![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[random, psychology]
Sep. 20th, 2005 11:43 amI am bizarrely pleased by the idea of neuropsychology. It makes pretty sparkly shiny things in my head.
Very shiny...
Very shiny...
Sep. 20th, 2005
[random, psychology]
Sep. 20th, 2005 11:43 amI am bizarrely pleased by the idea of neuropsychology. It makes pretty sparkly shiny things in my head.
Very shiny...
Very shiny...
Any time I am told to do something, without a reason why, I'm nearly certain to decide to _not_ do that thing. (exception being if I can figure out why it's a good idea, but that's rare. Most of what I think are good ideas come from people who tell me why - even if I may not need the explanation - or from the inside of my own head)
This means that most LJ memes (I really do want a word which _isn't_ a perversion of the original meaning...) and email forwards with that wording - even if I might otherwise have considered doing them/passing them along - will instantly be something I refuse to do.
Being asked to do something is unlikely to get that reaction. People assuming that I will be do something will probably also get that reaction (although if it's someone who knows me well, I am likely to try to think about it first, rather than immediately be annoyed by the assumption. Because, well, assumptions can be accurate!). It's especially bad if there is an assumption made and not stated.
I _need_ to know why. It helps me remember things, it helps me want to do things (which in turn makes it likely they will occur, because I am more likely to think of said things), it helps me understand the reason behind things which might otherwise seem senseless. Even 'because I want you to' is better than nothing, although it may not actually help your cause if that's the only reason given. Depends on how much I trust a person, really, and that comes from a combination of how well understood I feel, how well I can read/understand them, and amount of interaction.
And... it helps protect me from the fact that I'm overly credulous, even after lots and lots of effort put into being less so. (my bullshit meter is better than none at all. And I can tailor it for specific people, which also helps. Similar to how I get accustomed to people's way of speaking, so I will spend less time with parser errors, and may unconsciously modify my speech patterns more toward theirs when talking to them)
For most/all of my youth (and still a fair amount now, but certainly less), I _had_ to be told what to do for most things which seemed obvious to most people (there's a reason I like to say that nothing is obvious). Because the people who tended to be the ones to tell me what to do did not take unfair advantage of this and understood the reasons behind it, I am still perfectly willing to take and seek out other people's advice, especially if they have proven themselves to be good at interpreting me. But enough interaction with people who _did_ try to take advantage of this means that without knowing that a person can be trusted, my first instinct _will_ be to refuse.
[why the hell does LJ's spellcheck not know 'proven'?]
This means that most LJ memes (I really do want a word which _isn't_ a perversion of the original meaning...) and email forwards with that wording - even if I might otherwise have considered doing them/passing them along - will instantly be something I refuse to do.
Being asked to do something is unlikely to get that reaction. People assuming that I will be do something will probably also get that reaction (although if it's someone who knows me well, I am likely to try to think about it first, rather than immediately be annoyed by the assumption. Because, well, assumptions can be accurate!). It's especially bad if there is an assumption made and not stated.
I _need_ to know why. It helps me remember things, it helps me want to do things (which in turn makes it likely they will occur, because I am more likely to think of said things), it helps me understand the reason behind things which might otherwise seem senseless. Even 'because I want you to' is better than nothing, although it may not actually help your cause if that's the only reason given. Depends on how much I trust a person, really, and that comes from a combination of how well understood I feel, how well I can read/understand them, and amount of interaction.
And... it helps protect me from the fact that I'm overly credulous, even after lots and lots of effort put into being less so. (my bullshit meter is better than none at all. And I can tailor it for specific people, which also helps. Similar to how I get accustomed to people's way of speaking, so I will spend less time with parser errors, and may unconsciously modify my speech patterns more toward theirs when talking to them)
For most/all of my youth (and still a fair amount now, but certainly less), I _had_ to be told what to do for most things which seemed obvious to most people (there's a reason I like to say that nothing is obvious). Because the people who tended to be the ones to tell me what to do did not take unfair advantage of this and understood the reasons behind it, I am still perfectly willing to take and seek out other people's advice, especially if they have proven themselves to be good at interpreting me. But enough interaction with people who _did_ try to take advantage of this means that without knowing that a person can be trusted, my first instinct _will_ be to refuse.
