Social Skills vs. Social Expectations
04 Nov 2013, 1:07 pm
coffeebean wrote:
leafplant wrote:
^ I don't have to worry about that because I am naturally very inclusive of everyone, however I do go through life expecting that people will be as strict with their egos as I am with mine.. you can guess the rest
What does it mean to be strict with one's ego?
It means to keep it in check so that it doesn't rule (or overrule) your actions as if you are a toddler. This includes, but is not limited to, getting offended at anything and everything, having expectations of how you are to be treated and what the other people should be like in order to meet with your approval. For example: if someone is rude to me I will not get offended because, frankly, them being rude is their problem, not mine. I'd much rather concentrate on the message and maybe the rudeness was unintentional anyway. So this is my first initial reaction. Whereas people who have rampant ego problems don't even get to the stage where they are able to consider the message, because the perceived offense blinds them to everything and the only option available to them at that time is to seek redress of the offense. I find that a colossal waste of time, personally. Sure, sometimes it can be interesting and worth while digging behind the feeling of offense because it's usually caused by some sort of trauma, but frankly I think everyone has an obligation to look after their mental health in the same way they should look after their physical health, so it shouldn't be other people's problem that they were bullied at school and still haven't got over it (for example). Most people seem to find this attitude of mine cold and unfeeling but I think I am just being pragmatic and sensible. Hope that answers your question?
04 Nov 2013, 3:28 pm
leafplant wrote:
coffeebean wrote:
leafplant wrote:
^ I don't have to worry about that because I am naturally very inclusive of everyone, however I do go through life expecting that people will be as strict with their egos as I am with mine.. you can guess the rest
What does it mean to be strict with one's ego?
It means to keep it in check so that it doesn't rule (or overrule) your actions as if you are a toddler. This includes, but is not limited to, getting offended at anything and everything, having expectations of how you are to be treated and what the other people should be like in order to meet with your approval. For example: if someone is rude to me I will not get offended because, frankly, them being rude is their problem, not mine. I'd much rather concentrate on the message and maybe the rudeness was unintentional anyway. So this is my first initial reaction. Whereas people who have rampant ego problems don't even get to the stage where they are able to consider the message, because the perceived offense blinds them to everything and the only option available to them at that time is to seek redress of the offense. I find that a colossal waste of time, personally. Sure, sometimes it can be interesting and worth while digging behind the feeling of offense because it's usually caused by some sort of trauma, but frankly I think everyone has an obligation to look after their mental health in the same way they should look after their physical health, so it shouldn't be other people's problem that they were bullied at school and still haven't got over it (for example). Most people seem to find this attitude of mine cold and unfeeling but I think I am just being pragmatic and sensible. Hope that answers your question?
Yes, that's clear. Thank you.
07 Nov 2013, 3:31 am
CharityFunDay wrote:
Well, OK then, piss or get off the pot. How do neurotypical standards, in the example under discussion, disadvantage you?
I ALREADY HAVE. READ THE INDICATED POSTS. I will not repeat that again.
Quote:
Again, how is the average (NT) person reasonably meant to anticipate such differing expectations, and accommodate them, without clear prior instruction?
I never said that I expected anyone to do anything without prior instruction. I said that I wished that society was different; if society is different, then the instruction comes from society itself. On the other hand, it doesn't take much instruction beyond life experience to know that people are different and it is foolish to treat them all the same way.
Quote:
starkid wrote:
I don't recall having posted anything in this thread about being forced to play along with anything, so I do not see why you are saying this to me.
If you're not worried about being expected to respond in a socially-contiguous manner to accord with NT expectations, then your demands are even less reasonable than they first appeared.
You are mixing up "forced" and "expected to." They are not the same thing. Furthermore, I have not made any "demands." Perhaps your misunderstanding is due to your imprecision with language.
07 Nov 2013, 11:26 pm
starkid wrote:
I ALREADY HAVE. READ THE INDICATED POSTS. I will not repeat that again.
There appears to be some confusion. I have not indicated any posts nor urged you to read them.
Possibly you are confusing me with someone else on this thread,
Well of course people are different, but the point is that there is a common standard of interpersonal decency which is a pronounced tendency among the (predominantly NT) population to treat others with care, tact and sensitivity when delivering bad news -- in the instance we were discussing, the death of a family member.
You may wish that society were different, but as the old saying goes: "Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, and see which fills up first."
