[link, xtina, brains]

[wispfox]

ladytabitha notes that the corollary to "communicate, communicate, communicate" should be "pay attention!".

And yes, I _do_ realize that people (myself included) have trouble with body language. I feel like even in those cases, there is still other information than words. Perhaps, things like people suddenly getting quiet, or not being as chatty as normal, or something. Behaving differently than normal, vs. body language signals. And yes, sometimes the reason for strange behavior is because someone is feeling unwell; that's still something that's useful to know, because - if nothing else - people who don't feel well tend to want different things than when they do feel well.

Of course, my next corollary now wants to be "if someone close to you asks if you're ok, take a moment to see if you can figure out why they are asking, before replying". I mostly note this one because I've run into too many people who say they are fine when they are not, and obviously not. And I do understand automatic responses, as I might answer automatically before answering for real, depending on my distraction levels.

As with everything, it's about doing the best you can, not about being perfect in your ability to communicate.

Of course, in my head, paying attention to cues which may not be words is part of communicating. Communication should be using all input available, and not just a subset. I will note that I strongly prefer verbal communication to confirm the things I'm picking up through other methods. Largely because, for me at least, the other methods are more vague and abstract, and have too many possible meanings. Words can and often do, as well, but they are easier (for me) to use to home in on something.

Comments

[lediva.livejournal.com]

I mostly note this one because I've run into too many people who say they are fine when they are not, and obviously not.

Yeah, I do this... I guess I usually do it either because the context would be inappropriate to tell people how I'm actually doing (like with coworkers) or I'm _not_ really OK, but I don't feel like talking about it, either because I've talked about it too much already, or I'd just prefer to burn through whatever the bad feeling is myself.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

context would be inappropriate to tell people how I'm actually doing (like with coworkers)

This, I get. This doesn't bother me, much.

Unless it's that someone close is asking, in which case some sort of acknowledgement of the query and the poor context would be good...

I'm _not_ really OK, but I don't feel like talking about it, either because I've talked about it too much already, or I'd just prefer to burn through whatever the bad feeling is myself.

This...

is harder on me. If someone can even simply say that they are not up for talking about it, that's sufficient. Rather than that they are ok.

And, again, note that I'm talking about if someone one is close to is doing the asking.

[lediva.livejournal.com]

I could see that.

I dunno, it just seems easier at the time. Usually when I'm trying to ignore something (in this case, particular emotions), even acknowledging its existence is troublesome.

Also, it sometimes feels like telling someone you don't want to talk about something is akin to telling them that you don't want to talk about it with THAT PERSON, as if it was some sort of personal failing on their part.

I claim none of this as particularly rational, mind you.

[brynndragon.livejournal.com]

One interesting thing about having a lot of my initial interactions occur via the 'net is I learned to read "body language" in text. This was easiest with texting programs where the letters appear on both screens simultaneously (these were pretty primitive, I don't even know if they exist anymore), since you can see the pauses and alterations to words like in a verbal conversation. But even with AIM I can do it (although it's a lot harder than it used to be - I've gotten rusty).

I used to pause a lot when someone would ask me a question. Somehow I got this notion that this was not only not weird, but polite - I was actually considering the answer. I don't pause as much anymore because most people do not interpret it the same way and it behooves me to try to meet people's expectations in the middle. But I do try to take questions such as "how are you" seriously. I don't always succeed - if I'm sufficiently distracted I will rattle off an automatic reply (e.g. "I'm doing OK") and then proceed to explain how I'm not OK at all, which is probably rather confusing but thankfully most people seem to get that I was distracted by the not-OK.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

One interesting thing about having a lot of my initial interactions occur via the 'net is I learned to read "body language" in text. This was easiest with texting programs where the letters appear on both screens simultaneously (these were pretty primitive, I don't even know if they exist anymore), since you can see the pauses and alterations to words like in a verbal conversation.

Yep. I remember using 'talk', which does this. :)

I note that I intentionally include things like pauses (...) and pertinant facial expressions and such in my text conversations, for reasons like this.

I _know_ how useful that is, and because of the effort it took me to learn how to use it, I am aware of such things enough to put them into text.

I used to pause a lot when someone would ask me a question. Somehow I got this notion that this was not only not weird, but polite - I was actually considering the answer

*nod* I suppose it would depend on if someone feels like a question shouldn't _need_ consideration. In that case, I can see how that would seem strange. In a case where consideration makes sense, though, a reply which is too quick would also seem off.

I do try to take questions such as "how are you" seriously. I don't always succeed - if I'm sufficiently distracted I will rattle off an automatic reply (e.g. "I'm doing OK") and then proceed to explain how I'm not OK at all, which is probably rather confusing but thankfully most people seem to get that I was distracted by the not-OK.

This makes sense to me. I note that I will also - if distracted - tend toward replying automatically first, then for real.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

I miss talk. It was so much more expressive to type in real-time.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

One thing about a person being asked if s/he's okay, sometimes it's not just an automatic answer that's a problem. Sometimes the question gets translated to "what do you need?" or "why have you been so cranky?" or even "why haven't the dishes been done yet?" and a response of "I'm okay" can mean "I don't need anything; I'm not some pathetic needy person who's going to keep demanding things from you" or "I don't think I'm being cranky, I think I'm being appropriately annoyed by circumstances" or "I'll get to the goddamn dishes, stop nagging me!"

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Sometimes the question gets translated

Yeah.

I know this, too. I tend to forget it, but I do know it. Heck, I'm sure I even _do_ it - it's part of why I have a 'take a moment to figure out why they are asking' thing in my head.

[jasra]

my next corollary now wants to be "if someone close to you asks if you're ok, take a moment to see if you can figure out why they are asking, before replying".

That's a really good idea. I'll have to try to remember that.

Last week, one of my coworkers kept asking me if everything was ok and it was really starting to bug me but later I figured _she_ was not so ok with my leaving and was trying to connect/talk to me. But what she ended up doing is making me feel uncomfortable around her. :-/ So that is good to remember.

Thankee.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Well, I did specifically say 'someone close to you' for a reason, because putting that amount of effort into it any time someone asks is probably not reasonable or sane.

However, yes - I suspect it's a good thing to try to do whenever possible.