[why the hell does LJ's spellcheck not know 'proven'?]
Any time I am told to do something, without a reason why, I'm nearly certain to decide to _not_ do that thing. (exception being if I can figure out why it's a good idea, but that's rare. Most of what I think are good ideas come from people who tell me why - even if I may not need the explanation - or from the inside of my own head)
This means that most LJ memes (I really do want a word which _isn't_ a perversion of the original meaning...) and email forwards with that wording - even if I might otherwise have considered doing them/passing them along - will instantly be something I refuse to do.
Being asked to do something is unlikely to get that reaction. People assuming that I will be do something will probably also get that reaction (although if it's someone who knows me well, I am likely to try to think about it first, rather than immediately be annoyed by the assumption. Because, well, assumptions can be accurate!). It's especially bad if there is an assumption made and not stated.
I _need_ to know why. It helps me remember things, it helps me want to do things (which in turn makes it likely they will occur, because I am more likely to think of said things), it helps me understand the reason behind things which might otherwise seem senseless. Even 'because I want you to' is better than nothing, although it may not actually help your cause if that's the only reason given. Depends on how much I trust a person, really, and that comes from a combination of how well understood I feel, how well I can read/understand them, and amount of interaction.
And... it helps protect me from the fact that I'm overly credulous, even after lots and lots of effort put into being less so. (my bullshit meter is better than none at all. And I can tailor it for specific people, which also helps. Similar to how I get accustomed to people's way of speaking, so I will spend less time with parser errors, and may unconsciously modify my speech patterns more toward theirs when talking to them)
For most/all of my youth (and still a fair amount now, but certainly less), I _had_ to be told what to do for most things which seemed obvious to most people (there's a reason I like to say that nothing is obvious). Because the people who tended to be the ones to tell me what to do did not take unfair advantage of this and understood the reasons behind it, I am still perfectly willing to take and seek out other people's advice, especially if they have proven themselves to be good at interpreting me. But enough interaction with people who _did_ try to take advantage of this means that without knowing that a person can be trusted, my first instinct _will_ be to refuse.
[why the hell does LJ's spellcheck not know 'proven'?]
This means that most LJ memes (I really do want a word which _isn't_ a perversion of the original meaning...) and email forwards with that wording - even if I might otherwise have considered doing them/passing them along - will instantly be something I refuse to do.
Being asked to do something is unlikely to get that reaction. People assuming that I will be do something will probably also get that reaction (although if it's someone who knows me well, I am likely to try to think about it first, rather than immediately be annoyed by the assumption. Because, well, assumptions can be accurate!). It's especially bad if there is an assumption made and not stated.
I _need_ to know why. It helps me remember things, it helps me want to do things (which in turn makes it likely they will occur, because I am more likely to think of said things), it helps me understand the reason behind things which might otherwise seem senseless. Even 'because I want you to' is better than nothing, although it may not actually help your cause if that's the only reason given. Depends on how much I trust a person, really, and that comes from a combination of how well understood I feel, how well I can read/understand them, and amount of interaction.
And... it helps protect me from the fact that I'm overly credulous, even after lots and lots of effort put into being less so. (my bullshit meter is better than none at all. And I can tailor it for specific people, which also helps. Similar to how I get accustomed to people's way of speaking, so I will spend less time with parser errors, and may unconsciously modify my speech patterns more toward theirs when talking to them)
For most/all of my youth (and still a fair amount now, but certainly less), I _had_ to be told what to do for most things which seemed obvious to most people (there's a reason I like to say that nothing is obvious). Because the people who tended to be the ones to tell me what to do did not take unfair advantage of this and understood the reasons behind it, I am still perfectly willing to take and seek out other people's advice, especially if they have proven themselves to be good at interpreting me. But enough interaction with people who _did_ try to take advantage of this means that without knowing that a person can be trusted, my first instinct _will_ be to refuse.