But your position is still unreasonable. Your ideal society (it would appear from your argument so far (and as presented specifically in the post to which I am replying) would not have a social standard of sensitive interpersonal behaviour when it came to breaking bad news.
Rather, you would appear to prefer a society in which bad news was broken in a highly -personalised manner, varying from individual to individual.
This is neither a reasonable proposal nor a practical one.
How -- without significant person-specific research and/.or psychological insight into their character and therefore their likely reaction to specific bad news -- is any given person in any given situation realistically supposed to be aware of even the simplest aspects of the most-acceptable person-specific approach
You are effecitively demanding the existence of telepathy, or some other method of receiving entirely private and individually-unique emotional and rational frameworks, and the consequent modulation of social gambits with this information about the person's character beeing an over-riding influential factor in any and every instance of the type we are discussjing.
This is quite plainly and self-evidently an inherently unreasonable and arguably impossible requirement to impose on society in general or any specific part of it.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it originated from the realms of situation-specific personal fantasy and has no possible application outside the imagination of the individual in question.
The limitations inherent in human interaction -- as well as the emotional and professional concerns of some members not to unnecessarily distress others -- with specific application to the situation under consideration, is that death is (with varying degree of rationality) almost invariably a cause of great personal sadness to surviving relatives and close family and their NT reactions are largelyou predictable -- encompassing but not limited to hysteria, denial, shock, anger, disbelief etc -- and the most appropriate and socially-acceptable manner of behaviour when interacting with the recently bereaved is one of tact, sensitivity demonstrably-gentle physical actions, a hushed tone of voice and displays of emotional sympathy.
You may find yourself at variance with those social expectations and standards. All that can be said for certain is that you are in a small minority of opinion holders and quite possibly in a minority of one.
However, it is quite a justifiable stance on the part of a nurse bringing sad news to an individual previously entirely unknown to her, to approach him in exactly the same way that she would approach any similar situation. She is attempting to provide an emotional backdrop of professional calmness and empathy.
You have yet to argue why this socially-acceptable manner of professional and ethical conduct should be abandoned, except by reference to your own stated emotional response to receiving news of a death. That is not a sufficient basis for an argument over social expectations.
Nor have you yet provided any important (or even relevant) argument concerning this social standard's adverse effects upon you. I put it to you that the manner in which the news is presented to you does not adversely affect you at all in any sense, and that your proposed objections to it are fundamentally ill-founded.
You may have a plan in which you (and by implication, likeminded individuals (should there be any)) could be afforded special and unusual treatment by medical professionals. However, all you present is a series of highly-idiosyncratic personal objections (which are not even argued to any degree of detail) to a certain aspect of culturally-prevalent standards of behaviour.
The basic question implicit throughout all of the foregoing is: Why and how should you be expected to receive treatment differing from social norms, and what are the potential pros and cons of such an approach (never mind the possibility of it being put into practice, which as have argued is a human impossibility),
I didn't suggest that they were. You said 'forced to play along with', and I re-emphasised this idea in a new contextual-setting (and deliberately intentionally nuanced, with regard to social mechanisms which while achieving similar purposes may not be as bluntly-presented as your proposed 'forced to') by saying 'being expected to respond in a socially-contiguous manner'.
Quote:
There appears to be some confusion. I have not indicated any posts nor urged you to read them.
Possibly you are confusing me with someone else on this thread,
Quote:
I never said that I expected anyone to do anything without prior instruction. I said that I wished that society was different; if society is different, then the instruction comes from society itself. On the other hand, it doesn't take much instruction beyond life experience to know that people are different and it is foolish to treat them all the same way
.Well of course people are different, but the point is that there is a common standard of interpersonal decency which is a pronounced tendency among the (predominantly NT) population to treat others with care, tact and sensitivity when delivering bad news -- in the instance we were discussing, the death of a family member.
You may wish that society were different, but as the old saying goes: "Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, and see which fills up first."
But your position is still unreasonable. Your ideal society (it would appear from your argument so far (and as presented specifically in the post to which I am replying) would not have a social standard of sensitive interpersonal behaviour when it came to breaking bad news.
Rather, you would appear to prefer a society in which bad news was broken in a highly -personalised manner, varying from individual to individual.
This is neither a reasonable proposal nor a practical one.
