[brains.faq, nonverbal learning disorder] 'Why', credulity

[wispfox]

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'?]

Comments

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, the lj-memes thing propagation is entirely opt-in and exists for the sole exclusive purpose of "because you might enjoy doing this, too". There is an implied "If you feel like doing this, for whatever reason, then [instructions]".

That said, yes, explaining why is a goodness, and in most circumstances I tend to be very, very picky about why and how I opt to follow unexplained directives.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, the lj-memes thing propagation is entirely opt-in

Yes. But I have an automatic reaction to things like 'if you read this, do this', which means that I don't do $thing.

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

I can see that. I find them mildly nuisancy, myself, although not nearly as much as the recent trend of "tagging".