conversely, a really short, vague description.

I've learned to not do it because I know not everyone cares about every detail and if they want detail, they will ask questions just like I do. If I am too vague, people will just ask for more information.

Too right! Television interviewers, at least in this country, seem to be trained to keep nodding while their subject is speaking. I've always thought that, if I were the interviewee in such a situation, I would at some point shout "Stop that ****** nodding!! !"

Reading people is also challenging for me because I'm blind, and there is no way I can even begin to see your facial expression. I'm always tempted to tell people, "Don't give me hints. You need to use that thing God gave you called a voice." That's one of the things I would love to be able to say out loud sometimes, but of course I don't.

I actually nod and go "hmm" a lot when listening to someone. It's a way to show I'm listening, especially because I often don't have anything to say.

I can't see the nodding, but usually I've learned that when people go, "Mmhmm," it means they're usually in their own world. I used to try to talk to my gramma when she was reading, and she would go, "Mmhmm." I would realize she wasn't quite with me, so I'd say something like, "I'm the worst piano player in the world." Then we would crack up when she finally realized what I had said. Sorta like that movie K-PAX.

Have you ever timed your stories? My husband can talk minimum of 20 mins to a max of 1 hour without any lull in the conversation or the other person getting a word in edge wise. He can get severe mouth diarrhea.

That morphs into a lecture, and people tune out from active listening around the 15 minute mark.

My husband HAS to give excruciating detail. He can't help it. The problem is he has lost friendships over his montone, over detailed monologs. It isn't just the length, it's the tone of voice (people feel he's belittling them) details (boring), tangents (is there an off buttom?), and finally they just walk away or abruptly end him talking.

Hubby is also a terrible active listener, since he scripts his responses in his head. He doesn't really hear what the other person is saying. That's all raw anxiety.

So my husband doesn't have conversations, it's mostly infomation dumps. When you are just dumping information on a person, unless it is REALLY entertaining, people will tune out.

I'm talking about small talk and casual conversation, not in a work place environment where work information is being exchanged.

Jay told me once, he wished humans didn't have to talk. It's too damn hard.

I just found out that you wouldn't see them nod - it seems they film those bits later, for the rather mundane purpose of disguising an edit. Explanation is given 1 minute into this video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... 67&news=1#

I always thought they did it to get the NTs excited somehow.


Just when I thought I understood nods and "Mmhmms" as a genuine "message understood" signal, you rightly point out that much of the time it's just a placebo, they've zoned out but they don't want to hurt your feelings by admitting it. I strongly disapprove of that, but I do it a lot myself.

I try hard not to - after all, how can anybody communicate if the listeners are only pretending to listen? What I try to do is to say things back to the speaker that prove I was listening, though in practice my brain zones out so often that I can't, so then I like to ask them to say it again before things have got too bad, but that seems to try people's patience, so I often pretend, and hope to god they never find out. It's reassuring to know that it's normal. I like to think that those "higher" techniques I aspire to are ultimately far superior. In "Loving Mr. Spock," the NT author says (words to the effect) that getting the attention of an Aspie is hard, but when you do get it, it's tons better than NT attention.

Yes, ideally you would think that if people needed more information to fully understand something that they would simply ask you for it, but in reality that rarely happens because most NTs have no interest in simple information transfer. They have other agendas.

I think this is a good example of showing the alternate agendas of most NTs.
In a conversational exchange their agenda may be the expectation that the other person make them feel good about themselves, such as a validation of their hierarchal position, an expectation to be entertained by a 'story", or an expectation to gain or exert some type of control.

Being such, it would be rare or difficult for an NT to simply enjoy absorbing raw information, as if someone was reading to them from a technical manual. This wouldn't likely provide any sort of chemical reward for them in their brains, and may be quickly rejected.

If what I'm saying here isn't true, and they simply found the information being given to be uninteresting to them, then wouldn't it be quite easy for them to request a change of subject?
However, a change of subject would still not meet the requirements of the alternate agendas that I pointed out.

This is a great example of exerting control via expectations.

What might be the nature of the expectations and of the control, in this example?

It's a feedback system where signals are read and responded to, like two people dancing together.

The expectation is the logic that requires certain observations to result in certain responses.
I highlighted "are supposed to" because that is the logic instruction representing "expectation".

"turn slightly away" is an example of producing something observable so that it will generate (provoke) a certain response.
That is the control.

Both "requirements" and "provoking" are forms of control.


If the intent were merely to transfer information accurately, then these things would not be necessary.

But if you do not have vision, and they don't just come out and say it, then where does that leave you?

Yes!
It was particularly in interviews I was thinking of actually.
I remember once in particular where the interviewer nodded continuously throughout the interview, it must have been close to once per sentence. Seriously. I wasn't even able to follow what the interviewee said, I was so distracted and a little annoyed by the reporter.