How -- without significant person-specific research and/.or psychological insight into their character and therefore their likely reaction to specific bad news -- is any given person in any given situation realistically supposed to be aware of even the simplest aspects of the most-acceptable person-specific approach
You are effecitively demanding the existence of telepathy, or some other method of receiving entirely private and individually-unique emotional and rational frameworks, and the consequent modulation of social gambits with this information about the person's character beeing an over-riding influential factor in any and every instance of the type we are discussjing.
This is quite plainly and self-evidently an inherently unreasonable and arguably impossible requirement to impose on society in general or any specific part of it.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it originated from the realms of situation-specific personal fantasy and has no possible application outside the imagination of the individual in question.
The limitations inherent in human interaction -- as well as the emotional and professional concerns of some members not to unnecessarily distress others -- with specific application to the situation under consideration, is that death is (with varying degree of rationality) almost invariably a cause of great personal sadness to surviving relatives and close family and their NT reactions are largelyou predictable -- encompassing but not limited to hysteria, denial, shock, anger, disbelief etc -- and the most appropriate and socially-acceptable manner of behaviour when interacting with the recently bereaved is one of tact, sensitivity demonstrably-gentle physical actions, a hushed tone of voice and displays of emotional sympathy.
You may find yourself at variance with those social expectations and standards. All that can be said for certain is that you are in a small minority of opinion holders and quite possibly in a minority of one.
However, it is quite a justifiable stance on the part of a nurse bringing sad news to an individual previously entirely unknown to her, to approach him in exactly the same way that she would approach any similar situation. She is attempting to provide an emotional backdrop of professional calmness and empathy.
You have yet to argue why this socially-acceptable manner of professional and ethical conduct should be abandoned, except by reference to your own stated emotional response to receiving news of a death. That is not a sufficient basis for an argument over social expectations.
Nor have you yet provided any important (or even relevant) argument concerning this social standard's adverse effects upon you. I put it to you that the manner in which the news is presented to you does not adversely affect you at all in any sense, and that your proposed objections to it are fundamentally ill-founded.
You may have a plan in which you (and by implication, likeminded individuals (should there be any)) could be afforded special and unusual treatment by medical professionals. However, all you present is a series of highly-idiosyncratic personal objections (which are not even argued to any degree of detail) to a certain aspect of culturally-prevalent standards of behaviour.
The basic question implicit throughout all of the foregoing is: Why and how should you be expected to receive treatment differing from social norms, and what are the potential pros and cons of such an approach (never mind the possibility of it being put into practice, which as have argued is a human impossibility),
Quote:
You are mixing up "forced" and "expected to." They are not the same thing.
I didn't suggest that they were. You said 'forced to play along with', and I re-emphasised this idea in a new contextual-setting (and deliberately intentionally nuanced, with regard to social mechanisms which while achieving similar purposes may not be as bluntly-presented as your proposed 'forced to') by saying 'being expected to respond in a socially-contiguous manner'.
Quote:
Furthermore, I have not made any "demands." Perhaps your misunderstanding is due to your imprecision with language.
Perhaps your own very evident struggles with concepts such as (but evidently not limited to) 'society'', 'tact', 'diplomacy' and 'sensitivity' go some way toward explaining your rather odd position.
I don't have any problems with using language to express my meaning with a greater-than-average degree of sophistication and nuance. I would suggest that what you perceive as my 'imprecision with language' are in fact due to your own comprehension problems and imaginative shortcomings. which result in you not being currently capable of appreciating the aspects of my arguments that are not expressed in very basic terms and which are related in most instances to highly subtle aspects features of human interaction.
08 Nov 2013, 6:00 pm
CharityFunDay wrote:
There appears to be some confusion. I have not indicated any posts nor urged you to read them.
No, I was telling you to read the posts that I indicated for an explanation of the disadvantages you've been asking me for.
This conversation is pointless because you do not appear to understand how my answers relate to your questions and comments and/or you are completely ignoring what I am posting. For example, I've already explained that I do not agree that what you call sensitive social behavior is sensitive, yet you continue to refer to it as sensitive when you address me. No discussion is possible when you ignore your interlocuter's objections to your premises. I will not waste my time responding to someone who evinces no recognition of what I have taken the time to post.
09 Nov 2013, 4:21 pm
starkid wrote:
No, I was telling you to read the posts that I indicated for an explanation of the disadvantages you've been asking me for.
Ah, I see. When I read your statement: "I ALREADY HAVE. READ THE INDICATED POSTS", I overlooked the full-stop after 'HAVE' for some reason, and thereby completely altered the meaning of your statement.
