Guest guest Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 At 01:29 PM 11/3/04 -0500, Wendi wrote: >I think people are starting to get annoyed with my > & #8216;interference & #8217;. [...] > I can & #8217;t understand these people! Why can & #8217;t they see it is >better to look for the TRUTH than it is to spread false rumors? Over the years we have been together, my partner has taught me a lot about how " the normies " see things. We've talked about these sorts of issues specifically and he has taught me something that I find almost too unbelievable to be true, but once I look around me with this idea in mind, I see that it probably is true. In " the regular world, " people consider it a weakness to change your mind. There is no way to publically change an opinion -- even if one has been presented with the most air-tight and convincing evidence in the world -- without " losing face " with others. Now, I think that's stupid, you probably think that's stupid and my partner also agrees that it is stupid but emphasizes that, stupid or not, it's an important thing to understand about how the social system works. So, people actually might be annoyed with your interference, especially if you've helped the same person more than once by giving them further information. (To us, it is helping. To them, it is interference, it is judgement, it is " one-up-man-ship, " it is gloating, it is putting ourselves better than the other person, it is showing off, etc.) This item of social information explains why a classroom of students is mostly silent when the teacher asks a question -- no one wants to say the wrong thing and suffer the embarassment of having to publically change their mind (because teacher is a knowledge authority and thus must be listened to if s/he cannot be debated down.) Once someone has taken the social risk and answered a question, the rest of the class will be much more willing to answer questions, but someone has to be the " sacrificial lamb " first so that the rest of the group can feel safe. (This also explains why younger students will often attack a fellow student who is too quick to answer the teacher or who obviously enjoys giving answers in class -- they are breaking the unwritten social code and thus appear threatening and must be pecked down like the painted bird in the old plague-era children's game.) In my life, I have always gravitated towards the sort of people who feel free to teach me things, like correcting me if I say " less " when I should have said " fewer " and who, likewise, accept correction and education from me happily. I tend to be drawn towards people who have interesting things to share and who seem interested when I start talking about odd things from history or science or whatever. Because of this tendency on my part to be drawn towards those sorts of people, I never really learned that many other people consider those things to be " showing off " or just plain rude until my partner explained it all to me and I sat back and observed people doing it for a while. The sad truth is that the average person really doesn't want to know the truth -- they want to know what sounds good and they want others to believe them, not refute them. My advice would be to continue doing whatever feels right to you. If you have an urge to send someone correct information about an e-mail forward they are sending around, stop and think about these two things before you send it: 1. is this a person who is in some position of authority over me or who I otherwise want to keep on their good side due to social politics? For example, if your boss sends you an e-mail forward that you know is incorrect and it has nothing to do with job function, just ignore it. It's " bad form " to correct one's boss unless it's crucial for the business and even then there are stacks of unwritten rules about the way to do it. If it's not " mission critical " and the person who sent it to you *is* mission critical in your life in some way, let it go. 2. is this a person for whom you care? Would you feel badly about the thought of them going on to make a fool of themselves again and again? Do they also care about you? If you don't really care about someone -- if they are a virtual stranger online rather than a virtual friend -- then it's better not to bother helping them in a way they might resent anyway. If you do care about them in some way -- they are a relative or a friend -- then it may be worth helping them out. There are also ways of wording things that help the other person to save face and make them less likely to get irritated. It is awkward having to " dance around things " with words, but when I know that I've hit on a " hot spot " for most people and I have a formula to follow, I like to try to use the formula because it is more likely to " win friends and influence people " and thus make life go a little bit smoother. Sometimes I find it's worth a little effort to make life go more smoothly (though sometimes the effort required seems so ridiculous to me that I just can't bring myself to it.) A diplomatic way to respond is something like this: " That information sure shocked me! I was even more shocked, though, when I found out these other details. Check out what this site says about it: [url for snopes or other debunking site] " The formula here goes like this: a. statement that indicates in some way that they are not stupid for believing it (most