Why...when it comes to social chit chat...

Post Reply New Topic

As Moondust explained in a subsequent post, the chit-chat gives a venue that allows the people to read each other's body language and decide whether or not to allow the person past their defenses for more meaningful conversation. It is not enough to signal friendliness. There must also be time to see if this friendliness is genuine or faked (via body language) and to decide how much to allow the other person in. The chit-chat does end and give way to more meaningful conversation but only between people who have established that they can let down their guard and speak frankly and meaningfully to each other. This is unlikely to happen in a public conversation that can be heard by anyone passing by. It is far more private. It also means deciding which elements of the self to show to which people, which is decided by the undercurrents in the chit-chat. It is cautiousness, as Moondust said.

The exception is when something really serious/terrible/overwhelming has happened. The terrible event blows past the usual need to keep others at a distance until they have been safely vetted. People are so overwhelmed and so in need of urgent connection that the usual chit-chat is dropped completely in favor of processing the event verbally with each other. Examples of bombings and 9/11 have been discussed.

Oh yes. Very much so. I have read the same (maybe in the same book, whatever it was). A common thing was (in some places still is) to talk about increasingly distant relations in the hopes of finding a person in common "so they had a reason not to kill each other". It's a search for hard evidence of common ground.

Haven't read the whole thread because the triple-posting bug is irritating, so sorry if I repeat something that's already been said -

I agree, it is a double standard, the same double standard there is about pretty much everything with regard to us. The type of talk they prefer is fine while what we prefer is wrong; their mannerisms are fine, it is fine if they can't put themselves in our place and empathize with us, the things they enjoy are healthy, while our mannerisms are pathological, if we don't understand them we lack empathy entirely, and the things we enjoy are unhealthy obsessions.
That's the case with pretty much everything, but I do have some hope it will get at least a bit better with time. I have to compare the prejudice gay people face today (which is still bad) with what I remember in the 80's - as the general public becomes more familiar with us and our point of view I expect a slow improvement (and also a more vocal backlash, unfortunately).

When it comes to small talk, though, I don't think NT's are exactly interested in it - it doesn't really compare to us talking about our special interests - but rather that it makes them feel more comfortable. You might even say it is a stim...

That...is pretty much it.

I don't think it's right/wrong so much as two things that are incompatible. NTs need small talk in order to decide what level of trust to grant another person and to connect and build rapport. Aspies need to not do small talk as it is too draining. As the general public becomes more familiar with this need, there will be a slow improvement (in those willing to reach across the aisle) in not requiring Aspies to do small talk. But this comes with the price of also not being let in emotionally since no rapport will be established. As far as I can tell, many here are more than willing to pay that price and in fact don't want the connection as it would be tiring. But some do.

Jannisy, as long as it comes down to this. We all have differences of opinion. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil had major philosophical and political differences but at the end of the day guess what they did? They broke open the Scotch. Can we break open the scotch as well?

Well my wife and I have started a non-profit. We're trying to make it a success.

I would personally like to see offline Aspie charity groups, even if it's restoring model trains

Yes we can. Cheers. (pretend there is scotch in this emoticon's coffee mug)

Similar to the chit-chat tool, I come from a culture where gossipping is a tool too. After chit-chat, conversation will soon develop into gossip. I guess that for people coming from other cultures, it must be a disgusting scene, because they wouldn't understand the dynamics. We just look around, see who's not present, and dissect them. LOL It's a way of bonding (against the "enemy"). It doesn't mean anything against the person not present and no one will like them less after the session. Another stage in the bonding session is silly joking.

One could see that as a way to gain information, and to show one's status (ie, you have access to information). As I believe you pointed out before, we must never lose sight of such things.

Make yourself some "Special Interest" buttons or something that you can wear into social situations so that people know what to talk to you about instead of trying to make chit-chat. If nobody bites, then that means they can't talk to you because they don't share the interest. If you wouldn't want to talk about anything else anyway, then there is no loss, right?

I often would hole myself up in my apartment and only chat in chatrooms or focus on my hobbies/special interests. Then I would get upset because I felt so lonely. I now realize I have to BE a good friend in order to HAVE a good friend. That means compromise. That means listening to people talk about things that make you shrivel up inside and make you want to run away sometimes, just because you know that having a friend is important to you. If you don't care about friends, then you should be happy, right? There is nobody who is making you go out and do anything! So why all the complaining?

Please tell me you're exggerating to make a point.....

Technically you are correct and we do have a choice and choice is a tautology. One can choose not to choose. The thing is though how society is set up is this. By my understanding one has to make social connections in order to get and keep employment am I correct. One will have to do certain social things if he or she wants to keep a job am I correct?

One can choose not to do these things which means one chooses not to be in employment. Therefore one chooses not to work and therefore not to eat. Technically, we do have choices but the alternative to not being social especially in employment is negative.

Technically, one only has the choice between kodos and kang with regards to society. We have choices but none of them look that pretty.

Did I mention special interests? NO.
What, do you think I imagine life is a binary state which either involves chit chat or special interests?
I was talking exclusively about chit chat itself.
And because I expressed a general dislike of chit chat you extrapolate from that that I think families, relationships and charity are stupid shallow and selfish?
NO. I was talking about chit chat.
And I wasn't saying "I wish people would stop chit chat so I can talk endlessly about something".
By the way - I have a job, I have a daughter, I have a girlfriend and I give money to charity. That would appear to tick your boxes for what makes someone a wonderful person. But I don't crow about it.
"The problem related throughout this thread is that the chit chat just goes on and on." I said that too, but you chose not to quote it, even though it gives context to the rest of what you quoted. The point I was making is that chit chat seldom seems to move on to anything more meaningful. And before you say it - NO, I'M NOT EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO SPOUT FORTH ABOUT A SPECIAL INTEREST.
Just to recap - I was talking about chit chat.

Whoa, hold on a minute. Surely it's possible to move beyond chit chat without going as far as "frank and meaningful"? That seems like a jump from bland and meaningless to baring ones soul with nothing inbetween.