THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Morituri on 01 Jul 2019, 00:05
-
Religion. WTF?
Monogamy. At first I thought it was just not being willing to work hard enough on relationship communication, but it's more than that.
Clothes. Even when not needed for protection. And they even care what *other* people are wearing. I have memorized rules and follow them, but don't understand why they're important.
Ignoring their sense of smell. I absolutely have no clue why they do this.
Greed, as applied to pure abstractions. That makes no sense.
Caring about numbers but not bothering to learn math. That also makes no sense.
Blindness to any Information not presented as a picture. In extreme cases they will interrupt to bring me the same information we got last week but this time in a pretty graphic. Here's the problem with that. I know, by now, that coming up with this graph means *they* have done the work to understand the information, and that is a good thing. But the graphic itself is useless to me. I can't communicate that without seeming to tell them they've been wasting their time, which they're going to take as a personal insult so I just have no idea what to say to them.
Conversely, inability to understand that important information is left OUT of the 'picture' they got. The map they think is so much more intuitive and informative, but that doesn't have the street names, is useless to the way I find my way around a city.
Imputing meanings that are not what people actually said. Especially if it allows them to avoid ambiguity or avoid acknowledging the need for more information to decide something. And especially if by imputing some different meaning they can make it about themselves.
Don't see the inherent problem in being unable to tell whether something is right or wrong without knowing who did it.
Don't get how concentration works, and think a five-second interruption every ten minutes will only cost five seconds worth of work.
Always give the same advice for any problem. And the advice is basically, 'make your brain stop working that way and work this way instead.' Good luck with that.
I'm sure others will have many, many more additions to the list.
-
I'd probably class myself as neurotypical -
...but I can't get over the whole "OOO! A Graph!" thing! They are fine for some things, but complex info...!?!?
Generally not. (That said - I've been guilty of using 'em as such when basic info is to be seen by a WIDE range of people...)
Ignoring sense of smell...? I don't get that one at all. (Is that a thing?)
-
I'd call myself somewhat neurotypical, just going through the list with my own thoughts .
Religion - I can't really speak about this as I'm a 25 year lapsed Catholic and my own feelings on the subject are incredibly mixed. I suppose going back to an older generation, religion offered a sense of stability, but then again, I still remember being in school and kids being forced to write with their right hand.
Monogamy - I can't speak for everyone, but its not a case of "I'm incapable of willing to work on communication", but rather "Hey, here's someone who fascinates me, who inspires me to make myself a better person. My life is better for them being in it and I really want to work on that." That's me. I know that there are other people with their own thoughts on monogamy who can explain it better than I can and there are people in poly relationships who can explain why monogamy wasn't for them.
The sense of smell - I presume you mean being caught in public transport or in an office and you just smell someone who just...stinks. You want to say something, but then again, you don't know the circumstances - Were they in a rush this morning and they didn't have time to wash? Do they have a medical condition? Is there a problem in their personal life? They're probably embarrassed enough as it is, they probably don't want me bringing it to their attention or everyone else's attention.
Clothes have meaning. But its also about projecting an image about yourself, kind of crafting the ideal version of yourself.
Greed isn't a neurotypical trait, some people just want to have everything and nothing is ever enough.
Maths is a problem for a lot of people. I did applied science in college, but Maths? Goes right over my head. But you get me a paper about biology or chemistry and I'll have that information devoured.
Information presented as a graph - I've worked in advertising, tourism and some other sectors of business. When someone asks for a graph, what they're telling you isn't "I can't process this block of text", they're telling you "I only have a few seconds available to look at this information." You might spend a couple of hours correlating data, but they might have seconds between meetings or they have to present a lot of information to others and not a lot of time to do so.
Information out of the picture? The brain can fill in the gaps, making what seems to it logical jumps. If I'm told that I have a meeting at Church Street, but the map doesn't have Church Street on there, I'm still going to infer that going by its name, it should logically be near a Church. And sometimes its fun to fill in the gaps ourselves.
Right or wrong - Nothing is ever right or wrong, nor is it black and white. There will always be shades of grey in what we do. Someone can do something wrong but for the right reason and vice versa. I'm not saying everything has to boil down to whether something is right or wrong, but rather the distinction is understanding why and how.
Advice for problems - Its not always "change how your brain thinks", its just it can be difficult to give meaningful advice when someone doesn't give you all the information about a problem. It comes down to communication and the fact that advice needs to be a two way street between two people.
-
I know "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes, in that a lot of actions are done for decent reasons and a lot of things have both good and bad aspects and that it's not just shades of grey, it's a kaleidoscope of people acting according to different values.
But not being able to say that in conversation without someone thinking I'm just unwilling to state my assumed to be unequivocal opinion is one of the things that falls under 'imputing meanings that are not what someone actually said, in order to ignore ambiguities.'
The thing about right and wrong though is that I can't imagine something I'd think was a moral good if done by person A but a moral evil if done by person B. Like if I say caging children in horrific conditions is evil, someone responds with an argument about "Obama did this, not Trump!" as though it matters? Even if it were true, what has that got to do with whether or not it is evil?
Ignoring the sense of smell is definitely real. I see people reacting to scent all the time - attracted to or avoiding something, or changing mood, etc, or knowing which way someone went twenty minutes ago because that person was wearing perfume, or being momentarily confused when they walk into a room expecting someone to be there, and maybe even start talking to them, but only because someone else who used the same soap and shampoo was there, and then they stop in confusion and surprise when they realize it's someone else. But absolutely never does anyone acknowledge that the scent is the reason why.
People even flatly deny being *able* to smell things I've just watched them react to. And English has, eg, words for colors, but hardly any words at all that describe scents. I infer that there is some rule about not talking about scent, but seriously, I have no clue what it is.
-
Don't get me wrong here, I'm *nearly* neurotypical. I have problems far milder than most of the 'atypical' population. What I have manifests mainly in what people who care about it call 'incomplete socialization.'
Which basically means I don't ever pick up on the existence of the implicit rules that people abide by but don't talk about. For example I was around people who wore clothes every waking hour for my whole childhood, and at age 5 I was still completely unaware of the the nudity taboo. I mean, I had figured out that these people liked to wear clothes, but nobody had ever even mentioned how they felt about not wearing clothes, or about what judgments they passed on anyone wearing the wrong clothes or no clothes. Or which clothes were "wrong."
The results have varied from alarming to humorous, but usually provoke a response that informs me of the existence of the rule I broke. At which point I have to make a decision as to whether I care about the people who care about this rule, enough to take the bother of abiding by it. Sometimes the answer is no.
-
I have... difficulties with the very term "neurotypical" since definitions strikes me as very imprecise (https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-neurotypical-260047), and stuffed with an awful lot of unstated assumptions about what is "typical" in a society and culture.
-
...stuffed with an awful lot of unstated assumptions about what is "typical" in a society and culture.