people will feel " safe " enough if you just indicate that you thought it was true, even for just a half-second), b. statement that indicates in some way that you might have believed it or were otherwise surprised to learn differently, c. the truth about the matter (without actually using the word 'truth' or indicating strongly that your information is right and theirs is wrong.) It's one of those stupid social games but it can be done without being dishonest. It sometimes takes a little practice, but after a while of using the formula, it becomes more natural. One thing I've learned about offering correcting or elaborating information is that just offering the information without the " socially lubricating words " first will really annoy some people. Just giving them a URL, quoting a dictionary or encyclopedia definition, or otherwise supplying only the corrective information is viewed as very rude by a surprisingly large number of people. (I say surprisingly because I get so annoyed and impatient when I notice someone doing the social song and dance to me and I end up wishing they would just quit wasting time and words and get to the point! Most of the rest of the world, however, actually seems to *like* that song and dance and *needs* it in order to feel safe and validated.) So even if you don't follow the formula I gave, try inserting something before the information to " cushion " it and see if reactions aren't a little different. Now I have to go visit the department chair again. I'm beginning to wonder why I don't just set up a tent in his lobby. *sigh* Take care! Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Thanks for the input everyone, and special thanks for the ‘formula’, Sparrow! Sparrow, Well, what you’ve said makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. I’ve been just sending the url to people lately. I’ve already said “I checked this out on snopes and here is what I found” countless times, but get tired of writing it every time so just started sending the url! I never did that formula though so I guess I’ve been sounding rude all this time. (“Sorry” to for just quoting the two words earlier today! Wasn’t trying to be rude!) Mostly it is my MIL (mother-in-law) and other relatives who send me these things. I guess I should just delete them from now on, except the ones where they direct you to delete files that are supposed to be on your computer. My husband had put that teddy bear icon file back on MIL’s computer twice already and last time refused to do it again lol. Good luck with the dept chair! Let us know what happens. Wendi Re: urban legends At 01:29 PM 11/3/04 -0500, Wendi wrote: >I think people are starting to get annoyed with my > & #8216;interference & #8217;. [...] > I can & #8217;t understand these people! Why can & #8217;t they see it is >better to look for the TRUTH than it is to spread false rumors? Over the years we have been together, my partner has taught me a lot about how " the normies " see things. We've talked about these sorts of issues specifically and he has taught me something that I find almost too unbelievable to be true, but once I look around me with this idea in mind, I see that it probably is true. In " the regular world, " people consider it a weakness to change your mind. There is no way to publically change an opinion -- even if one has been presented with the most air-tight and convincing evidence in the world -- without " losing face " with others. Now, I think that's stupid, you probably think that's stupid and my partner also agrees that it is stupid but emphasizes that, stupid or not, it's an important thing to understand about how the social system works. So, people actually might be annoyed with your interference, especially if you've helped the same person more than once by giving them further information. (To us, it is helping. To them, it is interference, it is judgement, it is " one-up-man-ship, " it is gloating, it is putting ourselves better than the other person, it is showing off, etc.) This item of social information explains why a classroom of students is mostly silent when the teacher asks a question -- no one wants to say the wrong thing and suffer the embarassment of having to publically change their mind (because teacher is a knowledge authority and thus must be listened to if s/he cannot be debated down.) Once someone has taken the social risk and answered a question, the rest of the class will be much more willing to answer questions, but someone has to be the " sacrificial lamb " first so that the rest of the group can feel safe. (This also explains why younger students will often attack a fellow student who is too quick to answer the teacher or who obviously enjoys giving answers in class -- they are breaking the unwritten social code and thus appear threatening and must be pecked down like the painted bird in the old plague-era children's game.) In my life, I have always gravitated towards the sort of people who feel free to teach me things, like correcting me if I say " less " when I should have said " fewer " and who, likewise, accept correction and education from me happily. I tend to be drawn towards people who have interesting things to share and who seem interested when I start talking about odd things from history or science or whatever. Because of this tendency on my part to be drawn towards those sorts of people, I never really learned that many other people