![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wispfoxRelating to my comments in my previous post about tending to think that lack of contact means lack of interest, a) it's only a problem if I'm otherwise _really_ emotionally fucked up, and b) generally doesn't affect people who are not living near me (I currently think of the Boston area as 'near me', and more generally, anywhere that I think is a reasonably short drive for brief visits), especially if they are good at pinging me when they _are_ in the area. People who aren't near me _can't_ visit as often, so I expect this.
Also doesn't affect people who are in my 'we get together when there is time and energy and initiative, and are ok when there is not' category, which is mostly based on how long I've been close to a person, although not entirely. And, for people who are living near me, pinging me with some vague sense of regularity is generally enough for me to not have this reaction, even this time of year. It's partly about the regularity of contact, and about me not necessarily being the one to initiate contact.
There is an exception to this, because anyone I'm strongly emotionally entangled with can, any time my emotions are otherwise being fucked up (like this time of year), easy trigger the 'didn't hear anything from them in what is probably a stupidly short amount of time, something must be wrong and it must be me' reaction. Largely, I think, because being strongly emotionally entangled seriously increases my feeling of vulnerability and therefore magnifies fears and uncertainties when I'm already in an uncertain emotional state.
I also suspect that both of the poisonous basic assumptions relate to my general feeling of being different than everyone else, and in ways which are usually subtle. Being subtly different is all too often interpreted as behaving strangely intentionally. Or as being scary. Or as hiding something. Or similar things.
It was pointed out in comments in the previous post that my non-verbal communication is about three times as dense as my verbal communication - spoken _or_ written. I note that the person who said this has mostly only seen my LJ-based verbal communication patterns, which are different than my high volume email-based communication patterns. But, there did seem to be enough truth in that comment that I thought I'd bring it out as part of a post.
I tend to not assume that non-verbal communication will work, either in that I am understood, or that I am understanding. But, if it turns out that it _is_ working, in either direction, I will put less effort into worrying about it or adjusting for it. This will make a big difference in how comfortable I am around a person, because having to put in less effort makes people easier for me to be around. If non-verbal communication is working in the sense of me being able to read a person with relative ease, I am less likely to feel a need to put a lot of effort into trying to read them. If it's working in the sense of someone demonstrating a general ability to know what I'm trying to say before I necessarily get it out, I will put less effort into making sure what I'm saying is clear and concise.
Communicating with words is not low effort for me, much as I index using them (using words in my head is a lot different than using them outside my head. I don't know why). If I can find a way to not have to use as many words, or any, I will use it. I will absolutely take those short-cuts if I think I can still get my point across (some such short-cuts are using a non-specific word like 'thingy' to get past being stuck, for example). So I have no trouble at all believing that my communication is far more densely packed if I don't have to rely as strongly on words. I also suspect strongly that this is only something I can really do in one-on-one or very _very_ small group situations, as I suspect that to at least some degree, I will frame my non-verbal communication for whomever I'm talking to. Is probably why larger groups are more difficult for me.
I don't tend to do this quite as much in writing, though, even with people who have a very high percentage likelihood of knowing what I mean. If they have a good likelihood, it may mean I put less effort into trying to make things concise, and less effort into trying to make sure there is order to what I say, but this means I use _more_ words, not fewer. There isn't any other medium than words in writing, so I don't know what else I _would_ use. And I will still worry that I'm not getting my point(s) across, since I know I'm putting less effort into the words, but am communicating solely in words.
Also doesn't affect people who are in my 'we get together when there is time and energy and initiative, and are ok when there is not' category, which is mostly based on how long I've been close to a person, although not entirely. And, for people who are living near me, pinging me with some vague sense of regularity is generally enough for me to not have this reaction, even this time of year. It's partly about the regularity of contact, and about me not necessarily being the one to initiate contact.
There is an exception to this, because anyone I'm strongly emotionally entangled with can, any time my emotions are otherwise being fucked up (like this time of year), easy trigger the 'didn't hear anything from them in what is probably a stupidly short amount of time, something must be wrong and it must be me' reaction. Largely, I think, because being strongly emotionally entangled seriously increases my feeling of vulnerability and therefore magnifies fears and uncertainties when I'm already in an uncertain emotional state.
I also suspect that both of the poisonous basic assumptions relate to my general feeling of being different than everyone else, and in ways which are usually subtle. Being subtly different is all too often interpreted as behaving strangely intentionally. Or as being scary. Or as hiding something. Or similar things.
It was pointed out in comments in the previous post that my non-verbal communication is about three times as dense as my verbal communication - spoken _or_ written. I note that the person who said this has mostly only seen my LJ-based verbal communication patterns, which are different than my high volume email-based communication patterns. But, there did seem to be enough truth in that comment that I thought I'd bring it out as part of a post.
I tend to not assume that non-verbal communication will work, either in that I am understood, or that I am understanding. But, if it turns out that it _is_ working, in either direction, I will put less effort into worrying about it or adjusting for it. This will make a big difference in how comfortable I am around a person, because having to put in less effort makes people easier for me to be around. If non-verbal communication is working in the sense of me being able to read a person with relative ease, I am less likely to feel a need to put a lot of effort into trying to read them. If it's working in the sense of someone demonstrating a general ability to know what I'm trying to say before I necessarily get it out, I will put less effort into making sure what I'm saying is clear and concise.
Communicating with words is not low effort for me, much as I index using them (using words in my head is a lot different than using them outside my head. I don't know why). If I can find a way to not have to use as many words, or any, I will use it. I will absolutely take those short-cuts if I think I can still get my point across (some such short-cuts are using a non-specific word like 'thingy' to get past being stuck, for example). So I have no trouble at all believing that my communication is far more densely packed if I don't have to rely as strongly on words. I also suspect strongly that this is only something I can really do in one-on-one or very _very_ small group situations, as I suspect that to at least some degree, I will frame my non-verbal communication for whomever I'm talking to. Is probably why larger groups are more difficult for me.
I don't tend to do this quite as much in writing, though, even with people who have a very high percentage likelihood of knowing what I mean. If they have a good likelihood, it may mean I put less effort into trying to make things concise, and less effort into trying to make sure there is order to what I say, but this means I use _more_ words, not fewer. There isn't any other medium than words in writing, so I don't know what else I _would_ use. And I will still worry that I'm not getting my point(s) across, since I know I'm putting less effort into the words, but am communicating solely in words.