In a particular society and culture depending on the writer, too.
-
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.
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.
I also am baffled by skills they have apparently innately that I can't match after intensive effort, like somehow knowing whose turn it is in a conversation.
-
I also am baffled by skills they have apparently innately that I can't match after intensive effort, like somehow knowing whose turn it is in a conversation.
This. A thousand times, this. You have to watch their eyes to see whose turn they think it is - but that only works in conversations with more than 2 people. And then there's always that thing where it's your turn - but you have nothing to say and don't know how to pass the turn on to somebody else.
-
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.
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.
I believe this is why many people in IT carry a clue-by-four with them at all times. That whole exchange could be between some tech and a luser that they have to deal with.
-
In a particular society and culture depending on the writer, too.
Very much so.
-
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.
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.
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").
-
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?
-
Conversation scripts can be useful outsourcing, but they sure lead to some dumb interactions when they break down.
-
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.
-
I've never been able to understand anything about their passion for watching other people play team sports.
-
Another possibility is their ability to tell where other people are going. I have near collisions routinely. I look at what people might want to go towards, I look at which way they're already going and with what level of determination, and constantly get it wrong. They get it right effortlessly.
-
Some people did a study on this, and showed it's actually quite simple. You can model human crowd behaviour accurately with just one rule: avoid collisions. If you get that wrong, maybe you're overthinking it.
-
But there are some humans who make no efforts to avoid collisions in crowds, so that simulation won't be entirely accurate!
-
But there are some humans who make no efforts to avoid collisions in crowds, so that simulation won't be entirely accurate!
But almost everyone around them will make the effort, so their self-centeredness cancels itself out.
-
My situation is I'm trying to avoid collisions and having trouble making that work, when everyone around me seems to handle it automatically.
-
Plenty of things, but if I have to pick one I'll go with performing happiness for the "Hi, how are you?" exchange. I can't do it. I understand that this is just a stock greeting phrase, and my job is to complete the circuit by responding with "Good, and how are you?"
Well, I understand all that in theory - but I find myself incapable of saying I'm good when I'm not. I've had to come up with some socially acceptable responses that I can say when I'm not good. Because responding with a true response when you're not good is generally not socially acceptable. I've taken to using "could be worse" a lot. It's generally true and it doesn't result in people staring at you like you made some horrible faux pas.
-
Plenty of things, but if I have to pick one I'll go with performing happiness for the "Hi, how are you?" exchange. I can't do it. I understand that this is just a stock greeting phrase, and my job is to complete the circuit by responding with "Good, and how are you?"
Well, I understand all that in theory - but I find myself incapable of saying I'm good when I'm not. I've had to come up with some socially acceptable responses that I can say when I'm not good. Because responding with a true response when you're not good is generally not socially acceptable. I've taken to using "could be worse" a lot. It's generally true and it doesn't result in people staring at you like you made some horrible faux pas.
FWIW, it's not (necessarily) a general "neurotypical people" thing, it's more of a "Anglosphere" thing. The stock response is much less expected in Poland, and I've heard it's similar in a number of other European countries.
-
There's a social signal "I acknowledge your presence" along with a registration of some prior relationship that the "how are you? Good. And you?" exchange is all about. To give any information outside of that general realm is demanding the asker to think, and perhaps stop to chat, which may or may not be desirable, and if it is undesirable, could damage in some small degree, the relationship. Once I figured this out, I got past my desire to have a conversation in the "passing in the hall" circumstance.
-
You can also short-circuit that by answering what they meant instead of what they said.
It'll be technically a non-sequitur but nobody will ever notice because they actually aren't thinking about what they said.
So here's what happened. They said "Hi, how are you," when they actually meant "Hello" and "We're acquainted with each other."
So you can just ignore the how-are-you question they said, and answer what they meant instead. "Hi, good to see you!" or "Hello, it's been awhile hasn't it?" answers in kind even though technically it is a non-sequitur to the how-are-you question.
-
I'll never understand why some things are considered "rude". I'm too tired to think of a specific example, but I'm sure everyone else can.
Then there's the folks who are offended by simple honesty. I know I can be blunt, but that doesn't change the observation.
Some of the shocked reactions I've seen to stating other observations is also baffling. The things that simply don't occur to some neurotypical people is just strange.
*snip*
Ignoring sense of smell...? I don't get that one at all. (Is that a thing?)
I have a very strong sense of smell (when my nose isn't stopped up from allergies) and it helps provide important info on my surroundings.
Some folks don't seem to bother trying to smell anything around them and may only react to particularly foul smells (a terrible fart, oniony B.O., skunk, etc).
Having played D&D for a couple of years now, I've noticed that my characters are pretty much the only ones trying to smell things regardless of race. It normally throws off other players and DMs alike. The only exceptions being other players on the autism spectrum. My gnome's nose takes up a quarter of his face. Why wouldn't he try to smell around the room for clues he couldn't see or hear?
-
I'll never understand why some things are considered "rude". I'm too tired to think of a specific example, but I'm sure everyone else can.
Then there's the folks who are offended by simple honesty. I know I can be blunt, but that doesn't change the observation.
Some of the shocked reactions I've seen to stating other observations is also baffling. The things that simply don't occur to some neurotypical people is just strange.
I'm with you on that, I don't emotionally understand why so many things are considered to be rude even (especially?) when they're to-the-point and helpful.
I navigate this by remembering that politeness is always about letting a person maintain a social distance while not making them feel alienated. Every single phrase you say (no exceptions) is either meant to establish a connection with a person or to acknowledge that you and that person differ. Every society has a balance of those two and if you don't keep it, you're either imposing on them or rejecting them. The key is to figure out which phrases decrease the social distance and which increase it, and what the expected distance is within a given relationship or group.
I'm not saying it makes sense to me (it doesn't), but thinking of it in terms of a "closeness metric" that you need to monitor makes things a bit easier. I still fail much (most?) of the time to conform with other people's expectations, but at least I tend to have a vague idea of what I maybe did wrong.
In the end, honesty and bluntness is perceived as threatening because you're meant to leave the person some space. Honesty is perceived as threatening that space, so in some situations it's unwelcome.
-
I wrote a song about these kinds of experiences recently. One day I'll record it properly and post it on here.
-
The way they actually like noise may not be the _most_ baffling thing but I have no comprehension of it.
-
I navigate this by remembering that politeness is always about letting a person maintain a social distance while not making them feel alienated. Every single phrase you say (no exceptions) is either meant to establish a connection with a person or to acknowledge that you and that person differ. Every society has a balance of those two and if you don't keep it, you're either imposing on them or rejecting them. The key is to figure out which phrases decrease the social distance and which increase it, and what the expected distance is within a given relationship or group.
Aah. Yes, navigating the optimal distance to both be close enough, but to avoid pain. It's quite the dilemma.