consider those things to be " showing off " or just plain rude until my partner explained it all to me and I sat back and observed people doing it for a while. The sad truth is that the average person really doesn't want to know the truth -- they want to know what sounds good and they want others to believe them, not refute them. My advice would be to continue doing whatever feels right to you. If you have an urge to send someone correct information about an e-mail forward they are sending around, stop and think about these two things before you send it: 1. is this a person who is in some position of authority over me or who I otherwise want to keep on their good side due to social politics? For example, if your boss sends you an e-mail forward that you know is incorrect and it has nothing to do with job function, just ignore it. It's " bad form " to correct one's boss unless it's crucial for the business and even then there are stacks of unwritten rules about the way to do it. If it's not " mission critical " and the person who sent it to you *is* mission critical in your life in some way, let it go. 2. is this a person for whom you care? Would you feel badly about the thought of them going on to make a fool of themselves again and again? Do they also care about you? If you don't really care about someone -- if they are a virtual stranger online rather than a virtual friend -- then it's better not to bother helping them in a way they might resent anyway. If you do care about them in some way -- they are a relative or a friend -- then it may be worth helping them out. There are also ways of wording things that help the other person to save face and make them less likely to get irritated. It is awkward having to " dance around things " with words, but when I know that I've hit on a " hot spot " for most people and I have a formula to follow, I like to try to use the formula because it is more likely to " win friends and influence people " and thus make life go a little bit smoother. Sometimes I find it's worth a little effort to make life go more smoothly (though sometimes the effort required seems so ridiculous to me that I just can't bring myself to it.) A diplomatic way to respond is something like this: " That information sure shocked me! I was even more shocked, though, when I found out these other details. Check out what this site says about it: [url for snopes or other debunking site] " The formula here goes like this: a. statement that indicates in some way that they are not stupid for believing it (most people will feel " safe " enough if you just indicate that you thought it was true, even for just a half-second), b. statement that indicates in some way that you might have believed it or were otherwise surprised to learn differently, c. the truth about the matter (without actually using the word 'truth' or indicating strongly that your information is right and theirs is wrong.) It's one of those stupid social games but it can be done without being dishonest. It sometimes takes a little practice, but after a while of using the formula, it becomes more natural. One thing I've learned about offering correcting or elaborating information is that just offering the information without the " socially lubricating words " first will really annoy some people. Just giving them a URL, quoting a dictionary or encyclopedia definition, or otherwise supplying only the corrective information is viewed as very rude by a surprisingly large number of people. (I say surprisingly because I get so annoyed and impatient when I notice someone doing the social song and dance to me and I end up wishing they would just quit wasting time and words and get to the point! Most of the rest of the world, however, actually seems to *like* that song and dance and *needs* it in order to feel safe and validated.) So even if you don't follow the formula I gave, try inserting something before the information to " cushion " it and see if reactions aren't a little different. Now I have to go visit the department chair again. I'm beginning to wonder why I don't just set up a tent in his lobby. *sigh* Take care! Sparrow FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Always remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 At 07:24 PM 11/3/04 -0500, Wendi wrote: > I never >did that formula though so I guess I & #8217;ve been sounding rude all this >time. That's one of the nice things about hanging out with other people on the spectrum -- we tend not to think it's rude. :-) >I guess I >should just delete them from now on, except the ones where they direct you >to delete files that are supposed to be on your computer. Yeah, I'd say those fall at least partly under the " mission critical " category. >Good luck with the dept >chair! Let us know what happens. I go back again on Friday afternoon. My partner is starting to agree with me that I ought to just pitch a tent there! LOL Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 I really enjoyed this reply. I didn't realize sometimes that people don't want errors pointing out and I didn't realize there was a certain way to go about it. It doesn't bother me when people correct me and I don't mind been wrong or admitting it when I am (quite often). It does explain a lot though (thinking of my own life). Thanks, > >I think people are starting to get annoyed with my > > & #8216;interference & #8217;. > [...] > > I can & #8217;t understand