6 ms·

I had this experience in undergrad. And I had to stay for several days because I had no therapist for the staff psychologist to call. Being surrounded by genuin

I had this experience in undergrad. And I had to stay for several days because I had no therapist for the staff psychologist to call. Being surrounded by genuinely crazy people for three days almost made me crazy. Coming from a music, then music theory, then philosophy, then technology background, it's an understatement to say that being precise in my language is extremely important. Most people just don't care that much about the exact meanings of what the say or the chain of logical implications implied by certain types of careless wording. It's a constant challenge for me to interact with people in a casual social way, so I mostly just don't. I probably come across as a pedant in many cases, but that's not my intent. I just have a hard time intuiting what people mean when it's something other than what they say.

scardine 11y ago
Now that my 2 years old son is officially diagnosed in the spectrum, I wonder if I have a toe in autism as well. I have to spend a lot of mental energy to get all the social clues and body language and all the things that seems natural to most people. No matter how much effort I put on social interactions people see me as arrogant or pedantic or a plain jerk. My son is my best friend, and the way he thinks make more sense for me than the rest of mankind.
- hugozap 11y ago
  >No matter how much effort I put on social interactions Too much effort gets the opposite effect. Others feel the interaction forced and weird. I used to be guilty of this too. A more relaxed attitude helps a lot, but is not easy when my mind is optimised to analyse everything...
- Laaw 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm reading this story (and some of these comments), and I have been in language comprehension mishaps before, but only because I was being obstinate (and was aware of it). I can't think of a situation like this where I couldn't intuit the desired answer the authority questioning me was looking for. I've often chosen not to give that answer for various reasons (I can be a prick, usually), but there's never been a situation to my recollection that I've been genuinely stumped.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Plenty of people process language differently. That's why there are dictionaries of metaphor to help people understand that "raining cats and dogs" just means "raining heavily". http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Raining-Cats-Dogs-Expressions/dp/1849052832 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Raining-Cats-Dogs-Expressions/dp... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asperger-Dictionary-Everyday-Expressions-ebook/dp/B003GALS70 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asperger-Dictionary-Everyday-Express...
    - Laaw 11y ago
      That's my point.
gkya 11y ago
Language is a tool that humans use to interact with each other, if you can't use it for this very purpose, then you're the problematic one. In written language the product can be revised and rephrased many times to arrive at a mostly unambiguous result, but with the spoken language, the product is produced and consumed contemporaneously and spontaneously. Ambiguity is in the nature of it: nobody has the mental capability to construct non-context-dependent, logically-completely-unambiguous sentences in the context of a casual conversation. You have to learn to differentiate among various linguistic contexts and registers.
- oxplot 11y ago
  Sure, spoken language is fairly raw unprocessed output, but what I have a problem with, speaking with the general population, is that when they're asked to confirm/rephrase/clarify their imprecise output, they don't think of it as such. That I find unbearable. I say a lot of illogical/emotional things too, but I'm the first to notice it and correct it.
  - gkya 11y ago
    People have similar, but different mental capabilities, and different attitude. I have a superficial knowledge of linguistics and philosophy of language, and am also interested in philosophy, history and literature, so I'll be more able at forming rather more coherent, more logical and lenghtier sentences, but not everybody is like me, and they won't be able to phrase complex and/or ambiguous concepts as clearly as I do. What I do is that I adjust myself to my interlocutor(s), I try to be comprehensible and relevant to him, from whatever background he shall be. Because however much I know a language, and however much I be good at speaking it, if I cannot use it for its very fundamental purpose of communication, then all my knowledge and all my quality is useless: better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease.
    - oxplot 11y ago
      > better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease I actually think the opposite: the more knowledgeable you are in any area, the higher your standards and your interest in details, things that people with lower level of knowledge are not appreciative of and hence not interested in. As for case of language, I wasn't referring to everyday casual chit chat at lunch or at a party but half serious discussion with people about a mutual area of interest.
pjscott 11y ago