-
Every single phrase you say (no exceptions) is either meant to establish a connection with a person or to acknowledge that you and that person differ.
Long ago, I think in a Mensa newsletter, I read an article by someone talking about what he called "non-communicative discourse". His opening example was of telling an audience things that were obvious and already known:
We are gathered together in this great hall. We have come from near and far. It has been a year since we last met -- a year of joys, a year of sorrows.
The Mensa member who wrote the article totally missed that the speech communicated "let's establish an emotional togetherness here".
-
I'll never understand why some things are considered "rude". I'm too tired to think of a specific example, but I'm sure everyone else can.
It’s one of those irregular adjectives, isn’t it? I’m being honest. You’re being frank. He’s being unforgivably offensive.
-
A lot of "rude" is about whether the opinion was solicited or not. If someone you know well asks your opinion about X, and you give them an honest answer, you're honest. If you don't know them that well, and they asked, you're frank. If they didn't ask and you just blurted out what you were thinking, that's unforgivably offensive. The less you know someone, the more "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything" applies up to just keeping your yap shut (I've had problems with that last part).
Even when you know someone well, you have to be careful if whatever they've asked about is an area of personal sensitivity. The problem with this last bit is you find out what they're sensitive about *after* committing the first foul...
-
A lot of "rude" is about whether the opinion was solicited or not. If someone you know well asks your opinion about X, and you give them an honest answer, you're honest. If you don't know them that well, and they asked, you're frank. If they didn't ask and you just blurted out what you were thinking, that's unforgivably offensive. The less you know someone, the more "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything" applies up to just keeping your yap shut (I've had problems with that last part).
Even when you know someone well, you have to be careful if whatever they've asked about is an area of personal sensitivity. The problem with this last bit is you find out what they're sensitive about *after* committing the first foul...
Also, many questions from a person you know are really an invitation to reaffirm the person and make them feel loved. An honest, analytical answer may not be appropriate at all. At worst, it may be upsetting. At best, it'll be offering solutions where the person isn't asking for any, not really.
(I really struggle with this. But I know this in theory, so... yay, I guess?)
-
Then just to keep matters unpredictable there are the people who really do want feedback.
I knew someone who'd completed a book and published it. He asked people he knew in the industry for feedback. Instead of being affirming and validating I gave him a list of strengths and weaknesses. He was delighted to get the actual feedback he was asking for instead of the "oh it's great" he got from everybody with social skills.
-
Then just to keep matters unpredictable there are the people who really do want feedback.
I knew someone who'd completed a book and published it. He asked people he knew in the industry for feedback. Instead of being affirming and validating I gave him a list of strengths and weaknesses. He was delighted to get the actual feedback he was asking for instead of the "oh it's great" he got from everybody with social skills.
A friend of mine has sent me the first few chapters of their current WIP.
And I'm tearing it to shreds. (Because, in my opinion, it's not written very well.)
But they asked for my opinion as an author.
Whether or not they can *take* that constructive criticism will (I feel) also make them discover whether or not they really do want to write in any professional capacity. I only began to learn what I was doing wrong when I had an MS similarly torn to bits. It was the absolutely best thing for me at the time and certainly what I needed.
-
Ditto. A good editor is priceless, even though you hate them for a while. I just hope you couch the critiqued MS with that story so your friend remains your friend.
-
Ran across another weird thing. Might be regional, don't know.
Apparently there are people who think women eating in public ("especially alone") is selfish. The (il)logic is that it "shows that women have desires that benefit them (and only them) personally...."
Here's the article. (https://electricliterature.com/theres-nothing-scarier-than-a-hungry-woman/)
-
A lot of "rude" is about whether the opinion was solicited or not. If someone you know well asks your opinion about X, and you give them an honest answer, you're honest.
Oh, I don't know about that.
I think one of the most aut-blocked things in my head for many years was that someone directly asking you for your honest opinion does not necessarily mean that they are actually asking for that.
Then just to keep matters unpredictable there are the people who really do want feedback.
I knew someone who'd completed a book and published it. He asked people he knew in the industry for feedback. Instead of being affirming and validating I gave him a list of strengths and weaknesses. He was delighted to get the actual feedback he was asking for instead of the "oh it's great" he got from everybody with social skills.
As an autistic former journalist, if people ask me to review something then I always warn them in advance that I will be absolutely savage, constructively, and not to ask me if they can't handle that.
Ran across another weird thing. Might be regional, don't know.
Apparently there are people who think women eating in public ("especially alone") is selfish. The (il)logic is that it "shows that women have desires that benefit them (and only them) personally...."
Here's the article. (https://electricliterature.com/theres-nothing-scarier-than-a-hungry-woman/)
I clicked the link expecting to find it ludicrous, but it was deeply thought-provoking.
-
Donct get me wrong, the part analyzing film is quite interesting. I have a few films to rewatch with this article in mind.
It's the societal conditions and expectations (that have flown over my head for 3+ decades) that are asinine.
-
Plenty of things, but if I have to pick one I'll go with performing happiness for the "Hi, how are you?" exchange. I can't do it. I understand that this is just a stock greeting phrase, and my job is to complete the circuit by responding with "Good, and how are you?"
Well, I understand all that in theory - but I find myself incapable of saying I'm good when I'm not. I've had to come up with some socially acceptable responses that I can say when I'm not good. Because responding with a true response when you're not good is generally not socially acceptable. I've taken to using "could be worse" a lot. It's generally true and it doesn't result in people staring at you like you made some horrible faux pas.
This is a good one. I personally hate it. I've social anxiety already too, so if I walk into a crowded place, I now how to do my rehearsed small talk to everyone in the room. Also, I live in Canada now, so everyone is overly polite and let me the fuck OUT
-
This whole "forced gratitude" that seems to crop up during the holidays. In my mind, expecting something in return kinda ruins the whole point in giving something to begin with.
-
The various flavours of greetings and the like talked about upthread are probably phatic expressions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression).
Of course, Tom Scott made a video about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGnH0KAXhCw).
-
My neurotypical roommate just told me that she's going to continue doing the things I've told her are exacerbating all my mental health issues, because her therapist (who's never met me) told her that it'll help me build resiliency.
So what I don't understand why she thinks she knows me better than I know myself. I mean, I don't go around violating her boundaries and telling her it's for her own good, do I?
-
That sounds like some bullshit that therapist is shifting.
-
Yeah, I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm pretty sure that's not how any of this works. And certainly it's not your friend's therapist's call to make. Or your friend's, for that matter.
-
A therapist who is recommending actions to improve your resilience without having examined you is into malpractice territory and deserves to have a complaint filed.
-
Have we considered that your roommate is trying to use the therapist as an excuse to be an asshole?
-
It seems unlikely that your roommate's therapist told your roommate this. It's not the sort of thing their training teaches them to say about people they haven't met. I mean - seriously. This is 99% likely to be your roommate lying to you and 1% likely to be lawsuit-worthy.
