[brains.social]

[wispfox]

Alright, so.

The initial comment charmed me.

However, anonymity weirded me out a bit. Partly because this person clearly has met me and interacted with me enough to _see_ my focus when I'm curious about something, so why be anonymous? And I have enough people recognizing me and knowing my name when I have no idea who they are on a regular basis (bad with names, and at least somewhat prosopagnosic - fun combination). There's a reason I never to do anonymous 'who likes me' comment memes (holy drama-magnet and discomfort probability, batman!). But, only mild weirding out, and not something all that unusual. (I tend toward mild levels of confusion on a regular basis. This may be why I try to avoid additional sources of it whenever possible; at least if they are unwilling to explain their confusingness. Explanation does much to mitigate people being confusing to me)

Although the... heavy-handedness of the interest expression also weirds me out a bit (does someone actually think that I'd be interested in a single person in quite that obsessive a manner? Admittedly, this view of things did not occur to me until I got irritated, so take with a grain of salt. Also makes me now wonder if this is a monogamous person. Who is really oblivious about my serious lack of a monogamous nature).

Ok, so I ask who it is. Reasonable, I think. Especially what with expressing charmedness, as well.

The answer is basically useless (_how_ many people do I know who are both interesting and strange?!). I have a possibility for who it might be, and send mail to find out. I am mistaken, but an entertaining email conversation ensues.

Ok, second try to get an answer for who this is. Beginning to get annoyed with the lack of answer to direct question.

Still no answer. Now I'm irritated. Not getting answers to reasonable questions being asked point-blank? Does not make a happy wispfox. If I wanted to play that kind of game, I would not have asked outright. Yes, I asked in a somewhat silly manner (to go along with the original silly), but I _asked_.

I rant. To jasra, and some to australian_joe. But I decide replying while irritated is unwise. Considered not answering at all, but that seemed... rude, considering that there had been ongoing dialog. Even if I don't know who I was talking to.

Ok, I reply, failing to completely remove irritation, but trying to be reasonably clear about _why_ there is irritation. And trying very hard to explain how I work in regards to this.

The reply? Startles me, and again feels over-the-top. Abject shame? Seriously, was I really that harsh? I've decided against replying, even though that reply does get a certain amount of 'well, that's not really what I meant', simply because this level of confusion is not worth it.

I am confused. And I hope that whomever that was reads me, so as to at least have some idea of what was going on in my head (since, not knowing who it is, I neither know how to explain directly, nor do I know if I accidentally offended someone that I am fond of). OTOH, though... someone who causes that level of confusion in me is probably not someone I am terribly close to, or have ever been. Unless they aren't usually that... cryptic? Puzzling? Hmm. Can't find the word I want. Obfuscated? Maybe.

Having had an evil cold probably didn't help, either, huh? (which I am mostly over, finally, but Friday and Saturday _SUCKED_)

Comments

[deyo.livejournal.com]

I guess being Mr. Subtle, I'd get all Vorlon on Anonymouse.

"Who are you?"

[deyo.livejournal.com]

And now I have an icon for my Mr. Subtle moments.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

1. It was not me.

2. When I do leave posts at sites like that, I often do it anonymously because I myself don't really have a need to know, say, who harbors a secret crush on me (myself, I don't need to know unless it's someone who actually intends to do something about it, because if they don't, why bother my brain?) but I still think it's fun to know whether someone out there has one. Thus, I assume it might be fun for other people to get anonymous messages, too.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

1. Didn't figure. I can't see you not answering questions asking who you are outright. Nor can I see you having an abject shame reaction!

2. "myself, I don't need to know unless it's someone who actually intends to do something about it, because if they don't, why bother my brain?"

Yeah, more or less how I work, too.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Hee. Yay icon!

*general approval of lack of subtlety*

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

I did 20 Questions for the anonymoose comment I left...

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

The abject shame is indeed over the top, and doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would come from anyone I could ever be close to. What it does sound like is the kind of overcompensation you get from insecure guys when you (even gently) call them on the heavy-handedness of their flirting. When I'm in a mood where I think I can suppress the ensuing irritation at least a little bit, I make the effort to explain to them why the abjectness is just as bad as the original overthetopness--otherwise I just keep silent. There certainly doesn't seem to be any other possible response.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

For "insecure" here, read "insecure and slightly clueless." Just to clarify.

