Communication styles

[jay]

I'm a US Southerner, both by nurture and preference in speech patterns. Communicating in Japan, even with few words, often feels more natural somehow than with New Yorkers... the flow and mutual consideration of the former seem intuitive, while the latter often seems brash and noisy and prone to attempts to dominate in conversation.

[minor deviation from current personal experiment]
On top of culture, growing up I was a low-status, weird geeky kid who was the butt of harassment and frequent physical violence from groups of other kids... I learned to try to get my message across conversationally while giving those around me as little excuse as possible to take offense. Anything perceived as assertive on my part would generate teasing and putdowns at best, getting beaten-up or stoned (hit with big rocks, not drugs) again at worst. So on top of the cultural norms, I learned to exceed them...
[end deviation]

So, in person, I'm generally coming from Pleasant, Believed, Understood, Remembered (PBUR) in all person-to-person communications. Understood is in a distant third place. I go to lengths to structure in-person conversation so to minimize the possibility of conflict, or at least to leave a face-saving way out for the other person(s). Maintaining the interpersonal relationship is far more important to me than the passing, temporal content of whatever I happen to be saying at the moment.

For me, speech stressing Understood is limited to lecturing others, as in teaching a class or giving a presentation. Other communication forms, particularly some impersonal, online forms, may also find me in a neutral balance.

Someone in a group using Understood will often come across to me as pushy or blunt, or as attempting to impose their preferences, running over everyone else's... often, I'll get wary or defensive when that form of speech is used. But I'll try to avoid conflict at my annoyance at their use of a direct, aggressive style, instead trying to smile and ignore or placate it.

Comments

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Pleasant makes people automatically dangerous.

I think you want to poke hard at that assumption.

I can see that there are incidents that have made this *at the time* the best working assumption for you, but *now*, it creates a situation where you're assigning high threat levels inappropriately.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

It isn't just danger, although that's part of it. The other part is that pleasant people... well, let me put it this way.

The more "pleasant" someone is, the less trustworthy they are to me. I cannot trust them to tell me the truth, say what they mean, or be honest. I can, however, trust them to circumlocute, dodge direct questions, and sacrifice honesty for the sake of "being nice." And that's why it's annoying to me.

I'll take someone blunt, direct, and honest over someone whose first priority is being "pleasant" any day of the week, thanks.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

False dichotomy, but we've been over this before.

(sorry, reposting because I'd gotten logged out without noticing.)

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

In my experience, a person being Pleasant will do everything I listed above to avoid being not-Pleasant. Case in point: Danny's mom. Second case in point: my TA in my Methods class. Third case in point: the classmate I was complaining about the other day in my LJ.

Yes, you can be kind and personable without being Pleasant or masky, but when someone goes out of their way to be Pleasant, it sets off all my internal alarm bells. I hated visiting Alabama, and I'll never travel south of the Mason-Dixon again if I can possibly avoid it. I know plenty of people who can be nice and still be blunt and direct at the same time. Pleasant, by definition, is never blunt or direct, because it might offend someone... and without bluntness and directness, I can't be sure that what I'm being told is the truth.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I don't generally assume that I'm being told *the truth* in any case -- at best, I'm being told another person's filtered, personally-spun version of what *they perceive* as the truth. To bracket the *truth*, I need several different independent versions and then try to correlate them.

The more blunt and assertive, the more I'm likely to flag that communication as someone trying to push *their particular view* of the truth aggressively, and therefore I will tend to give it *less* weight in averaging.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

The more blunt and assertive, the more I'm likely to flag that communication as someone trying to push *their particular view* of the truth aggressively, and therefore I will tend to give it *less* weight in averaging.

My turn to "!!!!!"

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

(gah, reposting again)

Note that Brian's viewpoint is closer to mine as well. I don't go as far as he does, but yes, I perceive "blunt" as a sort of mask of false bareness, and a very high possibility of attempt to bulldoze. What I read into it is "don't give a flying half-FUCK about what you feel/want/need/etc., by 'stripping' it, I'm making sure there's no fucking way you can say boo". (Yes, with all the fucks included.)

I receive it as hostile except under the best of circumstances. If I'm not totally feeling balanced and well-rested, well-fed, etc., I will react to very blunt and assertive as a manipulative act.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Boy, we do *not* see eye to eye on this at all. Indirectness is what is manipulative to me. The less of it, the better.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

See what Brian said right below that expresses a lot of the way I feel about "less direct, the better".

It's another sort of front. The pretense of "stripped bare", vs. the acknowleged "socially greased".