But:
I'd call the fact that your roommate told you this a symptom of something that, maybe, their therapist ought to help them deal with. To help your roommate build up some resistance to being an asshole, you should probably tell the therapist that this happened.
-
Yea, I'm going to call bs, your roommate is likely lying through their teeth to add a sense of legitimacy to their asshole behaviour. Not even the shittiest therapist I've ever had would have given advice like that.
-
you should probably tell the therapist that this happened.
I would if I knew anything about who the therapist is, but she didn't say (and didn't even tell me that she had a therapist until this happened). And at this point I'm sure she won't tell me. I'm gonna go start seeing a new therapist later this week so I'll be sure to bring it up then.
And either way, I'm moving out by the end of the month, even if I end up crashing at my brother's house at the other end of the state. This is effin ridiculous.
-
Very pleased to hear you are going somewhere.
Because there's a very slim chance this person has a terrible therapist, and a much more likely chance that they would rather tell a lie this fucking ridiculous in order to justify un-personing you, so.
Please do let us know how you get on.
-
I'll never understand why some things are considered "rude". I'm too tired to think of a specific example, but I'm sure everyone else can.
It’s one of those irregular adjectives, isn’t it? I’m being honest. You’re being frank. He’s being unforgivably offensive.
I mean, some things are pretty obvious like not standing in the middle of a hallway or doorway jabbering with someone else, or farting next to someone and walking away.
-
some things are pretty obvious like not standing in the middle of a hallway or doorway jabbering with someone else
I do that sometimes. But I notice when a person approaches, so that I can I pause my speaking before I can be overheard. If the person stops near me, I wonder why. In the case when I'm blocking a person's trajectory, I notice the person's probable trajectory and I'm blocking it, so I move. This takes only a few seconds. But each time I am walking and a person is blocking my trajectory, it takes a minute for that person to notice me, and it takes a few minutes for that person to start moving after noticing me. Deliberately speaking when taciturn takes me ten minutes, so it's always been easier to just wait for them to move. Recently I was in a situation where two persons took two minutes to notice me, and then more than a dozen minutes to start moving out of my way. By that time, I was able to decide to say something, and had readied the two words "two meters". After I say something, I can speak freely, so I asked why they couldn't have had the same conversation two meters "that way" away from the front door to the building. They left without responding. One thing that I don't understand about some persons is that, instead of responding to questions, they just change a behavior. One example of this is that I asked a person a question and the person answered, then I asked that person what is the reason that that answer is the answer but instead of saying the reason, that person said a different answer to the first question.
-
Well, as far as I understand the question or think I understand the question well enough, my answers would be:
Religion - Thats about find a meaning in life.
Monogamy - Learning to really love a person.
Clothes - Protect from more than the elements; privacy.
Ignoring smell - Because its not very developed in most people.
Graphics - Because optical information can be processed especially quickly.
Conversation logic - The talk given indeed didnt made sense. But politicians try to talk about their message, not about the actual question. So the message of the politician was "if you like that the minimum wage was rased, you must be a bum without a job".
Whos turn is it in conversation - As far as I can tell thats something of a fight and in large groups you really need a moderator. In smaller groups however it usually comes from the conversation itself.
Walking through crowds - No idea, I dont do that consciously, it happends kind of automatic. I dont remember ever colliding with anyone in a crowd, though sometimes there was a close call.
"How are you" - Thats an annoying question because I hardly ever want to discuss my life with that person. I usually evade giving an answer with empty answers such as "Same as always" or "Its okay" or, when I'm in a really vile mood, something like "Dont remind me of that".
Team sports - I'm bored out of my mind as well by them. *shrug*
Women eating in public - Makes no sense, but in Germany we have something compareable. People in Germany act as if children are a chore. Especially awful is some people act as if having children would be selfish, or would be a priviledge that poor people shouldnt have. Children is how mankind can continue; having children is thus not selfish and an absolute necessity.
Presents - Prove that you have tought of people ... not really necessary with adults, usually, but very necessary with children.
-
Presents - Prove that you have tought of people
When I see something that I think a friend would buy for that price, I buy it and offer to sell it to them. If they doesn't buy it then I return it, which takes a few minutes next time I'm at the store. At first we would exchange money each time, but now we remember how much we owe each other. If one of us owes too much or for too long, then we exchange money.
I have been told that this is a perversion of gifts.
-
It's innovative anyway.
The more I think about it the more I like it. If it's worth your friend's buying it, that means you found something they actually wanted, and to me it's the finding the right thing for the right person that's the most fun part of gift-giving.
-
I've long liked the idea of getting stuff for people when you see something they'd love rather than on a fixed schedule.
-
I have been told that this is a perversion of gifts.
So is asking something in return for a gift, though.
[...] to me it's the finding the right thing for the right person that's the most fun part of gift-giving.
Thats also whats hard about finding good gifts for people.
-
On that note, I always hated the forced "gratitude" that older people complained to agony aunts about in the form of "thank you" cards. I'm sorry, when I give something to someone it's because I think that they'll like it. If I expected anything in return, especially as part of some forced ritual, it wouldn't be a gift, then, would it?
-
Forced gratitude, and forced enthusiasm when receiving anything... Why yes, I'm ecstatic about a shirt three sizes too small, in colours that would stop a freight train, why do you ask? I'll put it straight to the donate pile.
-
Pandemic aside, if you're a high school guy, why is physical contact with your friends taboo? Even just a friendly hug is seen as "awkward" or "gay" by the rest of the population. Screw you, I wanna hug my friends.
-
That's not a neurotypical thing, that's a cultural thing. In Middle Eastern cultures, straight platonic male friends kiss each other hello, on the mouth. What levels of physical affection are deemed appropriate vary widely from culture to culture.
-
That's not a neurotypical thing, that's a cultural thing. In Middle Eastern cultures, straight platonic male friends kiss each other hello, on the mouth. What levels of physical affection are deemed appropriate vary widely from culture to culture.
Ok, good to know.
I had to read a definition of neurotypical before I posted on this thread, and the main takeaway I got from it was "people considered normal by society." Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't that definition inherently based on which culture you live in?
-
Of course. In some cultures, male friends will hold hands as they walk, something NOT DONE in the West unless you're in a relationship with that guy.
-
I had to read a definition of neurotypical before I posted on this thread, and the main takeaway I got from it was "people considered normal by society."
That is fair, but perhaps more specifically that it is people whose cognitive patterns are considered normal by society (or something along those lines). For example, I do like hugging my male friends, but even if that is not considered normal by cultural standards, I would still be considered neurotypical.
That is what sitnspin means by "that's a cultural thing."
-
I think I may have finally figured out what 'rude' means when it's not being used for something that's blatantly inconsiderate.
