Going Into Excessive Detail

Post Reply New Topic

So one thing about my writing that's been pointed out to me (and that I didn't realize until it was) is that I tend to focus on specifics to build up to the general. I told an acquaintance last night that I felt like I could only describe a forest by describing each tree individually.

What happens is I tend to use multiple specific examples to build a pattern that I can then more easily talk about, that contains the set of experiences or details in my mental model, and is sort of specific in itself. I can't really talk about my sensory sensitivities without describing specific situations (or specific types of situations) in which they are triggered. Or I can't really talk about the general idea that I have executive functioning issues without describing these issues in detail - but since I have, it's easier now for me to simply say "I have executive functioning issues."

What this tends to come down to is really long posts to describe a few things to establish a foundation I can then generalize from. I've been told that this makes my writing fairly clear and explicit, but I wonder if I'm overdoing it.

Someone else suggested to me that this writing style is related to hyperlexia and that people who write like this tend to be on the spectrum. This was an informal observation, obviously, and not a diagnostic statement.

Verbally, I find I can't really do this. I either start repeating myself or get so lost in the details I have to stop and "reset" my thoughts so I can figure out what I'm trying to say. If I've already written about something, it is easier for me to talk about it, sometimes - but at that point I am essentially quoting and paraphrasing myself, and quoting and paraphrasing things I've heard or read is how I often verbally communicate (and often in chat/instant messaging as well).

I guess I'm wondering if anyone else can relate to this.

Very interesting. I saw the word hyperlexian one time under someones name on this site. I thought it might of been a play on words. I didn't realize it was a condition. I don't know if you've looked it up, but if not here is info from Wiki:

I couldn't speak until I was four but was a voracious reader. The thing I find most interesting is that it is considered the opposite of dyslexia. I can read at a tremendous speed, and understand the words but have a much harder time with comprehension and verbal communication. I didn't realize that dyslexic people have greater comprehension even though they have problems with reading. I wonder if this explains why I can watch a movie but struggle to say more than a couple of sentences to someone if I try to tell the story of the movie?

This kind of thing had me questioning most of my life how I could read so fast and understand it while I was reading, but had so much trouble with verbal communication. I've also had a fear that if I quit talking I would lose the ability to do it. Particularly when I was young and after I got into my forties. I'm sure I bore everyone to death with details; the process you described in how your mind works and verbal communication works has provided insight for me. If you don't mind, how much of the excerpt from wiki, regarding hyperlexia applies to you?

----

Words: Forest (whole) vs Trees (parts). Left hemisphere = Trees (parts) vs Right hemisphere = Forest (whole). Sometimes loop thinking, circular thinking. Can be associated with a variety of possibilities including subtle brain injuries, sports concussions, some feel with some of the very subtle epilepsies like TLE/complex partial, NVLD/NLD, and so on. (Simplified/oversimplified).

I actually started speaking early - I could speak in complete sentences by 13 months, and I taught myself to read at age 3-4. When my mother describes how I spoke, a lot of it sounds like echolalia. I'd repeat things I read or heard (which...I still do that, only it sounds a lot more interesting ), or directly repeat what I was told.

My ability to read definitely exceeded my comprehension for some time, and I think I picked up on word meanings mostly by context of how they were used in books, rather than formally learning them. I was also categorized as gifted because of my IQ score in the first or second grade, as well as the ability to "read at a college level", even though my verbal vocabulary was well below that. I could use the words and pronounce many of them but I didn't know what they meant beyond context. Like I would read everything in reach - I remember getting and reading pamphlets on birth control and surgical sterility (one on vasectomies, one titled "Hysterectomy? And then what?") which described the procedures and what to expect. After reading these, I asked my pregnant first grade teacher if she had hot flashes. I didn't really know what hot flashes were, beyond that some women had them after a "hysterectomy" which I did not fully understand meant "you couldn't have babies anymore." It was several years later before I understood what all those words meant and thus what the procedures actually were.

And yes, I can read a book and understand what's in it, but I am terrible at putting it into words and explaining it verbally.

A lot of the wiki article applies to me, although I didn't have late speech (as I said above), which seems to be an expected thing. I have had a lot of issues with speech (which I've written about somewhere here) about not being able to put my ideas into the right words, or sometimes even not really being able to say what's on my mind and instead basically saying things or even agreeing to things that make me wish I hadn't opened my mouth. It's not consistently that hard but even at my best I tend to not be as communicative or explicit as I am in text.