I care about how someone *feels* about the information (Pleasant), *in addition* to the parts about Understood/Remembered/Believed. The lack of that feels like hostility to me.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I understand that it makes you feel that way. I don't understand how it can, however; I can't feel good about information if I don't understand it and remember it and believe it. I need things stripped bare so that they make sense.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Are you asking what the process is, or are you saying that you can't grok it? I can understand your not grokking it, it's pretty much the key thing about autism, yeah?

As far as the process. The very part of "stripped bare" that makes it handle-able for you renders the data hard for me to get, because there's suddenly static in the way.

If I can use a bad analogy, it's something along the lines of your needing the signal (the data) amplified in order to receive it, but I'm hearing it fine as is, so your version is like trying to hear it while my ears are buzzing painfully. We've covered your end of it before, so I think you're clear on that bit.

Hmm...maybe this other analogy works better:

Things are spiky, so it's nice if there's a mediating layer, so that fingers don't get scratched. Meanwhile, you find the mediating layer slippery, and you feel that you'd get a better grip on things if there were nothing but the bare material.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Stretching the metaphor further, it's like someone trying to have sex with someone else, with or without barriers... the additional layering adds safety and security, even if it takes longer to put it on and reduces the tactile information somewhat.

If someone is expecting a male partner to use a condom, and suddenly the guy instead tries to bareback, that may cause the intended recipient to pull back, rather than let him have his way without the layer in place.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I just don't grok it. I mean really don't grok it. But I think we both knew that the NT way of doing things is utterly foreign to me.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(nods) beyond some certain point, direct feels to me like bulldozing, or intentionally trying to overpower a conversation in one direction.

The fastest way to get me to discount the information or viewpoint contained in another's words is if they're shouting at me... that's an extreme, granted. And any voice which sounds disrespectful, or in "command-voice", will motivate me to do the opposite of whatever they want.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[cyan-blue.livejournal.com]

Note that Brian's viewpoint is closer to mine as well. I don't go as far as he does, but yes, I perceive "blunt" as a sort of mask of false bareness, and a very high possibility of attempt to bulldoze. What I read into it is "don't give a flying half-FUCK about what you feel/want/need/etc., by 'stripping' it, I'm making sure there's no fucking way you can say boo". (Yes, with all the fucks included.)

< href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/cyan_blue/353732.html">I identify as UBRP, and while I'm not as far over to that side as Griffen is, I also prefer straightforward "I want X" information from the person I am listening to, and I attempt to give same.

Some people would see "I want to have Thai food for dinner" as excluding other peoples' wants - is that what you mean as "I'm making sure there's no fucking way you can say boo?" But when I say "I want Thai for dinner," my aim is *not* to exclude your voice - the assumption is "The topic is what we'd all like for dinner - I've said my preference - now it's your turn." When I'm with other UBRPs, that's understood - 'cause none of us feel like we need an invitation to throw in our 2 cents, and none of us assume that the others will need one either.

When two people from different priority rankings are communicating, that's when the misunderstandings may occur, and then there is a need for more care on both sides. If I *know* that someone else will feel like their voice is silenced if I say "I want Thai," I may make an effort to soften my words and do the Californiaspeak of "Thai could be good, I don't know, what do you think?"

But it's not my automatic response, and I don't even *see* all of the places where my words could be having a stronger impact than merely conveying information, because I'm not expecting to be seen as dominating merely by saying what my first choice is for lunch. Likewise, I would like the P-prioritizing folks who know me well to keep in mind that if I sound like I'm being dominating, I likely have no intents in that direction, and they might want to check in to clarify my intents if they feel hurt by my words.

I don't think any of these ways are inherently wrong - each works well for its own culture of people.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

The question can be framed as a difference in the perception of "no", and where the responsibility lies for creating space -- but I think I've said that here already. (I may have said it in my own journal, or here in Brian's, or over in Griff's. The discussion overlaps so much that I can't remember.)

"I want to have Thai for dinner" isn't quite what I had in mind for blunt. Ah, I see you've addressed that in a different comment that I find easier to answer.

I don't even *see* all of the places where my words could be having a stronger impact than merely conveying information, because I'm not expecting to be seen as dominating merely by saying what my first choice is for lunch. Likewise, I would like the P-prioritizing folks who know me well to keep in mind that if I sound like I'm being dominating, I likely have no intents in that direction, and they might want to check in to clarify my intents if they feel hurt by my words.