[why the hell does LJ's spellcheck not know 'proven'?]
[brains.self-awareness] writing
Sep. 20th, 2005 03:00 pmWriting documentation for stuff, at least in my head (regardless of what the stuff is) also involves checking to make sure that what is supposed to be happening does. (I do documentation and testing for bugs pretty much simultaneously. Always have. It's a large part of why I'm good at documenting things that I understand well enough to test them or use them. I have to write things down to remember them _anyway_!)
Oddly, this appears to relate _strongly_ to the process I use to figure out the things in my head.
1) write something down
2) read it, see if it's accurate, clear, and covers everything
3) if missing any of the above, go back to one and modify the original writings. Alternately, if I can't figure out where things aren't quite right, have someone else take a look. When they find something or question something, go back to one and modify.
It's not that I do drafts, because I don't. Drafts always killed me in school, because if I saw things as not being accurate, I would want to fix them _then_. (well, also because drafts were writing by hand, which is hell for me) It's more like... writing an outline of what I want by putting basic concepts on paper, with little to no organization, then filling them out and moving things around as necessary.
Because, for me, organizing is _last_, and happens when I think a piece of what I'm writing has enough words to be clear. So outlines are... worthless to me. Entirely. Drafts almost as much so, since at least drafts have the useful aspect of encouraging me to come back to an idea after a bit of time has passed, and see if it still makes sense.
I do often wonder how entertaining it might be to watch the process I use to write things, if they are things which require a lot of effort to write (usually, these things are heralded by a total inability to interact with people until I've at least written down the initial basic concepts, although I tend to prefer to at least fill some of the words around them in, as well.).
Organizing is very much a learned, not automatic, thing for me. On the plus side, it appears to be tied thoroughly into my mild OCD.
Oddly, this appears to relate _strongly_ to the process I use to figure out the things in my head.
1) write something down
2) read it, see if it's accurate, clear, and covers everything
3) if missing any of the above, go back to one and modify the original writings. Alternately, if I can't figure out where things aren't quite right, have someone else take a look. When they find something or question something, go back to one and modify.
It's not that I do drafts, because I don't. Drafts always killed me in school, because if I saw things as not being accurate, I would want to fix them _then_. (well, also because drafts were writing by hand, which is hell for me) It's more like... writing an outline of what I want by putting basic concepts on paper, with little to no organization, then filling them out and moving things around as necessary.
Because, for me, organizing is _last_, and happens when I think a piece of what I'm writing has enough words to be clear. So outlines are... worthless to me. Entirely. Drafts almost as much so, since at least drafts have the useful aspect of encouraging me to come back to an idea after a bit of time has passed, and see if it still makes sense.
I do often wonder how entertaining it might be to watch the process I use to write things, if they are things which require a lot of effort to write (usually, these things are heralded by a total inability to interact with people until I've at least written down the initial basic concepts, although I tend to prefer to at least fill some of the words around them in, as well.).
Organizing is very much a learned, not automatic, thing for me. On the plus side, it appears to be tied thoroughly into my mild OCD.
[brains.self-awareness] writing
Sep. 20th, 2005 03:00 pmWriting documentation for stuff, at least in my head (regardless of what the stuff is) also involves checking to make sure that what is supposed to be happening does. (I do documentation and testing for bugs pretty much simultaneously. Always have. It's a large part of why I'm good at documenting things that I understand well enough to test them or use them. I have to write things down to remember them _anyway_!)
Oddly, this appears to relate _strongly_ to the process I use to figure out the things in my head.