these people! Why can & #8217;t they see it is > >better to look for the TRUTH than it is to spread false rumors? > > Over the years we have been together, my partner has taught me a lot about > how " the normies " see things. We've talked about these sorts of issues > specifically and he has taught me something that I find almost too > unbelievable to be true, but once I look around me with this idea in mind, > I see that it probably is true. > > In " the regular world, " people consider it a weakness to change your mind. > There is no way to publically change an opinion -- even if one has been > presented with the most air-tight and convincing evidence in the world -- > without " losing face " with others. > > Now, I think that's stupid, you probably think that's stupid and my partner > also agrees that it is stupid but emphasizes that, stupid or not, it's an > important thing to understand about how the social system works. > > So, people actually might be annoyed with your interference, especially if > you've helped the same person more than once by giving them further > information. (To us, it is helping. To them, it is interference, it is > judgement, it is " one-up-man-ship, " it is gloating, it is putting ourselves > better than the other person, it is showing off, etc.) > > This item of social information explains why a classroom of students is > mostly silent when the teacher asks a question -- no one wants to say the > wrong thing and suffer the embarassment of having to publically change > their mind (because teacher is a knowledge authority and thus must be > listened to if s/he cannot be debated down.) Once someone has taken the > social risk and answered a question, the rest of the class will be much > more willing to answer questions, but someone has to be the " sacrificial > lamb " first so that the rest of the group can feel safe. > > (This also explains why younger students will often attack a fellow student > who is too quick to answer the teacher or who obviously enjoys giving > answers in class -- they are breaking the unwritten social code and thus > appear threatening and must be pecked down like the painted bird in the old > plague-era children's game.) > > In my life, I have always gravitated towards the sort of people who feel > free to teach me things, like correcting me if I say " less " when I should > have said " fewer " and who, likewise, accept correction and education from > me happily. I tend to be drawn towards people who have interesting things > to share and who seem interested when I start talking about odd things from > history or science or whatever. Because of this tendency on my part to be > drawn towards those sorts of people, I never really learned that many other > people consider those things to be " showing off " or just plain rude until > my partner explained it all to me and I sat back and observed people doing > it for a while. > > The sad truth is that the average person really doesn't want to know the > truth -- they want to know what sounds good and they want others to believe > them, not refute them. > > My advice would be to continue doing whatever feels right to you. If you > have an urge to send someone correct information about an e-mail forward > they are sending around, stop and think about these two things before you > send it: > > 1. is this a person who is in some position of authority over me or who I > otherwise want to keep on their good side due to social politics? For > example, if your boss sends you an e-mail forward that you know is > incorrect and it has nothing to do with job function, just ignore it. It's > " bad form " to correct one's boss unless it's crucial for the business and > even then there are stacks of unwritten rules about the way to do it. If > it's not " mission critical " and the person who sent it to you *is* mission > critical in your life in some way, let it go. > > 2. is this a person for whom you care? Would you feel badly about the > thought of them going on to make a fool of themselves again and again? Do > they also care about you? If you don't really care about someone -- if they > are a virtual stranger online rather than a virtual friend -- then it's > better not to bother helping them in a way they might resent anyway. If you > do care about them in some way -- they are a relative or a friend -- then > it may be worth helping them out. > > There are also ways of wording things that help the other person to save > face and make them less likely to get irritated. It is awkward having to > " dance around things " with words, but when I know that I've hit on a " hot > spot " for most people and I have a formula to follow, I like to try to use > the formula because it is more likely to " win friends and influence people " > and thus make life go a little bit smoother. Sometimes I find it's worth a > little effort to make life go more smoothly (though sometimes the effort > required seems so ridiculous to me that I just can't bring myself to it.) > > A diplomatic way to respond is something like this: " That information sure > shocked me! I was even more shocked, though, when I found out these other > details. Check out what this site says about it: [url for snopes or other > debunking site] " The formula here goes like this: > > a. statement that indicates in some way that they are not stupid for > believing it (most people will feel " safe " enough if you just