And yes, you were a little harsher than I would've been. But this person obviously doesn't know you well at all, and furthermore is unlikely to ever fully understand why.

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

I dislike guessing games, so I'd be pretty turned off by being made to guess at all, or by obscure hints. If they are shy, ok, tell me you're shy and go hide in a corner and I'll die of curiousity but respect the shyness. But if you want me to know but want me to wriggle about it first, gah, please tell me who you are, so I can stay far, far away.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but if I'd outright asked you who you were? (if it had been toward me)

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

It would depend.  If I knew you well enough - which I'd have to in order to have a crush, but I'm me - I'd tell you, but I can see the value to others in continuing to be flirtatiously secretive.

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

^

Fake grey cat, real grey cat!

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

And yes, you were a little harsher than I would've been

Yeah. I do wonder if I should have just left well enough alone when I knew I was immediately very irritated. I don't really leave things alone very well, though.

I did at least sleep on it before replying...

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Right. However, with this being me, either telling me who they are when I ask, or explaining that they are too shy to do so are the best options. Neither of which were taken.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yes.

I tend to be _bad_ at guessing games, and I'm too accustomed to having to spend an awful lot of time effectively having to guess in much of my interpersonal interactions (bad body language reading, and all). So yeah, I can see why I'd get irritated by such really quickly (although I hadn't thought of this aspect until writing this reply)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yes. For lo, the grey cats are invading my journal!

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

Meh, you weren't that much harsher than I would've been.

[jim-p.livejournal.com]

It wasn't me, but if I had two catnip mousies I'd give you one :)

An interesting way to look at this is suggested by this posting (http://hrafn.livejournal.com/297512.html), which in turn references another thread. The basic idea is that there are two main mechanisms for give-and-take: Ask and Guess. An Asker asks for what they want in a relatively straightforward manner, and in turn expects others to be equally direct. A Guesser drops hints and talks around the subject expecting others to pick up on the clues, and expects others to be equally indirect. Neither of these is necessarily worse than the other, though bad feelings can result when these modes come into conflict... the Asker can be perceived as brusque and rude, while the Guesser can be perceived as coy and manipulative.

I think something like that may be at work here, with a side order of social cluelessness. I used to be that way myself... my extended family was all Guessers, and I certainly grew up bereft of social Clue. I like to think I've learned a few things since then...

[3smallishmagi.livejournal.com]

http://raymanzone.us.ubi.com/videoframe.php?download_id=1904&play=true#FrameTop

[siderea]

Wow, that was creepily passive-aggressive.

[siderea]

Er, the anonymous comments, that is.

Especially the guilt-trip at the end, where he -- that was a guy, I'm pretty sure -- attempts to make you feel bad for hurting his feelings.

[ratatosk.livejournal.com]

1. It wasn't me -- I am happy to tell you you are cute non-anonymously. :)

2. http://www.xkcd.com/c67.html

[jasra]

That was a great post on hrafn's site. Very interesting food for thought.

[deyo.livejournal.com]

We prefer "Pixellated Americans".

[beaq.livejournal.com]

In case it's useful, a few thoughts on that little bit of friction, that try to give the guy a bit of a break:

Perhaps he didn't actually want to play guessing games, but only intended to go a couple of rounds of "coy" with you, for, supposedly, your mutual pleasure. Whether or not an accurate guess came of it, if I played such a game, would be beside the point. It would be a dance-and-release exercise.

He might not usually be that gauche -- sometimes crush-stress can make a person tone-deaf, or it might just have been the interference of the medium.

Abjectness could merely have been another manifestation of a jokey manner, without reflecting any pique or sniffiness or real abjection on his part. That could have been an attempt at a lighthearted retreat.

Have you ever tried to engage a child or animal or even a peer in play, and come [bounding up] to them, expecting a playful reaction, and meeting only stiff perplexity? Sometimes it feels like that thread.

That's all!

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

Bwahahahaha! Ditto to both of those. wispfox, you are cute, the anonymous person wasn't me. And, hm, I don't have a better comic to link to. But I wish I did. :P

[lerryn.livejournal.com]

Not me. You are cute and interesting, but I really don't need an LDR right now, and playing the anonomous comment game to let someone know about a crush is generally annoying.

