Thing is, I +don’t- understand most other people’s points of view. I don’t feel threatened _or_ amused if someone says, “as a member of [race/gender/nationality/etc], understanding me will escape you”, I’m like, ‘Ok, You’re probably right”. If my engagement with them was one of mocking or debate, my behavior would clearly indicate that they are, in fact, correct, and that I don’t.

Thing is, I +don’t- understand most other people’s points of view.
I don’t feel threatened _or_ amused if someone says, “as a member of [race/gender/nationality/etc], understanding me will escape you”, I’m like, ‘Ok, You’re probably right”.
If my engagement with them was one of mocking or debate, my behavior would clearly indicate that they are, in fact, correct, and that I don’t.
My communications are transparent. My styles change from abrasive to passive aggressive to coddling to whatever they change into as I write.
That’s all me; all of that.
Whether some it comes off as good faith or bad faith communication, I have no idea. I’m just present as I do and hope for the best.
I don’t know what communication feels like to others; there’s all kinds of cues I don’t know a damn thing about; all my research about “Theory of Mind”, autism – I’m lacking in a white-matter way something that APPARENTLY most people can do.
Always looked like mind reading to me. “What is the author’s intent?” fuck if I know.
That’s why I don’t usually address “intent” things; “Oh, that person means this or that”. I can’t confirm or deny it; there’s no “there” there for me.
  • Like

only truth for me is found in communication. Lost communication means lost truth.

 

Truth is active and flowing, never stops moving. It’s an auditory, verbal thing, not a printed word sitting in a book somewhere. When it’s active, it’s truth. If someone takes it from the book and uses it somewhere, it’s truth.
That doesn’t make truth arbitrary. But rather truth is not static. It can’t be. It’s active processes engaging.
==
I don’t think I’m autistic per se though, but I have some of the traits; I have to make explicit what ought to be implicit; hence, I’ll deconstruct topics in order to put them back together again, or find cousins (such as different usages of substantive) to compare/contrast to help my own understanding.
The reason I didn’t simply accept your take on their intentions is because it felt too stereotyped; and it didn’t seem as if it was something they’d say.
Ah.. I do have theory of mind. Good. Just takes a little more thinking.
-=-
 I find tropes absolutely fascinating but I try not to use them too much; they speak to the user of the tropes more than the intended target and if I get judged by my use of tropes, I deserve it and accept.
Hardest thing I have is ignoring others’ use of common tropes; sometimes they’re front-and-center and can’t be avoided; they become the center of the topic; but other times, they’re just side notes adding flavor to a conversation
[i guess i see tropes as spices rather than meal-items]
  • Like

 

Let me substitute: Trope and Spice: yeah, I see tropes as spices lol
” I find spices absolutely fascinating but I try not to use them too much; they speak to the user of the spices more than the intended target and if I get judged by my use of spices, I deserve it and accept.
Hardest thing I have is ignoring others’ use of common spices; sometimes they’re front-and-center and can’t be avoided; they become the center of the meal; but other times, they’re just side notes adding flavor to a dish”
==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 4 = two

Leave a Reply