What I've found works is to not directly answer maddeningly vague questions, but instead to either ask for nitpicky clarification or to give a very precisely-worded statement that answers the question they probably should have asked. I'll use a question from the article as an example: "Are you absolutely sure that you will not hurt yourself today?" Now, this is obviously a silly question and what they really ought to want to know is the probability that you'll hurt yourself today or in the near future, so the answer, rather than yes or no, ought to be something like "I have not deliberately hurt myself before, and consider it very unlikely that I will do so in the near or medium-term future." Accompany this with a head-shake in case they don't understand what you said. Not only does this prevent wacky misunderstandings, but it also acts as a shibboleth, telling the more precise-minded doctors that they can converse more naturally with you. This is a great blessing when it happens.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Or you could just say "yes." It's pretty obvious why they are asking that question and what answer they are looking for.
  - pjscott 11y ago
    Sure, I used an easy case as an example, but it's not always so trivial to guess at the other person's intent.
    - elliotec 11y ago
      It was the author's example, and also her point. Your parent comment points out how easy that was to infer, and assuming your parent's commenter is a 'normal person,' the author (and maybe you too) would have a difficult time communicating with them.
    - karmelapple 11y ago
      It sounds like you know what the intent was, but have chosen to ignore it, because you feel the words chosen must contain the entire intent. Why can't nonverbal cues and other contexts also be brought into your estimation? Or perhaps asking for clarity on the question if you really, truly aren't sure what's being asked? Asking for clarification, rather than answering the wrong question, seems like a superior approach.
mistermann 11y ago
Working in IT with people (also in IT) who speak imprecisely (to the degree that often what they say is exactly wrong) is particularly challenging.
- kpil 11y ago
  I'm one of those. If it makes you happier to know, it does not exactly make my day to go through blindingly obvious alternatives with people that clearly are capable of inferring them all. But sure, I see your point, and experience it too with some people that probably would be better working with something else.
- solotronics 11y ago
  It's vastly frustrating to have someone misinterpret the difference between probably and possibly. There is even an IETF RFC explaining this.. I don't say those words withot meaning exactly what I said!!
  - ghrifter 11y ago
    Perhapd they have no idea. Ie they are pretending. So they use fancy terms and language amd jargon to show off like they know, but they dont I have a coworker like this. Coworker: "Im going to instantiate an instance of this Class and assign it these values from one of its constructors" Me: "cool - you made an object. go on..."
SilasX 11y ago
Similar problem -- I have a systematizing mind where I want to trace out the implications of whatever claims someone is making, but I was, for a long time, really bad at learning the filters you're supposed to apply. So I end up saying things like: - "So logic doesn't apply to this topic, then?" - "Right, but I have to adjust for the fact that you have a strong incentive to say things like that." It would feel like neutral spelling out of the facts, and I thought I was being helpful ... but naturally, it doesn't get taken that way and you have to be careful for how it comes across.
alexashka 11y ago
I know a couple of people like that. It's a gift and a curse, right? Being pedantic is actually welcomed in various fields, including the ones you mentioned, so it sounds like it's working out quite alright. Casual interaction is hugely overrated anyhow - it's value drops off as you get older, people care about 'hey how are you?' less and less I find. Finding those few people you really click with is the only tricky part it sounds like - that's just how it is. I've found 'literal-minded' people to be emotionally closed off to an extreme degree. I theorize that opening up emotionally would help a great deal. The way I did it was through a good friend and alcohol when I was younger - I went from not knowing what to say to being able to blabber about anything in an entertaining manner. The quick mind gives me the ability to be self-amused about the most mundane situations - and that's what my small-talk consists of, making clever observations about the world. Don't know if that's at all helpful.
- nugga 11y ago
  People who seem emotionally closed off can be highly sensitive and easily overwhelmed. It's hard to interact with people when all signals and your internal state in social situations are out of whack. When the feedback is constantly discouraging there's no incentive to partake.
  - alexashka 11y ago
    Absolutely, I am not denying that these things are difficult - very difficult in fact. Learning to navigate your emotions and finding people and places/routines that work for you is one of the bigger challenges a person faces in his/her lifetime. The next step is learning to manage other people's emotions and helping them blossom, bringing them out of their shell. I try to do that to a small extent :)
xlm1717 11y ago
I would say the problem with the psych, in the article at least, is not so much they don't deal with precise language, but that they deal with precise, and rigid, protocols. The psych didn't take the time to clarify because the protocol (probably) was, if a patient shows any risk (no matter how small, apparently) to self-harm, put them in the hospital. Instead of being pedantic about language, the psych is being pedantic about protocol.