[lerryn.livejournal.com]

Why not go all Shadow and Lorien on him too?

"What do you want?"

"Do you have anything worth living for?"

A different perspective

[volta]

Reading the entire exchange, I frankly do not understand why you seem to think you are entitled to know who left you this anonymous valentine. After all, one of the functions of said community is the ability to leave just this sort of note anonymously!

FWIW, it was not me, but I read everything anonymous wrote there, up to the abject shame comment, as playful. Even the abject shame comment has some lightness to it, with the "good intentions" joke, so I read that comment mostly as "sorry you are upset, I will leave you alone now".

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yep.

I think much of why I was distressed by this is that the initial comment clearly shows that it's someone who has met and interacted with me, at least to a fairly decent degree. So I don't really _expect_ such dramatic differences in how interactions work, and don't therefore adjust my expectations based on that. Also? Nasty cold and mid-February do _not_ improve my ability to be patient and understanding. Neither does not knowing who I'm talking to.

Regardless, yes. I know there are those who are guessers (I use 'direct' and 'indirect', but something like that works), and I do _NOT_ work well with them. Ever.

Also? Didn't think it was you. And yay for catnip mice!

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

1. I know! You have before. ;)

2. Quite. Although, truly, I was not meaning this post to be cruel to the anonymous person.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

:) I figured it wasn't you. I'm actually kinda amused how many people have felt the need to inform me that it wasn't them. :)

And yay, cute! So are you! :)

Speaking of cute, some random stranger at the train station this morning wished me a happy valentines day, shook my hand, and commented (possibly to himself) that I was cute. I think I blame my hooded scard and mittens which are attached to my coat.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he didn't actually want to play guessing games, but only intended to go a couple of rounds of "coy" with you, for, supposedly, your mutual pleasure. Whether or not an accurate guess came of it, if I played such a game, would be beside the point. It would be a dance-and-release exercise.

Hmm. I've never really understood this concept. I mean, I can at least see that others might enjoy it, but for me it's just frustrating. I suspect the fact that I spend so much of my time feeling like I'm guessing about whatever percentage of communication is body language-based that having additional things to have to guess about is just... too much.

The rest are interesting points, and I thank you.

Re: A different perspective

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

entitled to know: I don't. And had the commenter ever _said_ they didn't want to tell me, that'd have been fine (although it'd have meant I'd have stopped interacting, since I don't _do_ well with anonymous, or guessing games). I asked, in a friendly manner. I would have been entirely fine with a refusal to answer. But I never got one. Instead, I got the kind of games which I do _not_ handle well.

Yes, I realize that I have certain kinds of interactions which I do not handle well. If I had been able to tell that this was turning into one _before_ I started feeling like someone was playing mind games with me, I would have stopped interacting (but explained why). However, I did not clue in quickly enough to avoid severe irritation.

But good to know that it could have all been meant as lighthearted and playful. It's hardly news that I can misparse things. :)

(and yes, figured it was not you)

[jasra]

Aw! That was a neat encounter on the train. Yes, probably your mittens and crazy scarf/hat did it.

[jim-p.livejournal.com]

So I don't really _expect_ such dramatic differences in how interactions work, and don't therefore adjust my expectations based on that.

People don't always let on when they're crushing, and some actually make extra effort to hide the fact when dealing with the crush-object. It's one of the myriad ways that emotions get totally irrational.

Oh, and in the interests of directness and un-ambiguity, I think you're cute ;)

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

Aha. That's the bit I wasn't consciously able to articulate, even though, as I mentioned, I've seen that kind of thing before. I guess I resist putting that kind of spin on this sort of behavior because I like to believe people are being honest about their feelings--but maybe I should stop giving 'em the benefit of the doubt.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Huh. My browser has no idea what media type that is, and therefore cannot play it.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Ah. OK. :)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

I... do also resist putting that kind of spin on things, partly because I don't think it _is_ consciously and intentionally done. But at the same time, I am fully aware of what an awful, awful thing that is to reinforce in any way.

So largely, I tend to ignore people who do that, regardless of my immediate reply.

[3smallishmagi.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9drE0hqJY
Though I can't see that from my linux box either.
Either way, not important.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Mac at home, and I could see that one.

The hell? :)