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.

[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.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Keep asking questions, I notice you got a little more information today.

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.