scardine 11y ago

Now that my 2 years old son is officially diagnosed in the spectrum, I wonder if I have a toe in autism as well. I have to spend a lot of mental energy to get all the social clues and body language and all the things that seems natural to most people. No matter how much effort I put on social interactions people see me as arrogant or pedantic or a plain jerk. My son is my best friend, and the way he thinks make more sense for me than the rest of mankind.

hugozap 11y ago
>No matter how much effort I put on social interactions Too much effort gets the opposite effect. Others feel the interaction forced and weird. I used to be guilty of this too. A more relaxed attitude helps a lot, but is not easy when my mind is optimised to analyse everything...
Laaw 11y ago
Yeah, I'm reading this story (and some of these comments), and I have been in language comprehension mishaps before, but only because I was being obstinate (and was aware of it). I can't think of a situation like this where I couldn't intuit the desired answer the authority questioning me was looking for. I've often chosen not to give that answer for various reasons (I can be a prick, usually), but there's never been a situation to my recollection that I've been genuinely stumped.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Plenty of people process language differently. That's why there are dictionaries of metaphor to help people understand that "raining cats and dogs" just means "raining heavily". http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Raining-Cats-Dogs-Expressions/dp/1849052832 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Its-Raining-Cats-Dogs-Expressions/dp... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asperger-Dictionary-Everyday-Expressions-ebook/dp/B003GALS70 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asperger-Dictionary-Everyday-Express...
  - Laaw 11y ago
    That's my point.

gkya 11y ago

Language is a tool that humans use to interact with each other, if you can't use it for this very purpose, then you're the problematic one. In written language the product can be revised and rephrased many times to arrive at a mostly unambiguous result, but with the spoken language, the product is produced and consumed contemporaneously and spontaneously. Ambiguity is in the nature of it: nobody has the mental capability to construct non-context-dependent, logically-completely-unambiguous sentences in the context of a casual conversation. You have to learn to differentiate among various linguistic contexts and registers.

oxplot 11y ago
Sure, spoken language is fairly raw unprocessed output, but what I have a problem with, speaking with the general population, is that when they're asked to confirm/rephrase/clarify their imprecise output, they don't think of it as such. That I find unbearable. I say a lot of illogical/emotional things too, but I'm the first to notice it and correct it.
- gkya 11y ago
  People have similar, but different mental capabilities, and different attitude. I have a superficial knowledge of linguistics and philosophy of language, and am also interested in philosophy, history and literature, so I'll be more able at forming rather more coherent, more logical and lenghtier sentences, but not everybody is like me, and they won't be able to phrase complex and/or ambiguous concepts as clearly as I do. What I do is that I adjust myself to my interlocutor(s), I try to be comprehensible and relevant to him, from whatever background he shall be. Because however much I know a language, and however much I be good at speaking it, if I cannot use it for its very fundamental purpose of communication, then all my knowledge and all my quality is useless: better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease.
  - oxplot 11y ago
    > better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease I actually think the opposite: the more knowledgeable you are in any area, the higher your standards and your interest in details, things that people with lower level of knowledge are not appreciative of and hence not interested in. As for case of language, I wasn't referring to everyday casual chit chat at lunch or at a party but half serious discussion with people about a mutual area of interest.