Thanks for the attempt at clarification.
Quote:
This conversation is pointless because you do not appear to understand how my answers relate to your questions and comments and/or you are completely ignoring what I am posting. For example, I've already explained that I do not agree that what you call sensitive social behavior is sensitive, yet you continue to refer to it as sensitive when you address me.
That is because you have yet to present a reasonable justification for changing the meaning of the word 'sensitive', other than a purely personal and utterly unreasonable claim (with no meaningful attempt at explanation) that NT standards of sensitivity are somehow 'insensitive' when they are demonstrated toward you.
You are, as the saying goes, entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Therefore, until such time as your definition of 'sensitivity' gains inclusion in a standard dictionary as the primary meaning, or even as a possible meaning, of the word I will continue to use it in its currently-understood sense.
(I would also like to observe that in your last post to me, you declared that I used language imprecisely. I now wonder about the critical standards that you applied to my writing in order to reach that conclusion: Were they, perhaps, just conceivably, your own (arguably) heavily-blunt, over-dogmatic, un-nuanced and socially-inflexible standards, and did those standards extend to an occasional tendency to redefine commonly-understood words?)
Quote:
No discussion is possible when you ignore your interlocuter's objections to your premises. I will not waste my time responding to someone who evinces no recognition of what I have taken the time to post.
The feeling is mutual, so if some reader of our attempted conversation feels like stepping in and pointing out where we are going wrong, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I withdraw from the debate, not only none the wiser but not even significantly better-informed.
09 Nov 2013, 4:44 pm
CharityFunDay wrote:
The feeling is mutual, so if some reader of our attempted conversation feels like stepping in and pointing out where we are going wrong, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I withdraw from the debate, not only none the wiser but not even significantly better-informed.
you are having a debate, not a conversation. A debate is not conducive to creating rapport, as each person's goal is simply to score points.
sensitivity:
Quote:
: the tendency to become upset about things that are done to you, are said about you, or relate to you
: the tendency to cause people to be upset
: an awareness and understanding of the feelings of other people
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitivity
: the tendency to cause people to be upset
: an awareness and understanding of the feelings of other people
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitivity
_________________
context is king
09 Nov 2013, 5:02 pm
leafplant wrote:
you are having a debate, not a conversation. A debate is not conducive to creating rapport, as each person's goal is simply to score points.
CharityFunDay wrote:
too subtle for my own good.
Let's look at the action replay:
Let's look at the action replay:
CharityFunDay wrote:
The feeling is mutual, so if some reader of our attempted conversation feels like stepping in and pointing out where we are going wrong, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I withdraw from the debate, not only none the wiser but not even significantly better-informed.
What I was implying (or even stating indirectly) was that a dialogue I had approached as a conversation had become a debate. I hope it wasn't too much of an expectation that it should be understood, by signifying my withdrawal from that debate, I was implicitly judging it a pointless one.
Thanks for the M-W definition of "sensitivity": But I can't see how it clarifies any of the preceding exchange. Perhaps I am being obtuse (I can be at times), so could you be specific, please?
09 Nov 2013, 5:08 pm
I don't know, but have you even tried to allow this person their own personal view that doesn't have to tally with the dictionary version of events?
I mean - what were you attempting to achieve before the 'conversation' turned into 'debate'?
you go on about being sensitive to the needs of others and how that's a big deal to you but you consistently demonstrate an inability to be sensitive to the needs of others. I can't explain it to you because if you were able to get it you would have got it by now so I don't really know what to say other than try not to be annoying and go on so much about stuff. Sorry, that probably sounds insensitive, but as you said, you do come across as obtuse a lot and if you want to have conversations and connect with people, the obtuseness will have to go.
09 Nov 2013, 6:15 pm
Hello,
I score it 30 - 21 for CharityFunDay. I love a good debate.
Cheers,
Kate
(Leaf Plant: come on, let's not all accuse Charity of insensitivity, I think StarKid was participating in the hard tone of the debate just as much. Just because you are talking about sensitivity, doesn't mean you have to be sensitive while doing it. Or that, if you aren't, you don't understand what the word means.)
09 Nov 2013, 6:17 pm
leafplant wrote:
I don't know, but have you even tried to allow this person their own personal view that doesn't have to tally with the dictionary version of events?
I am not in a position to allow or prohibit people from holding their own personal views.