Interesting.

. I'm not sure about any epilepsy or seizures or NVLD/NLD. I have taken a couple hits to the head while being hyper as a child, or being hit by other children, or accidentally hit. But I don't know if I ever experienced a concussion.

I can relate to the "hot flash" statement. It's kind of embarassing, but I remember writing a short play in the sixth grade and in the play I included the word "hot chick". I remembered the context from somewhere but did not fully understand what it meant and that it was not an appropriate thing to put in a sixth grade play; particularly in the early 70's. Maybe their is a relationship between Hyperlexia and naivity.

People had a difficult time understanding me and I got the teasing for it. We had a contest for writing a story about Christmas; the words I put on the page seemed to come from somewhere beyond me. I won the contest from a group of 60 people, and could hardly believe it.

I was a supervisor and manager for many years and had a horrible habit of repeating myself (which I later came to understand as echocalia). I really didn't mean to do it and often the unfortunate employee felt like I was insulting their intelligence.

When I greeting someone it wasn't hea or hi but hea, hea; it felt like I had to verify that I said it the first time by saying it again. I also found myself doing things like telling people "thank you" when I was providing the service instead of receiving a service.

I wonder which is harder to deal with dyslexia or hyperlexia. I've known some people with dyslexia that were great communicators; I would have never known they had a learning disability if they didn't tell me.

I think there is a relationship between hyperlexia and social difficulties, definitely. It's mentioned in multiple articles I've read on the subject.

And yeah, I mean I remember one time I was angry at a foster sister for something, and I picked a phrase I had read in a book that I knew was meant to insult someone, but I didn't actually know what it meant. I got in so much trouble for calling her a "traitorous b***h," though. It's actual meaning was way meaner than I was even aiming for. And really, that's how I learned to communicate? Picking things from my reading mostly. Like having a script or a phrase bank.

And yes to getting good grades on writing assignments. My writing was always far more fluent than my speech. I think the only reason speech ever catches up to reading in hyperlexics is because you eventually plateau on the reading - but I don't know if it catches up for everyone - I am not sure it's entirely caught up for me. I mean it's probably pretty close, but discontinuities between how I write and how I talk are still apparent.

I think I came across "palilalia" for repeating yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palilalia - I do this a lot, even now. Palilalia was what first made me think I might be autistic, in the 90s... But then I was like "Oh, that can't be right, I've seen Rain Man." And then thinking it might be true I didn't even know how to deal with it, so denial, yes.

When I'm dealing with people in like service positions, and they say thank you to me? I always respond thank you back, never "you're welcome." It's just my automatic response. I think I have a few other oddities/discontinuities based on the fact that I've done service work and I think I engage those scripts even when I'm the customer.

I don't know if I can even imagine what it's like to have dyslexia, and I am biased by my addiction to reading. I suspect each is different in its own way, potentially impairing in some ways, perhaps an advantage in others?

Oh, and: When I was younger, I did have an anxiety about the idea that if I quit talking I could lose the ability to do so. I have lost the ability at times, often as "selective mutism" I think. Sometimes as speech shutdowns, I think. Times when I really wanted to talk but couldn't say a word, or times I just stopped talking in the middle of a stressful conversation.

I'm not hyperlexic and I do this too. Well I have moments of extreme hyperfocus when reading but the other half of the time I struggle to concentrate on a single page. I would probably explain every leaf in the forest and blade of grass rather than just every tree.
I don't think it's so bad going into detail about executive dysfunction because many people don't know what it is.

I actually remember a teacher trying to teach me how to write summaries because I would just include too much detail. I would also write a two page conclusion in my assignments.

With speech I don't tend to go into much detail because I tend to trip over my words more especially if there are more words to trip over.

Another thing I must do is when talking about human behaviour I have to explain the very function in the brain.

I've got a lot in common with dyslexia. Rearranging words in my mind, by accident mind. Skipping words or whole sentences. Adding in words and writing words that sound similar, even write the complete opposite word I meant to. There's also a lot of light sensitivity in dyslexia and motor control problems. And math problems. But that can be a ADHD thing too.


