![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 04:21 pm (UTC)As far as I can tell, this sort of thing is just part of the human experience. Not that this observation means you aren't subtly different - I suspect the only thing we all have in common is the alienation. Which is funny and sad in about equal measures. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 04:48 pm (UTC)On the other, I have the impression (from other people, and not just from my own head) that I have this a _lot_ more strongly than most people.
Apparently many (most?) people have themselves as the definition of normal, for example. I don't.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 06:21 pm (UTC)I think it's more of a 'I'm normal and the rest of you are strange', rather than a 'I'm normal and expect the rest of you to be like me' thing.
Whereas, with me, it's a "I'm me, and it's unexpected, bemusing, and kinda neat to have people be like me." There is no 'normal' in my head, relating to me. It's just _me_.
If that difference makes any sense?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 10:49 pm (UTC)Hm, here's one of my examples. I'm mostly asexual. I haven't got a libido or fantasies or genitals that ever get aroused or feel good. That's kind of nonstandard. And it's easy for me to say to myself, "Everyone else in the entire universe is in on this fundamental secret that I lack, everyone else in the universe knows these things that I can't comprehend."
But that's not actually true. There are people who are straight and people who are gay and people who've been raped and people who've chosen celibacy and people who are kinky and ashamed and people who are kinky and unashamed and people who are vanilla. And I think we've all noticed that they don't understand eachother very well, either! Most of them don't understand eachother at all, in fact.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 10:58 pm (UTC)I would guess this is a philosophical distinction, based on the fact that we can see our own internal thought processes, so our own actions make more sense to us than anyone else's, maybe?
I'm not sure I actually know anyone introspective to wonder about these things who subscribes to this logic and considers themselves normal and everyone else wierd, though.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 04:45 pm (UTC)I don't think I do that, actually. My assumption is me-based, not other-people-based. I assume that I am me, and do not expect similarities. I don't have any expectations at all as to if other people are similar to each other, as far as I know. I just expect them to not be similar to _me_.
If that makes any sense?
(you might want to see my reply to
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 04:47 pm (UTC)I've known people who at least give the impression that when they say such things they really do mean them... not sure if that means that they actually _do_, though.