It's an expression of discomfort made in way that attempts to distance the speaker from said negative feelings.
Think about it.
The classic "it's rude to ask a woman her age" can be rephrased as 'I am uncomfortable contemplating my mortality' or 'I am uncomfortable with society's views of women my age.'
In a biting twist of irony, there seems to be a general sense that expressing non-physical discomfort is 'rude'. And likely in the sense highlighted in yellow.
-
What do you think the essential difference is between ‘blatantly inconsiderate’ and your example?
-
What do you think the essential difference is between ‘blatantly inconsiderate’ and your example?
The further above example of people standing in the middle of a passageway of some sort blocking access as they chat would be rude due to being blatantly inconsiderate.
Someone chewing with their mouth open (especially if accompanied by loud mouth breathing and smacking lips) would be both. I'm trying to think of better general examples that aren't highly specific things.
EDIT: I understand that as a male I may be fundamentally misunderstanding the example I gave in my epiphany post, and that it isn't something that applies to everyone.
I should also prob3 mention that I delineate between inconsiderate and insensitive.
-
Surely it's they way they treat the neurodiverse, in the name of tolerance.
In the tech world, it's not a great stretch to say it's "everybody against the neckbeards", but here you have a group of people that have struggled for ages to be treated like everybody else, and they continue to up the stakes against anybody who cannot conform with increasing social expectations.
If it was really about empathy, they might pick up a freaking book and read about the people they constantly talk down to-- but they clearly believe it's acceptable due to the Layperson's DSM-- which just a couple editions ago claimed that being gay was a disease.
My point of course, is not that society should bend its will to perfectly accomodate what they don't understand.
It's more along the lines of "if you realised just how spectacularly imperfect and truly selective you are at tolerance, you would probably turn in your PC Police badge." But that assumes everyone joins the force to make the world a better place. T4 still goes on, under different names and different organisations.
But it's all about exclusion, exploitation and profit. Anybody who has trouble speaking for themselves continues to be voiceless, but the world is sooooooooooo evolved now. I mean today, Alan Turing probably wouldn't have his life ruined over his sexual orientation-- that's progress. He would more likely have it ruined over an entirely different set of arbitrary excuses that make exploiting him "acceptable" instead. And if he spoke for himself, he would find those excuses loud enough to effectively silence any self-advocacy he offered. This is a safe bet, because it keeps happening, and keeps getting worse.
And most people either ignore it, or actually cheer it on like the heralding of a great new era. I question the honesty of it, I can't help noticing the way it preserves corporate power structures in the name of liberation. What baffles me the most is how many good people fall for it. They aren't stupid, but they're utterly swept up in something that has major inconsistencies which are deeply questionable.
-
T4?
[I'm guessing you're not talking about thyroid function.]
-
T4?
Broadly, metaphorically, and to a certain degree literally: https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,30356.msg1441275.html#msg1441275 (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,30356.msg1441275.html#msg1441275)
Basically/broadly, systematic medical and unethical abuse of people from certain groups, as a tradition dating back to the programme with the same name-- putting either reproductive health or life at risk. But note it was a side point to illustrate just how ugly this neglect gets even in a modern society. The general ugliness is the point, the example is a side point.
-
Them: "Will you just look me in the eyes?"
Me: makes and maintains eye contact as request
Them: squirming "Not like that."
-
I’m pretty bad with eye-contact, myself. I’m sure that my habit of staring at the ground has caused plenty of women to think that I was staring at their chests. Of course, if I actually *were* attracted to them, I’d have less of a problem making eye contact.
-
Eye contact is very culture-specific, not all cultures encourage it and many consider it rude and/or aggressive.
-
Quite true. At least in my case, though, I come from a culture where it’s expected, and am terrible at it.
-
In my experience it isn't literal direct eye contact that people want, just looking at them in the general face region periodically to demonstrate your attentiveness.
-
Aah, that is useful to know.
-
Yeah, sustained direct eye contact is pretty aggressive. That's not a social thing -- it's a basic, animal instinct.
-
That’s one of the things that frustrates me to no end with the pandemic. I learnt how to lip-read in the bars/clubs/venues that were loud as fuck, and I’d rather do that than have someone shouting in my ear. I also found it as a way to approximate non-threatining eye-contact.
-
Did you learn to lip read purely by watching, or did you take lessons, or...?
That is a skill I would dearly love to acquire. How hard is it?
-
It was a pretty long process, and basically just watching people’s mouths while they talked, and getting to know the different shapes and stuff. Of course, since my actual hearing is fine, I just had to be “good enough” at it to catch what I’d miss from the ambient noise. And at least for me, it’s kinda like reading something written by a person with no aptitude for spelling or grammar, since there are things that I had to fill in from context.
-
Does it not become inapplicable when dealing with someone with a thick regional or foreign accent? I have an Irish housemate, us mouthing the same words would form different shapes.
-
I can’t say for certain. I learnt watching either people with a California accent, or, amusingly, Irish immigrants. If there was any difference, I must have parsed it sub-conciously. And a few of those Irish folks were London Irish, which is a different accent altogether.
-
Yeah, sustained direct eye contact is pretty aggressive. That's not a social thing -- it's a basic, animal instinct.
Oh, there's another one; not saying what they mean. Be concise, be specific. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
"Look at me" instead of "look me in the eye".
-
I didn't say "look me in the eye" ...
-
I didn't say "look me in the eye" ...
Oh no, sorry. Not you, but in regards to the suggestion that the person saying "look me in the eye" meant 'look in their general direction'.
EDIT: Tonight's been pretty stressful at work. First shift basically did fuck all again and we're down a QA supervisor this time.
I need to see if there are any health inspector positions available in my area.
EDIT2: orange text edited for the sake of clarity.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest what they might have meant to say. I can't possibly have any idea why they reacted that way. Just chipping in with a general observation, really.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest what they might have meant to say. I can't possibly have any idea why they reacted that way. Just chipping in with a general observation, really.
Looks like I was thinkingof sitnspin's "general face region" response.
-
Sorry to hear about your stressful work situation - I hope things improve. :)
I am not 100% in agreement with the idea that saying "look me in the eye" means 'look in their general direction', to be honest (though I'm not 100% writing the idea off either).
I think that direct eye contact is fine - it can indicate honest, it can indicate intimacy, it can indicate directness, depending on context. But sustaining direct eye contact for more than a handful of seconds can elicit discomfort.
Just my 2 cents, not an expert opinion in any way.
-
It was the particular situation as to why I was guessing that's what he meant. Their was no reason for him to think I was being dishonest, he's just an ableist prick.
-
The most baffling thing by far about neurotypicals is their so-called non-verbal communication skills. I'm actually fairly well convinced at this point that it's just complete B.S. and that they are just too stubborn to admit it.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiQyBOIQe5cgiyUPS/giphy.gif)
-
Gotta say, yeah. Nonverbal communication skills. There's soo many things you're supposed to "just know" because "it's obvious."