Also, take it from me TLE is not subtle. Although i do have myoclonic and clonic tonic seizures too. But TLE makes me super paranoid.

Last edited by pensieve on 18 Jan 2011, 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know that it is hyperlexic, just that's what someone else said to me, which prompted me to stop and analyze it.

My metaphor is infinitely extensible. I would talk about the leaves and the blades of grass, and even the molecules that made them up if I needed to build that foundation to talk about the forest at all. And then once I had that forest I could talk about other forests and provided I am able to describe other terrain features I could describe an island, a continent, a planet...

On the other hand, I used to draw maps of fictional worlds for fun, and it was pretty easy to just place forests, mountains, deserts, rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. But once I picked something to expand on, it was from the ground up again.

I don't think going into detail is bad at all, although I think it can sometimes interfere with what I'm trying to communicate. I can get caught up in the details and miss the big picture. It's like, the idea of executive function to me was entirely vague until I could work out individual specifics, what each part meant, what it feels like when I experience it, what part of the brain it relates to. And so I'm working with two different models - a neurological explanation and my own idiosyncratic experiences (although it is interesting to me that I've seen others come up with the same glass wall analogy I've used elsewhere).

Yes to tripping over words. I always have to start over when ordering food at restaurants because of this, let alone explaining anything in any depth. But to some degree, the resources to explain things verbally just aren't always there for me the way they are when I write.

This sentence is the definition of brilliant.

Last edited by Verdandi on 18 Jan 2011, 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

I shouldn't have edited my post though but I get what you mean.

Huh, I do some of these things, although nearly all of them started after I used ephedra to help my concentration. Especially the adding in words, writing homophones, and writing opposite words.

I am photophobic, although it can be variable (daylight is always way too bright, even with clouds - everything else can range from too bright to okay).



Yeah, I kind of thought so.

I don't think what I'm describing has anything to do with the things on that list (at least for me), but I reply obsessively sometimes.

Also, edited my post to refer to the correct line.

Well in the end it's all about what makes you happy. If it makes you anxious when you can't describe things in perfect detail then it's not healthy and you must try to stop, otherwise it's fine.

I can. It got better with continued conscious effort.

When I'm telling someone something I tend to go into such excessive detail that they often become impatient and ask me to get to the point. I just feel like if I don't put down the ground work for what I'm saying they won't understand my perspective or why I'm even talking (even though this often not the case). Because I have a hard time working out why others say the things they do I instinctively think that everyone has this problem. I often start with some arbitrary detail and work my way to a very concrete point. While counterintuitive to me, if I just did that in reverse order things would be much smoother.

My aunt has tried to help me with this and often reminds me to just give her the "what" first and the "why" after. Although it still feels unnatural to talk like that it does seem to help people have more patience with me.

I don't seem to do it so much in speech (I used to, when I talked about my interests more).

People seem to react well to it in writing, so I don't think I'll change it. I just didn't think there was anything unusual or peculiar until it was pointed out to me.

There are times when I could try to write shorter comments on threads or blogs or whatever, though. I should at least keep that in mind. That has caused me strife in the past.

I go into detail not because of this forest/trees weirdness (I don't like that analogy whatsoever) but because I have trouble with abstraction and summarizing. Nothing to do with this big picture vs. small picture thing people seem to insist on thinking within.

I'm still working out my issues with abstraction. Some things are difficult for me to grasp without having a concrete basis upon which to build, and I may spend too much time trying to build toward abstractions when they may or may not work out for me (some eventually do, some do not). Like something I wrote about empathy a few months ago (people empathize with power) was a critical point for me to talk about a more abstract structure, which the writing was also about. But the abstract structure itself is still slippery to me, even though the point of writing it was to understand it better. I mean, I am able to grasp abstract concepts, but the fewer points of contact with real life examples, the more difficult it is to work it out.

I don't think I meant big picture/small picture with that analogy, but it's one that came up in conversation the other day. It's more like I need to be able to know all the details to talk about something in detail on a different scale (maybe that is big picture vs. small picture, though?). I don't know if that really says what I want either. But I mean once I have gone over a particular subject in specific detail, it's easier for me to talk about it without laying it all out again, at least sometimes. Sometimes I can just point people to something I've written to explain the point again.