That's what I've been working on. I'm also having trouble in the reverse direction, of being heard when I make what for *me* is a clear statement of desire, and it's heard as a diffident possibility.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[cyan-blue.livejournal.com]

As in my other note, I'm not as far over to Griffen's side with this as he is, but levels of pleasantness that are out of proportion to my relationship with someone may make me wary too.

Example: If someone I barely know starts giving me lots of gifts, part of me will wonder what their angle is, and what they are wanting from me, and where is the hidden string. I don't assume that this absolutely will be the case - some people are just generous and that's all - but I'll start keeping an eye on the situation a little more closely.

Likewise, an overabundance of compliments from someone I don't know well will make me uneasy. One or two compliments, fine; more than that and I'll start feeling "buttered up."

Where I come from (NYC), we're trained early not to trust strangers who are overly pleasant to us. In the big city, an unknown adult who offers candy to a kid is assumed to be a dangerous stalker. Wariness means survival. That's not just paranoia; when I was 12 one of my childhood playmates from the next block over was abducted and killed. And we lived in "a nice neighborhood" - pretty houses, trees, no broken glass on the street. Lots of abductors lure kids in by being nice. Hell, the two times I was sexually abused as a child, the perp (one known, one unknown) tried to gain my trust by playing a game with me first. Why would I trust an overly-friendly stranger?

An unknown adult who strikes up a conversation on the subway might be trying to distract me so that their accomplice can rob me, unless it's the day after the Yanks or Mets have won the series and then everyone's family.

On the subway where we're squished up against each others' bodies like sardines in a can, the only privacy we have is to not make eye contact, and it's considered really intrusive if you keep looking at someone, even with a smile. Especially with a smile, 'cause that's definite attention, whereas a simple stare might just mean that your eyes happen to be resting in that direction.

A Nebraska friend once left his car engine idling outside my house to warm it up on a snowy day. When I realized that he left his key in the ignition and the door unlocked, I made him run right out to watch it so that it didn't get stolen. Had he left it out long enough, it would have been. My family has had more cars stolen and broken into than I can count.

My friend from Ottawa, Canada was once visiting and someone knocked on my door. I leaped to block the door when it was clear that she was about to open it. "Who is it?" I asked through the door. "We want to talk to you about a cable TV offer," the man said. "Not interested," I replied. My friend thought I was rude for not opening the door. I thought she was risking her life by even thinking of opening the door.

So this is why "pleasant = dangerous" makes sense in some cultures.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I can see "inappropriately pleasant can be seen as a danger marker", but that's not quite what Griff said.

I *do* see that being unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate pleasantness can lead to a feeling that it's safer to default to assuming it's inappropriate, but I think that's better dealt with by using methods from Gavin de Becker's "Gift of Fear".

I like NYC, and find it comfortable. Urban spaces make more sense to me than rural ones, but that's because I'm more familiar with urban cultures. (I come from generations of city/suburban folk. My father's mother grew up on a farm, but that's not something she shared with me.)

When I was in high school in Colorado, I was surrounded by ranchers' kids who'd never been in a big city, and were doing things like counting their money on the sidewalk, and failing to take note of the relative security of their handbags. I get the urban wariness, and that doesn't make me nervous the way Griff's stated preference does.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

The more pleasant someone is to me, the harder it's going to be for me to get to know them, Trinker.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Again, we're talking about different definitions of "pleasant", for a start.

Besides which, if "pleasant" in any form makes you itch, it's probably just as well for you to have an allergic reaction to people who default to that mode.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I don't get the feeling that it's strangers that Griff is talking about. The people he mention above as being not trustworthy because they are pleasant are not strangers -- they are people he is familiar with. That's different than maintaining safe distance towards strangers, especially in an urban setting.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

But the point is something that cyan_blue got, and you and Trinker don't seem to get yet, which is that if someone's Pleasant to me I'm going to have a harder time becoming familiar with them. And in fact, until they stop being Pleasant, I will find it impossible to feel like I'm "familiar" with them. They remain strangers with familiar faces and voices until the barrier of Pleasant goes away.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

That would be because some of us have it set as "de-prioritizing Pleasant is for transitory relationships".

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

And that's really annoying, which brings us back to the title of this thread. That's *why* it's annoying.

Pleasant, in my world, is a way of holding people at arm's length and putting up a wall.

Re: with Pleasant being[...]definitely annoying when coming from other people.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

*shrug* It's annoying to me that some people (not just autists) have "stripped to minimum" set as either their global default, or their setting for intimates.

We've already established pretty well that you and I wouldn't do well in person.