When it totally isn't.
-
I wouldn't put it quite that way. I'd say that there are so many non-verbal forms of communication people are expected to learn the same way we are learn verbal communication skills -- through observing other people use them.
I agree that this is not so easy for many people. I also agree that it's, shall we say, an imperfect form of communication even for people who are skilled at it. But it's highly effective for conveying many emotions and not at all "complete BS".
-
It is something that was noticed in last week's WCDT that the lack of non-verbal communication caused misunderstandings. If all you can judge is the literal text, than you can interpret it very differently from what the author meant to convey.
-
Yea, I am very skilled at reading nonverbal communication, but it isn't an exact science with a one-for-one translation. It is largely instinctual and educated guess work based on experience and subconscious awareness. I can definitely understand how it can seem like bullshit to people who's brains are wired differently than mine since I can't really explain it in a way that make logical sense. It is such a deeply ingrained and instinctual part of my mental processing that it's hard for me to get how others don't see it.
I think it is important for both neurotypical and neuro-atypical (which is more of a spectrum than and either/or thing) to recognise that each other's experiences of the world are valid, even if we can't directly understand them personally.
-
Yea, I am very skilled at reading nonverbal communication, but it isn't an exact science with a one-for-one translation. It is largely instinctual and educated guess work based on experience and subconscious awareness. I can definitely understand how it can seem like bullshit to people who's brains are wired differently than mine since I can't really explain it in a way that make logical sense. It is such a deeply ingrained and instinctual part of my mental processing that it's hard for me to get how others don't see it.
As a mind who ourself don't instinctively recognize patterns not previously explicated, though a staid believer in the langue game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachspiel); and it's manner of organizing thoughts of language: I have struggled through the collection and consideration of faces. So when I recognize an expression, my reasoning for it's meaning, while still primarily intuitively executed, is explicable approximately thus: This face has (how) many features according with this gesture and (how) few for any other facial patterns that I've recognized; So I respond with a commensurate distribution of appropriate faces. (This, to me, is as difficult to learn/use as any other ostensive definition, but in an area I strive to comprehend.)
Presently I am attempting to learn a foreign language---in part, this way---and have found, as I'd suspected possible, that their facial expressions seem differ significantly from those popular among my locale; For example: What I had assumed were a sort of grimace, was explained as a sincere expression of happiness. The ideas presently in this mind would have me believe that, albeit wordless, gesticulations of various sorts may well be construed as an aspect of the language, and varied as widely as words or grammar, albeit undictionaried and unthesaurussed---at least, not with similar esteem as worded language affords.
-
Interestingly, trouble with nonverbal communication may be why I seem to have ... I guess I should say, no *MORE* trouble - understanding ESL speakers than I have understanding EFL speakers. Accents are mostly a matter of substituted vowels and sometimes unusual rhythms, and I can get used to them pretty quickly. But I probably haven't internalized a vocabuluary of "nonverbal" to the same degree as most, and therefore I'm not misled or confused by differences in that side of things. OTOH, I've long recognized that the American smile is an aberration. You don't see a similar expression in photographs from any other nation.
American notions of a "socially comfortable distance apart to be standing for purposes of conversation etc" were also larger than anyone else's, right up until the pandemic hit. Once people internalized the pandemic, American social distance started to seem downright normal.
-
People are weird about clothes.
Thrift shops and retail stores have vast areas of shop floor devoted to clothes, implying that people buy and abandon clothes at a ferocious rate that I absolutely can't understand a reason for.
Kids outgrow clothes. People who've had bariatric surgery shrink out of clothes. But otherwise... Adults tend to gain weight slowly but not so fast that they'd be getting rid of things before they wear out. And there's tons, literal tons, of clothes for adults on the racks at thrift stores.
And on the other end, in the retail stores, that's kind of freaky too. I know places allocate floor space based on the amount of profit something generates. If 60% of a store's floor space is devoted to clothes, the store is probably making about 60% of its profits on clothes. And I look into all these retail places and there are acres and acres devoted to clothes. An amount of space that wouldn't make sense unless people are buying ten times as many as I can imagine a reason for.
In a given year I make one or possibly two shirts. Every two years or so I decide I need a new pair of pants. I make a new coat every four or six years, but to be honest that's really more often than I need a new coat - the coats have accumulated in my closet and they're all still perfectly good coats.
But people who can buy off the rack - how much do they actually buy? And why?
I get that there is such a thing as "fashion" - but for mens' clothes, it hardly matters. A guy can wear something forty years out of date and unless it was considered fairly radical even when it was popular, nobody notices. And the 'mens' sections in clothing stores are correspondingly smaller. Still seven or eight times as big as I understand a purpose for, but still only a third or less the size of the 'womens' sections.
But on the other side of the coin, several women I know have been wearing the same outfits for years - and I've noticed mostly because I think those particular outfits are awesome. They don't answer to "fashion" very much, but these women all have their own "style" - like Rachel's embroidered Nehru Jacket with the standing collar, which is amazing, or Jacqueline's whimsical collection of poodle skirts. They don't need to buy "fashion" because they can do better. Which is kind of how I feel about some of my coats TBH and likely the reason I have more than two.
So anyway. Another thing that I think is baffling about 'normalcy' - people keep buying clothes. They buy so many that they have to get rid of clothes they haven't even started to wear out.
-
”Fashion rests upon folly. Art rests upon law. Fashion is ephemeral. Art is eternal. Indeed what is a fashion really? A fashion is merely a form of ugliness so absolutely unbearable that we have to alter it every six months! It is quite clear that were it beautiful and rational we would not alter anything that combined those two rare qualities. And wherever dress has been so, it has remained unchanged in law and principle for many hundred years."
‘The Philosophy of Dress’, New York Tribune, April 19th, 1885, 9. Excerpt.
-
Yea, I am very skilled at reading nonverbal communication, but it isn't an exact science with a one-for-one translation. It is largely instinctual and educated guess work based on experience and subconscious awareness. [Snip]
[Yes, I'm late to this conversation.]
Not having had the best of childhoods[1] I was forced to learn body language growing up. The text I oranged is one of the reasons a lot of my body language is deliberate and exaggerated to a degree. I hate being misunderstood and I'm told I have difficulty modulating tone in my delivery by some people. When it comes to facial expressions, it's my eyebrows and mouth that will tell you my intent as that's what I exaggerate. I'm not entirely certain when I started exaggerating my body language, but I know I started doing so more when I started working at the factory I'm at now.[2] Between that and my dry erase board, it makes communicating with my two deaf coworkers and my many ESL coworkers a fair bit easier.[3]
For a examples: When I roll my eyes and I want to the person to know it's a purposeful motion, I'll follow the motion with my head in a small but noticeable arc. Disappointment is indicated with a visible and somewhat animated shoulder and head slump. That sort of thing. Think of a mime or other stage clown performing emotions in a routine/skit.
