Fun Stuff > CHATTER

What's the most baffling thing about neurotypical people?

<< < (3/27) > >>

Akima:

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 17 Jul 2019, 04:48 ---In a particular society and culture depending on the writer, too.

--- End quote ---
Very much so.

Wingy:

--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 18 Jul 2019, 08:56 ---It took me a long time to figure out, and it still doesn't sit comfortably in my mind, that they don't know when to turn off the Eliza-like process that runs their conversations and attend to reality.


--- Quote from: MSNBC ---CONSTITUENT: Hi, I’m (inaudible) how are you? Happy Fourth of July. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is passing a bill around to increase the minimum wage to 10 bucks and[sic] hour. Do you support that?
YOUNG: Probably not.
CONSTITUENT: 10 bucks, that would give us a living wage.
YOUNG: How about getting a job?
CONSTITUENT: I do have one.
YOUNG: Well, then why do you want that benefit? Get a job.

--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---
Two issues here:
1) The exchange above is with a politician.  They don't have to make sense, they just have to stay on their talking points.
2) Also, someone being interviewed, especially a politician in what they consider a hostile environment, will not necessarily *answer the question asked*.  In many cases, they have incentive not to answer the question asked because it's a "gotcha" type of question.

As far as the "Eliza-like process", you're imputing too much processing power to the average schmuck.  I've run into a bonanza of people who cannot tell you what they think *without hearing themselves say it first*, even if all they are really doing is repeating what they just heard.  See also Yaaaaaaaay Newfriend. 

I worked for a while for a manager who could not *think* without a marker in his hand and a blank whiteboard in front of him.  Perfectly fine guy; I'd go fishing with him any day; but totally unable to process complex information without seeing his hands making notes or drawing pictures on something. 

Also, many people can't contemplate a new idea and hold a simultaneous conversation - they can do just one of those at a time.  And I've run into just a very few that can have two opposing ideas active in their heads at the same time, consider them together, and then come to a conclusion without "sleeping on it" at least one night - that is, going off somewhere quiet to consider them separately and then make decisions. 

The research is very clear that distracted people make proportionally poorer decisions the more distracted they are from the topic at hand.  See also texting and driving and compare distracted driving crash rates to drunk driving crash rates.  It's not pretty as they are quite comparable. 

And lastly, if you'll allow me to dust off my old philosophy minor, <rhetorical question>just what *is* reality anyway? </rhetorical question>  Just because you (or I ,or anyone really) grasps a different piece of "reality" than someone else implies nothing about the relative validity of each person involved's conception(s) about that "reality".  Admittedly, sometimes one's conception is inaccurate, but that's usually manifested by "reality" reaching up and smacking your stupid mis-conception(s) out of your head.  The rest of the time it takes dialog before people come to a shared conception (which may still have nothing to do with "observable/experiencable reality").

Is it cold in here?:
I think it's a general phenomenon because I've also see it in non-politicians.

For example, it is a fact that fees for hunting licenses, at least in my country, are pivotal for wildlife conservation. This may not be universally known. It is relevant to point it out in discussions of hunting.

But it was reflex, it was stimulus-response arc, when a friend of mine said he objected to poaching (to NOT paying license fees) and someone bellowed
DON'T YOU KNOW THAT HUNTING FEES ARE WHAT PAYS FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION!
"Reality", in this case, would simply have been recognizing what the topic of the conversation was.

Another one is
Q: What brings you here today?
A: Shrapnel wounds.
Q: And how long have you been noticing these symptoms?

de_la_Nae:
Conversation scripts can be useful outsourcing, but they sure lead to some dumb interactions when they break down.

oddtail:
I have no idea if I'm neurotypical or not (I've long suspected not), but I will never figure out, or accept, why politely and constructively criticising someone's actions or points they state causes extreme hostility by everyone present (even, in my experience, people who were making fun of the person or badmouthing them behind their back - for EXACTLY the same opinions/actions - a few minutes prior), while it's socially acceptable to be confrontational, borderline insulting, verbally hostile as long as you dress it up in the "right" phrases.

I swear, in every social situation where there are many people, there will be at least one asshole that goes for cruel jabs, backhanded compliments and other distinctly aggressive/intimidating/hostile behaviour. Nobody ever calls out such a person on the behaviour, even though it's plain the purpose is to belittle, upset and establish social dominance.

Which would be fine if it ended in, like, High School. But my experience is that adults of any age engage in this if the size of a social group reaches a certain critical mass.

(and I would know, because I am not good at navigating social structures, so more often than not, I'm the easiest prey to the asshole and they pick (on) me)

Disagreeing with a person, on the other hand, immediately causes people to reflexively attack the person who did the criticism.

Malicious intent, even when it's painfully obvious, matters less than whether you stick to the "acceptable" talking points. You can get away with anything if you use the right words. This makes no sense to me, and I refuse to even try to understand.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page