1) write something down
2) read it, see if it's accurate, clear, and covers everything
3) if missing any of the above, go back to one and modify the original writings. Alternately, if I can't figure out where things aren't quite right, have someone else take a look. When they find something or question something, go back to one and modify.
It's not that I do drafts, because I don't. Drafts always killed me in school, because if I saw things as not being accurate, I would want to fix them _then_. (well, also because drafts were writing by hand, which is hell for me) It's more like... writing an outline of what I want by putting basic concepts on paper, with little to no organization, then filling them out and moving things around as necessary.
Because, for me, organizing is _last_, and happens when I think a piece of what I'm writing has enough words to be clear. So outlines are... worthless to me. Entirely. Drafts almost as much so, since at least drafts have the useful aspect of encouraging me to come back to an idea after a bit of time has passed, and see if it still makes sense.
I do often wonder how entertaining it might be to watch the process I use to write things, if they are things which require a lot of effort to write (usually, these things are heralded by a total inability to interact with people until I've at least written down the initial basic concepts, although I tend to prefer to at least fill some of the words around them in, as well.).
Organizing is very much a learned, not automatic, thing for me. On the plus side, it appears to be tied thoroughly into my mild OCD.
Oddly, this appears to relate _strongly_ to the process I use to figure out the things in my head.
1) write something down
2) read it, see if it's accurate, clear, and covers everything
3) if missing any of the above, go back to one and modify the original writings. Alternately, if I can't figure out where things aren't quite right, have someone else take a look. When they find something or question something, go back to one and modify.
It's not that I do drafts, because I don't. Drafts always killed me in school, because if I saw things as not being accurate, I would want to fix them _then_. (well, also because drafts were writing by hand, which is hell for me) It's more like... writing an outline of what I want by putting basic concepts on paper, with little to no organization, then filling them out and moving things around as necessary.
Because, for me, organizing is _last_, and happens when I think a piece of what I'm writing has enough words to be clear. So outlines are... worthless to me. Entirely. Drafts almost as much so, since at least drafts have the useful aspect of encouraging me to come back to an idea after a bit of time has passed, and see if it still makes sense.
I do often wonder how entertaining it might be to watch the process I use to write things, if they are things which require a lot of effort to write (usually, these things are heralded by a total inability to interact with people until I've at least written down the initial basic concepts, although I tend to prefer to at least fill some of the words around them in, as well.).
Organizing is very much a learned, not automatic, thing for me. On the plus side, it appears to be tied thoroughly into my mild OCD.
My mom lent me a book when she last visited (actually, she tried to lend me multiple, but I was only strongly interested in this one) called "Born on the Wrong Planet", written by a woman with Asperger's, among other neurologic disorders. As with when I read "Thinking in Pictures" by Dr. Temple Grandin, there were many moments of remembering and understanding. More with this one than with "Thinking in Pictures", probably at least partly because I don't have much facility with visual information (reading and writing use my eyes, but are verbal, not visual), but almost certainly also because I never had a problem of being physically unable to communicate (I just didn't necessarily know that I should, or how to say what I wanted to say).
( I blather about the book and some of the memories it sparked, and I relate some quotes from it )
( I blather about the book and some of the memories it sparked, and I relate some quotes from it )
My mom lent me a book when she last visited (actually, she tried to lend me multiple, but I was only strongly interested in this one) called "Born on the Wrong Planet", written by a woman with Asperger's, among other neurologic disorders. As with when I read "Thinking in Pictures" by Dr. Temple Grandin, there were many moments of remembering and understanding. More with this one than with "Thinking in Pictures", probably at least partly because I don't have much facility with visual information (reading and writing use my eyes, but are verbal, not visual), but almost certainly also because I never had a problem of being physically unable to communicate (I just didn't necessarily know that I should, or how to say what I wanted to say).
( I blather about the book and some of the memories it sparked, and I relate some quotes from it )
( I blather about the book and some of the memories it sparked, and I relate some quotes from it )