[1]I'd rather not get into it. Suffice it to say court-ordered family therapy.
[2] I may be 5'5" (165cm) but I weigh 222 lbs (100.7 kg) and have to wear a US men's 3XL labcoat for my shoulders alone. So that tends to spook some folks when I'm walking quickly in their direction.
[3] Not sure if my no-visible-teeth smile is considered abberant or not.
EDIT: Yes, fashion is absolutely B.S. Standardize size, make pockets functional.
EDIT 2: [completing above thought] As long as it's not ratty, covers your nethers, doesn't 'clash', and you like wearing it, it shouldn't matter.
-
Can't remember if I mentioned this already. From childhood I've been baffled that one of them will answer a question in a way that doesn't even relate to the subject of the question and everyone doesn't even notice.
-
There's apparently a knack to that. I've tried answering what someone means instead of what they say, but I screw it up almost every time. The problem is when I try to answer what they mean I tend to answer what they reveal about themselves instead.
Folks tended to get upset. So I quit.
But I have learned a lot of 'set bits' and phrases that people use, and memorized what those bits mean. So I can confidently answer those.
-
Can't remember if I mentioned this already. From childhood I've been baffled that one of them will answer a question in a way that doesn't even relate to the subject of the question and everyone doesn't even notice.
I've noticed at previous jobs that there's a lot of talking past one another on business stuff, plans, strategy, etc at meetings or other discussions, both between other people I'm observing and me talking to someone. Half the time I'm like, did you even comprehend the question I asked or statement made, because you're speaking like you didn't, and still didn't get what I was actually saying after I repeated it or tried saying it a different way. Just one of the many reasons I find meetings pointless and don't like talking to higher ups on non-hot or emergency items.
-
According to the Gervais principle (https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/), it's because you're literally speaking different languages. If people are talking like they don't even understand what you're saying, that's a sign that the conversation isn't about optimizing your business strategy or whatever you think it is; it's optimizing for status in the social and professional hierarchy. Depending on your place in that hierarchy (regardless of whether you realize where your place is) it might be more advantageous for them to gloss over or dismiss whatever you said.
Now, I don't have enough workplace experience to know whether this is common or true. I hope it's not true. But I can see very easily that it could be.
-
According to the Gervais principle (https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/), it's because you're literally speaking different languages. If people are talking like they don't even understand what you're saying, that's a sign that the conversation isn't about optimizing your business strategy or whatever you think it is; it's optimizing for status in the social and professional hierarchy. Depending on your place in that hierarchy (regardless of whether you realize where your place is) it might be more advantageous for them to gloss over or dismiss whatever you said.
Now, I don't have enough workplace experience to know whether this is common or true. I hope it's not true. But I can see very easily that it could be.
So it really may just boil down to 'ego'. Geeze.
I know it often does with coworkers eho believe themselves more important and useful than they actually are.
-
If you mean non-ADD people, just carrying along after they've been startled. I can do that that maybe 3-4 times a day.
-
Although I'm not officially diagnosed (I have an appointment coming up, and the last time I was sectioned - I think you can guess why - rhymes with "urban" - the woman in charge of the joint clocked me in about 20 seconds) I feel like I should mention three things.
A: Soda. (Or beer, or champagne.) I can't swallow it. I don't choose not to; I can't. I regurgitate it. (Actually, I can fight down champagne, but not soda or beer; it is a fight, though.) The only other person I've met who's like this is a diagnosed autist.
B: The sun. I don't understand why it doesn't knock everyone else out.
C: Cheese. Honestly, I know that you'll think I'm a terrible person for saying this (and I guess I am), but I literally see it as more disgusting than feces.
-
I know it often does with coworkers who believe themselves more important and useful than they actually are.
Everyone does that!
-
I know it often does with coworkers who believe themselves more important and useful than they actually are.
Everyone does that!
Fair point, but some instances are particularly egregious.
Like some of our processors in a certain kitchen on days who literally just waste time and resources pretending to work. Recently, one of the managers started a pet project to see what batches take the longest to get redy and why. After teo days of it, none of said processors have shown up to work for two days. We're four days into the project.
EDIT: I've also been informed by ne of my dayshift QA counterparts that they've had to fill in for the absent processors, and that one hasn't bothered coming in since the start of the project. Unlike most loudmouths who claim to do all of the work, our nightshift processors have the paperwork to back up said claim (because QA fills it out).
-
B is wild. (I mean, C is worse, but that just cakes the world in filth, which is quasi-understandable because neurotypicals all but worship something tantamount to feces as food.) But I'm here, and I want desperately to lie down, but I'll need to get permission from the lobby, which I may or may not get, and if I do it may cost me roughly two bennies...
-
I do hate that yellow thing in the sky, oh how it burns us! But I am a lover of the rotten solidified milk. Although, in my defence, the stuff I buy is also quite a bit of mould.
-
I do hate that yellow thing in the sky, oh how it burns us! But I am a lover of the rotten solidified milk. Although, in my defence, the stuff I buy is also quite a bit of mould.
Same here on both counts.
It's why I work nights afterall.
-
I technically work nights, but I sleep through most of my shift so I don't know if that counts.
-
I've literally fled twenty miles right now, and I'm worried I'll get in trouble as I frantically try to cleanse my blood vessels of the FILTH the only non-invasive way I know, however many doctors tell me not to. People who know what a mess I am do this ridiculous "I'm not touching you" which is honestly worse than just eating the SHIT (would that I meant it literally - yes, I would rather that people ate flatbread with tomatoes and SHIT or layers of pasta and SHIT or a bottle of granules of SHIT) in front of me.
...yeah, I'm a crazy person, but that's kind of the point of this thread, sin't it?
-
You're not crazy. The point of this thread is in fact to try to help you feel the opposite way
-
And I’m well aware of the absurdity of eating something that smells like the inside of my boots after a long day on my feet. Honestly, people accept a lot of things as “normal” that are patently absurd when looked at from another perspective. Even amongst NT folks, food, and whether something is considered disgusting, edible, or really great is often a cultural thing so can be quite different.
-
And I’m well aware of the absurdity of eating something that smells like the inside of my boots after a long day on my feet. Honestly, people accept a lot of things as “normal” that are patently absurd when looked at from another perspective. Even amongst NT folks, food, and whether something is considered disgusting, edible, or really great is often a cultural thing so can be quite different.
Alcohol, the most common recreational drug, is fungus poop, and if aliens ever visit us, that's all they need to know about us as a species. Or even about primates in general, because other apes and some monkeys also happily partake in fermented fruit laying around to get tipsy.
I've found the solution to the Fermi paradox. Aliens arrived, saw us drink fungus poop to the point we often lose our sense of coordination, and noped pretty hard out of the Solar System.