However, I am in a position to observe when those views are apparently at variance with established facts or definitions
In this particular instance, I asked the other person in the conversation how he explained his view of what constituted 'sensitivity', with specific regard to the alleged 'insensitivity' of NT-expected social standards of sensitivity and how those NT-standards had adversely affected him. This was a point of personal curiosity, not intended as a provocation..
The conversation (such as it was) became a debate at that point, with each of us getting frustrated with the other.
Quote:
I mean - what were you attempting to achieve before the 'conversation' turned into 'debate'?
The same thing as I hope to 'achieve' from any conversation: An opportunity to exchange ideas and information in a (hopefully) enjoyable manner.
You appear to be attempting to discern a motivation or agenda on my part, which simply did not exist.
Quote:
you go on about being sensitive to the needs of others and how that's a big deal to you but you consistently demonstrate an inability to be sensitive to the needs of others.
You exaggerate, possibly for rhetorical effect. I have referred on this thread to the concept of 'sensitivity' and put forward some (not more than two, iirc) arguments in favour of some manifestations of it -- specifically, qualities referred to as 'tact' and 'diplomacy' which (in some circumstances) are great social lubricators.
As for the charge of 'insensitivity' (which you appear to be making on the basis of very limited and highly-interpretable evidence, and which you seem to believe is hypocritical of me), well, I operate within certain AS tendencies and I don't always get it right. I can blunder badly, even in a text-based medium (which denies users access to certain key emotional signifiers), and what is more, when another person apparently behaves in an insensitive manner online, I will often respond in kind. Which is what I believe happened on this thread.
For those reasons, and because we have seldom interacted on WP (and never in real life), I don't take your charge of 'insensitivity' particularly seriously.
Quote:
I can't explain it to you
I don't want an explanation from you, although you appear to believe you have something I ought to learn from you.
So far, I am not inclined to share that apparent belief.
Quote:
because if you were able to get it you would have got it by now
How incredibly patronising, self-important and (considering the perceptual deficits typical of AS people, of which you must be aware I am one) insensitive.
Quote:
so I don't really know what to say other than try not to be annoying and go on so much about stuff.
In return, I expect a greater deal of tolerance for me, and for people to adequately answer at the first opportunity any reasonable questions I may put to them.
That seems like a reasonable compromise, in relation to your equally *cough* reasonable *cough* suggestions.
Quote:
Sorry, that probably sounds insensitive
It does, but fortunately I have quite thick skin and a perverse sense of humour, so I enjoyed the irony of being lectured insensitively by a complete stranger about my own supposed insensitivity.
Oh, and why say 'sorry' when you obviously don't mean it? Perhaps because you want to give a façade of reasonability to your diatribe, Who can say for sure?
,
Quote:
but as you said, you do come across as obtuse a lot and if you want to have conversations and connect with people, the obtuseness will have to go.
Words fail me. I recognise that I can occasionally be perceived as obtuse (not 'a lot', I think that is your own interpolation), and how far this is ascribable to my AS, I don't know, but it's probably not within my power to alter it.
Even if it were (which it is highly-inappropriate for you to suggest), I do not regard your highly-personal attack on me (which demonstrates a low level of self-awareness on your part, e.g., by attacking me for my supposed 'insensitivity' in an incontrovertibly insensitive manner) to be sufficient grounds for considering it.
Now, as per my original request, do you have anything of observational value to add which might cast light on, or add to anyone's understanding (even mine) of, the conversation/debate under discussion, or not? If the latter, then shut up.
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
09 Nov 2013, 6:47 pm
Responding to the original query:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
- Eleanor Rosevelt
One time, my wife and I received a letter accusing us of being fascists in one paragraph, and communists in another. I considered that overall, this made it a neutral message. My wife didn't see it that way.
I was raised to stay on the left side of my brain, but when the right side does get organized around an emotion, it is very hard to shake. That's when I appreciate politeness most.
The world moves far too quickly to be run by formal logic. Most actions are based on a quick impression of incomplete information. Sometimes, a lie is just a quick way to help things go smoothly. You could stay up all night trying to convince a kid that there are no monsters under the bed, or just tell them that you have trapped the monsters with a magic string, and let everyone get a good night's sleep.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Has anyone used social skills software? |
11 Apr 2024, 11:19 am |
| Social skills shouldn't be required to succeed in college |
18 Apr 2024, 2:39 pm |
| Social And Relationships |
08 Feb 2024, 5:23 pm |
| Social Worker |
12 Mar 2024, 5:26 pm |
