Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[knavecornbread]

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.

[Thrillho]

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.

[Gyrre]

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.

[厚目眠子]

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.

[snubnose]

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.

[厚目眠子]

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.

[Is it cold in here?]

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.

[Tova]

I've long liked the idea of getting stuff for people when you see something they'd love rather than on a fixed schedule.

[snubnose]

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.

[hedgie]

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?

[Cornelius]

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.

[Gnabberwocky]

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.

[sitnspin]

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.

[Gnabberwocky]

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?

[Wingy]

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.

[Tova]

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."

[Gyrre]

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.

[Tova]

What do you think the essential difference is between ‘blatantly inconsiderate’ and your example?

[Gyrre]

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.

[flfederation]

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.

[Gyrre]

T4?

[I'm guessing you're not talking about thyroid function.]

[flfederation]

T4?

Broadly, metaphorically, and to a certain degree literally: 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.

[Gyrre]

Them: "Will you just look me in the eyes?"
Me: makes and  maintains eye contact as request
Them: squirming "Not like that."

[hedgie]

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.

[sitnspin]

Eye contact is very culture-specific, not all cultures encourage it and many consider it rude and/or aggressive.

[hedgie]

Quite true.  At least in my case, though, I come from a culture where it’s expected, and am terrible at it.

[sitnspin]

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.

[hedgie]

Aah, that is useful to know.

[Tova]

Yeah, sustained direct eye contact is pretty aggressive. That's not a social thing -- it's a basic, animal instinct.

[hedgie]

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. 

[Tova]

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?

[hedgie]

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.

[Thrillho]

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.

[hedgie]

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.

[Gyrre]

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".

[Tova]

I didn't say "look me in the eye" ...

[Gyrre]

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.

[Tova]

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.

[Gyrre]

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.

[Tova]

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.

[Gyrre]

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.

[fatemaster]

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.

[Tova]

[Morituri]

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.

[Tova]

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".

[Farideh]

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.

[sitnspin]

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.

[Dock Braun]

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; 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.

[Morituri]

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.

[Morituri]

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.