-
And considering how one of our other major passtimes is purposefully breathing in the byproducts of fire...
-
And I’m well aware of the absurdity of eating something that smells like the inside of my boots after a long day on my feet. Honestly, people accept a lot of things as “normal” that are patently absurd when looked at from another perspective. Even amongst NT folks, food, and whether something is considered disgusting, edible, or really great is often a cultural thing so can be quite different.
American pale ales. [shudder]
-
I’m not a fan of pale ales in general, and the IPA craze baffles me entirely. Why the fuck would I ever want to drink something that’s as horribly bitter as the twisted and decayed remnants of my soul? Give me a good stout or porter any day.
-
Hmmm, Cassels Milk Stout. I love living in NZ: https://cassels.nz/product/milk-stout/
-
I’m not a fan of pale ales in general, and the IPA craze baffles me entirely. Why the fuck would I ever want to drink something that’s as horribly bitter as the twisted and decayed remnants of my soul? Give me a good stout or porter any day.
I'm told it's actually [for the taste]. Ditto for the drink additives 'bitters'. I know different people have different preferences[1], and whatever that adage about experiencing bitterness and sweetness is. But, that doesn't change the fact that bitterness generally triggers my brain to scream 'that's poison, spit it out'.
[1] I'm frequently told how odd my tastes are. At least my preference for Jaeger usually shuts up the people making fun of me for not liking beer. I'm also particularly they fond of proper black licorice (Wiley Wallaby and Darrell Lea), and other older flavors.
EDIT: trimming overshare
-
I don't understand beer either but then I drink scotch so what do I know
I absutelt powered through with scotch originally as a flex and then eventually did really like it
-
I do love a good single-malt, Islay for preference.
-
Scotch is fine for me, but I tend toward liqueurs and mixed drinks.
I think my Spaghetti Western is still in the cooking thread, if not;
1 part Root 100 to 1 part sarsaparilla (Frostop recommended)
-
I’m not a fan of pale ales in general, and the IPA craze baffles me entirely. Why the fuck would I ever want to drink something that’s as horribly bitter as the twisted and decayed remnants of my soul? Give me a good stout or porter any day.
OK, so hear me out.
I think this might be a very weird case of toxic masculinity.
Let me elaborate.
While a beer connoisseur will be aware that beers come in all shapes and sizes, and their flavours can be extremely different from each other, from dark and heavy taste that's basically like someone dropped a granite slab on your tongue all the way to something that tastes almost like fruit juice - the average beer drinker associates beer taste with a, well, typical beer. A little bitter, a little hoppy.
Not everyone enjoys this kind of taste. And there's a LOT of stereotypes about what drinks people enjoy. Y'know, anything that doesn't taste strongly of alcohol or has any colour, and any mixed drink that will not instantly knock you out is a "girly" drink.
And there's social stigma against alcohol-drinking men who don't enjoy beer (let's ignore stigma against teetotallers, because that's its own case of worms). For precisely the same stereotypical reasons. A lot of women don't like typical bitter-ish beer, but I think that's only half-true. I think a lot of women don't like beer AND ARE NOT AFRAID TO ADMIT IT. Meanwhile, many men either won't admit they don't like the taste, or they'll Stockholm Syndrome themselves into drinking it, because they're "supposed" to like it and it's an "acquired taste". Which it is. But there's no requirement TO acquire it.
Same happens with coffee, BTW. Black coffee is "supposed" to be enjoyed by people who know their coffee. When surveyed, people (and especially men) will express a preference for a coffee with no additional stuff (other than maybe some sugar), strongly brewed from a rich, dark roast. Actual people, as sales figures show, usually drink their coffee with a lot of milk and sugar. The difference between surveys and actual consumption habits is quite large, and not an accident.
But anyway. Toxic masculinity is one Hell of a drug, but some men are still not comfortable engaging with implicitly misogynist and homophobic narratives. But a man who happens to be a beer snob (and stereotypical beer snobs are men, because again - cultural expectations) will still need to assert his masculinity.
So what beer will people who are obnoxious about beer say they like? The beer that's the most beer-like EVER. And that means a lot of bitter and hoppy tastes.
Since most people don't know that much about beer, don't distinguish subtle changes and don't have an actual preference for high-quality beers, a person who doesn't know their beers but really wants others to think they have a Refined Taste will go for the most beer that ever beered. And without any nuance, that means more bitterness and more hoppiness. And that led to a sort of a arms race among beer hipsters.
There are people who legitimately enjoy bitter, hoppy beer. But they don't tend to like this taken all the way to absurdity. But a person who just wants to be the Most Correct beer enjoyer is more concerned with image than with personal enjoyment, so they'll overcorrect into "enjoying" very hoppy and very bitter beer.
Again, this is not dissimilar to other toxic masculine behaviour around food. There are people who like spicy food. But everyone knows that one dude (and that's nearly always a dude) who eats things so spicy, they can't possibly enjoy, or even register, the taste of the food. They associate eating super-spicy stuff with being a manly man that mans more than any other man has ever manned.
That's my take on super-hyper-OMG-hoppy and bitter beers.
And I enjoy beer that's both bitter and hoppy on occasion, so it's not like I mind more hoppy IPAs. But I do think past some point, people going for the extreme stuff are not beer enjoyers, they're enjoyers of the idea of being beer enjoyers. None of my friends who are really into beers to the point they know a lot about them are so single-minded about taste and flavour.
-
That does make a lot of sense. Kinda like those fuckers who always reach for the Ardbeg… wait. nothing. I didn’t say anything.
-
It sounds awfully truthy to me (in the Colbert sense).
-
Anyone else having trouble with reconciling that they're considered physically imposing despite having intellectually knowing for a while?
-
Considering that physically, the QC cast member I most closely resemble is Elliot, yes. I tend to quietly loom, and have spent quite a bit of effort trying to seem “smaller” and less threatening.
-
I do admittedly find that I sometimes hunch my shoulders too. Partly to keep from knocking things at elbow height over[1] and partly to seem smaller, high five of understanding on the latter.
But, the two of the things I got made fun of and bullied for growing up[2][3], I never expected to ever be considered intimidating. So it's still weird to see people flinch away from me despite being short.
[1] It seems like just about everything on a counter is at elbow height at 5'5".
[2] Being short since forever. Then, my weight/build since middle school because I started getting pudgy and stocky. I'm now 5'5", 222 lbs and have to wear a 2XL for my shoulders width.
[3] And my ADD along with my then undiagnosed ASD.
[Previous response deleted because it probably came of rambly and weird in retrospect. Hopefully this one makes more sense?]
-
Anyone else having trouble with reconciling that they're considered physically imposing despite having intellectually knowing for a while?
As a tall, cis white man - I have been wrestling for this ever since I learned what feminism actually was in the 2010s