![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wispfoxSome people, I get to know to a certain point, and then I stop. Some people, I don't ever get a sufficient interest level to get to know them. Some people, I seek out (with varying levels of how often or how much), and some people I'm good with just happening to run into them.
Sometimes, I can have sufficient interest in a person to seek them out, but then get to a point where it seems the balance point between time and energy is such that happening to run into them is the best point. Sometimes, people have to do a fair amount to get my attention, and they turn into a really good friend (or something). Sometimes, I'm fine with just knowing that people of niftiness exist, regardless of if I ever get a reasonable amount of time with them.
All of this sometimes makes me feel fickle. And yet. And yet, if I actually tried to find time for everyone I know in equal amounts, I wouldn't know anyone very well, and would burn myself out in fruitless ways. So, knowing this, why is it that I can still feel fickle for picking and choosing where my time and energy goes? I confuse me.
There are lots of people I think are nifty. There are lots of people who I would be happy getting to know better if time and happenstance allowed for it. There are far fewer people who I can read easily, or perhaps who can read me easily enough that my difficulty does not become a problem. And ease of reading someone appears to be a major factor in who I am close to and who I will seek out.
There are definitely times that I look at the widely spread-outedness of the people who I am strongly drawn to - regardless of whether or not this pull causes me to feel a need to interact with them frequently - and am glad they are widely spread, because I would probably have a harder time reminding myself that it's ok to see people infrequently, if they were nearer. And yet, it can also frustrate the hell out of me that so very many people are really far away from me. Distance, and lack thereof, do make a very big difference in interaction patterns, and there appears to be no way to tell if in a good or bad way. Some of the people I had a lot of interaction with when I first got to know them are people I feel closer to now that it's less frequent. Some of the people who are far away are people with whom I suspect a reduction of distance would be good, although certainly still an adjustment.
The idea of not having anything for which one is working in an entirely non-verbal space baffles the hell out of me. I can think of three things, off the top of my head, which are entirely non-verbal for me (math, energy work, touch of any sort).
Apparently yes, I do need a jacket. (Yes, I'm not in Boston. It couldn't find Andover. Where it's snowing. Not misty) I don't remember who linked to this.
I have no idea who linked to this, either, but University of Massachusetts researchers will announce today that they have discovered a strategy for immobilizing sperm and have reached an agreement with a Norwegian company to develop a male contraceptive pill.
Ok. Sleep now. Seriously.
Sometimes, I can have sufficient interest in a person to seek them out, but then get to a point where it seems the balance point between time and energy is such that happening to run into them is the best point. Sometimes, people have to do a fair amount to get my attention, and they turn into a really good friend (or something). Sometimes, I'm fine with just knowing that people of niftiness exist, regardless of if I ever get a reasonable amount of time with them.
All of this sometimes makes me feel fickle. And yet. And yet, if I actually tried to find time for everyone I know in equal amounts, I wouldn't know anyone very well, and would burn myself out in fruitless ways. So, knowing this, why is it that I can still feel fickle for picking and choosing where my time and energy goes? I confuse me.
There are lots of people I think are nifty. There are lots of people who I would be happy getting to know better if time and happenstance allowed for it. There are far fewer people who I can read easily, or perhaps who can read me easily enough that my difficulty does not become a problem. And ease of reading someone appears to be a major factor in who I am close to and who I will seek out.
There are definitely times that I look at the widely spread-outedness of the people who I am strongly drawn to - regardless of whether or not this pull causes me to feel a need to interact with them frequently - and am glad they are widely spread, because I would probably have a harder time reminding myself that it's ok to see people infrequently, if they were nearer. And yet, it can also frustrate the hell out of me that so very many people are really far away from me. Distance, and lack thereof, do make a very big difference in interaction patterns, and there appears to be no way to tell if in a good or bad way. Some of the people I had a lot of interaction with when I first got to know them are people I feel closer to now that it's less frequent. Some of the people who are far away are people with whom I suspect a reduction of distance would be good, although certainly still an adjustment.
The idea of not having anything for which one is working in an entirely non-verbal space baffles the hell out of me. I can think of three things, off the top of my head, which are entirely non-verbal for me (math, energy work, touch of any sort).
Apparently yes, I do need a jacket. (Yes, I'm not in Boston. It couldn't find Andover. Where it's snowing. Not misty) I don't remember who linked to this.
I have no idea who linked to this, either, but University of Massachusetts researchers will announce today that they have discovered a strategy for immobilizing sperm and have reached an agreement with a Norwegian company to develop a male contraceptive pill.
Ok. Sleep now. Seriously.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-05 06:32 pm (UTC)Music is still in words for me. Even if it's not worded, I can't think about it in anything but words. Same for weather - "It's raining hard. It's snowing. It's windy, and it's making the air dry." Visual memories are not visual for me - I can't remember visuals at all. My "visual" memories are stored as long strings of description - I have often said that I can't even remember how my own children look if I don't have a photograph of them with me.
I have a fine kinesthetic memory, but that doesn't qualify as "thought" for me - that's muscle memory, and has nothing to do with my cognitive abilities.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-05 06:48 pm (UTC)Weather is partially worded for me, but there are some things I can't put into words or can't put into words very well. The feel of cold air when there's snow or the humidity associated with rain. The hot dry or humid air in the summer. People may know what I'm talking about, but I can't verbally explain more than that.
Hmm. For me, I disagree that kinesthetics are different from thought. Or rather, there's a gradient of kinesthetics (learning, where it's verbal/pictures/doing; automatic where it's just doing and hard to verbalize further). I think that's why many people have trouble learning or teaching kinesthetics with words, or even just from pictures.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-05 07:01 pm (UTC)As far as describing weather in words - didn't you just do exactly that? People know what humidity and dry air and all the rest feel like - so all you have to do is refer to them for them to get it.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-05 07:11 pm (UTC)There are more evocative verbal ways to describe weather than what I can do and the brief examples you were giving. And even then, there are parts of weather that are distinctly nonverbal to me. I can't parse language fine enough to describe them.