indicate that > you thought it was true, even for just a half-second), > > b. statement that indicates in some way that you might have believed it or > were otherwise surprised to learn differently, > > c. the truth about the matter (without actually using the word 'truth' or > indicating strongly that your information is right and theirs is wrong.) > > It's one of those stupid social games but it can be done without being > dishonest. It sometimes takes a little practice, but after a while of using > the formula, it becomes more natural. > > One thing I've learned about offering correcting or elaborating information > is that just offering the information without the " socially lubricating > words " first will really annoy some people. Just giving them a URL, quoting > a dictionary or encyclopedia definition, or otherwise supplying only the > corrective information is viewed as very rude by a surprisingly large > number of people. (I say surprisingly because I get so annoyed and > impatient when I notice someone doing the social song and dance to me and I > end up wishing they would just quit wasting time and words and get to the > point! Most of the rest of the world, however, actually seems to *like* > that song and dance and *needs* it in order to feel safe and validated.) > > So even if you don't follow the formula I gave, try inserting something > before the information to " cushion " it and see if reactions aren't a little > different. > > Now I have to go visit the department chair again. I'm beginning to wonder > why I don't just set up a tent in his lobby. *sigh* > > Take care! > > Sparrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Greebo: > I really enjoyed this reply. I didn't realize sometimes that people don't want errors pointing out and I didn't realize there was a certain way to go about it. It doesn't bother me when people correct me and I don't mind been wrong or admitting it when I am (quite often). It does explain a lot though (thinking of my own life). Same here. When someone points out an error, e.g. in my spelling or a misconception of something, I'm only too happy to adjust my spelling or thinking to be more accurate, and usually appreciate having it pointed out (unless it is something that is a matter of opinion and the other person keeps harassing me to accept their view against my informed conviction). But I too appreciate Sparrow's info on how to present corrections in as unoffensive a manner as possible. Very useful. Perhaps I may be allowed to pass it on to this Aspie girl in one of our Swedish forums who just wrote that after about a life-time of doing so, her Aspie dad finally realized that his way of correcting people by saying " you are wrong " for some reason did not work too well... :-D I have myself often been surprised at people's ingratitude when given correct info. Like when I phoned up Osram to inform them that their " energy savers " actually don't give " 5 times more light " and that their " health-promoting " full-spectrum tube has no health effects whatsoever since it only gives off a little extra UV-A and not UV-B (which has been found to have possible, marginal health effects). I meant only to help them change the info in their catalogue to save them the embarrassment of being found out to promote lamps with incorrect info. But to my immense surprise, the sales person I talked to got all emotional about it and seemed to feel personally attacked, almost as if he had designed the lamps or written the catalogue info himself (which he had not). Weird, huh? Puzzled Inger > >I think people are starting to get annoyed with my > > & #8216;interference & #8217;. > [...] > > I can & #8217;t understand these people! Why can & #8217;t they see it is > >better to look for the TRUTH than it is to spread false rumors? > > Over the years we have been together, my partner has taught me a lot about > how " the normies " see things. We've talked about these sorts of issues > specifically and he has taught me something that I find almost too > unbelievable to be true, but once I look around me with this idea in mind, > I see that it probably is true. > > In " the regular world, " people consider it a weakness to change your mind. > There is no way to publically change an opinion -- even if one has been > presented with the most air-tight and convincing evidence in the world -- > without " losing face " with others. > > Now, I think that's stupid, you probably think that's stupid and my partner > also agrees that it is stupid but emphasizes that, stupid or not, it's an > important thing to understand about how the social system works. > > So, people actually might be annoyed with your interference, especially if > you've helped the same person more than once by giving them further > information. (To us, it is helping. To them, it is interference, it is > judgement, it is " one-up-man-ship, " it is gloating, it is putting ourselves > better than the other person, it is showing off, etc.) > > This item of social information explains why a classroom of students is > mostly silent when the teacher asks a question -- no one wants to say the > wrong thing and suffer the embarassment of having to publically change > their mind (because teacher is a knowledge authority and thus must be > listened to if s/he cannot be debated down.) Once someone has taken the > social risk and answered a question, the rest of the class will be much > more willing to answer questions, but someone has to be the " sacrificial > lamb " first so that the rest of the group can feel safe. > > (This also explains why younger students will often attack a fellow student > who is too quick to answer the teacher or who obviously enjoys giving > answers in class -- they are breaking the unwritten social code and thus > appear threatening and must be pecked down like the painted bird in the old > plague-era children's game.) > > In my life, I have always gravitated towards the sort of people who feel > free to teach me things, like correcting me if I say " less " when I should > have said " fewer " and who, likewise, accept correction and education from > me happily. I tend to be drawn towards people who have interesting things > to share and who seem interested when I start talking about odd things from > history or science or whatever. Because of this tendency on my part to be > drawn towards those sorts of people, I never really learned that many other > people consider those things to be " showing off " or just plain rude until > my partner explained it all to me and I sat back and observed people doing > it for a while. > > The sad truth is that the average person really doesn't want to know the > truth -- they want to know what sounds good and they want others to believe > them, not refute them. > > My advice would be to continue doing whatever feels right to you. If you > have an urge to send someone correct information about an e-mail forward > they are sending around, stop and think about these two things before you > send it: > > 1. is this a person who is in some position of authority over me or who I > otherwise want to keep on their good side due to social politics? For > example, if your boss sends you an e-mail forward that you know is > incorrect and it has nothing to do with job function, just ignore it. It's > " bad form " to correct one's boss unless it's crucial for the business and > even then there are stacks of unwritten rules about the way to do it. If > it's not " mission critical " and the person who sent it to you *is* mission > critical in your life in some way, let it go. > > 2. is this a person for whom you care? Would you feel badly about the > thought of them going on to make a fool of themselves again and again? Do > they also care about you? If you don't really care about someone -- if they > are a virtual stranger online rather than a virtual friend -- then it's > better not to bother helping them in a way they might resent anyway. If you > do care about them in some way -- they are a relative or a friend -- then > it may be worth helping them out. > > There are also ways of wording things that help the other person to save > face and make them less likely to get irritated. It is awkward having to > " dance around things " with words, but when I know that I've hit on a " hot > spot " for most people and I have a formula to follow, I like to try to use > the formula because it is more likely to " win friends and influence people " > and thus make life go a little bit smoother. Sometimes I find it's worth a > little effort to make life go more smoothly (though sometimes the effort > required seems so ridiculous to me that I just can't bring myself to it.) > > A diplomatic way to respond is something like this: " That information sure > shocked me! I was even more shocked, though, when I found out these other > details. Check out what this site says about it: [url for snopes or other > debunking site] " The formula here goes like this: > > a. statement that indicates in some way that they are not stupid for > believing it (most people will feel " safe " enough if you just indicate that > you thought it was true, even for just a half-second), > > b. statement that indicates in some way that you might have believed it or > were otherwise surprised to learn differently, > > c. the truth about the matter (without actually using the word 'truth' or > indicating strongly that your information is right and theirs is wrong.) > > It's one of those stupid social games but it can be done without being > dishonest. It sometimes takes a little practice, but after a while of using > the formula, it becomes more natural. > > One thing I've learned about offering correcting or elaborating information > is that just offering the information without the " socially lubricating > words " first will really annoy some people. Just giving them a URL, quoting > a dictionary or encyclopedia definition, or otherwise supplying only the > corrective information is viewed as very rude by a surprisingly large > number of people. (I say surprisingly because I get so annoyed and > impatient when I notice someone doing the social song and dance to me and I > end up wishing they would just quit wasting time and words and get to the > point! Most of the rest of the world, however, actually seems to *like* > that song and dance and *needs* it in order to feel safe and validated.) > > So even if you don't follow the formula I gave, try inserting something > before the information to " cushion " it and see if reactions aren't a little > different. > > Now I have to go visit the department chair again. I'm beginning to wonder > why I don't just set up a tent in his lobby. *sigh* > > Take care! > > Sparrow FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Always remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.