pjscott 11y ago

What I've found works is to not directly answer maddeningly vague questions, but instead to either ask for nitpicky clarification or to give a very precisely-worded statement that answers the question they probably should have asked. I'll use a question from the article as an example: "Are you absolutely sure that you will not hurt yourself today?" Now, this is obviously a silly question and what they really ought to want to know is the probability that you'll hurt yourself today or in the near future, so the answer, rather than yes or no, ought to be something like "I have not deliberately hurt myself before, and consider it very unlikely that I will do so in the near or medium-term future." Accompany this with a head-shake in case they don't understand what you said. Not only does this prevent wacky misunderstandings, but it also acts as a shibboleth, telling the more precise-minded doctors that they can converse more naturally with you. This is a great blessing when it happens.

ams6110 11y ago
Or you could just say "yes." It's pretty obvious why they are asking that question and what answer they are looking for.
- pjscott 11y ago
  Sure, I used an easy case as an example, but it's not always so trivial to guess at the other person's intent.
  - elliotec 11y ago
    It was the author's example, and also her point. Your parent comment points out how easy that was to infer, and assuming your parent's commenter is a 'normal person,' the author (and maybe you too) would have a difficult time communicating with them.
  - karmelapple 11y ago
    It sounds like you know what the intent was, but have chosen to ignore it, because you feel the words chosen must contain the entire intent. Why can't nonverbal cues and other contexts also be brought into your estimation? Or perhaps asking for clarity on the question if you really, truly aren't sure what's being asked? Asking for clarification, rather than answering the wrong question, seems like a superior approach.

mistermann 11y ago

Working in IT with people (also in IT) who speak imprecisely (to the degree that often what they say is exactly wrong) is particularly challenging.

kpil 11y ago
I'm one of those. If it makes you happier to know, it does not exactly make my day to go through blindingly obvious alternatives with people that clearly are capable of inferring them all. But sure, I see your point, and experience it too with some people that probably would be better working with something else.
solotronics 11y ago
It's vastly frustrating to have someone misinterpret the difference between probably and possibly. There is even an IETF RFC explaining this.. I don't say those words withot meaning exactly what I said!!
- ghrifter 11y ago
  Perhapd they have no idea. Ie they are pretending. So they use fancy terms and language amd jargon to show off like they know, but they dont I have a coworker like this. Coworker: "Im going to instantiate an instance of this Class and assign it these values from one of its constructors" Me: "cool - you made an object. go on..."

SilasX 11y ago

Similar problem -- I have a systematizing mind where I want to trace out the implications of whatever claims someone is making, but I was, for a long time, really bad at learning the filters you're supposed to apply. So I end up saying things like: - "So logic doesn't apply to this topic, then?" - "Right, but I have to adjust for the fact that you have a strong incentive to say things like that." It would feel like neutral spelling out of the facts, and I thought I was being helpful ... but naturally, it doesn't get taken that way and you have to be careful for how it comes across.

alexashka 11y ago

I know a couple of people like that. It's a gift and a curse, right? Being pedantic is actually welcomed in various fields, including the ones you mentioned, so it sounds like it's working out quite alright. Casual interaction is hugely overrated anyhow - it's value drops off as you get older, people care about 'hey how are you?' less and less I find. Finding those few people you really click with is the only tricky part it sounds like - that's just how it is. I've found 'literal-minded' people to be emotionally closed off to an extreme degree. I theorize that opening up emotionally would help a great deal. The way I did it was through a good friend and alcohol when I was younger - I went from not knowing what to say to being able to blabber about anything in an entertaining manner. The quick mind gives me the ability to be self-amused about the most mundane situations - and that's what my small-talk consists of, making clever observations about the world. Don't know if that's at all helpful.

nugga 11y ago
People who seem emotionally closed off can be highly sensitive and easily overwhelmed. It's hard to interact with people when all signals and your internal state in social situations are out of whack. When the feedback is constantly discouraging there's no incentive to partake.
- alexashka 11y ago
  Absolutely, I am not denying that these things are difficult - very difficult in fact. Learning to navigate your emotions and finding people and places/routines that work for you is one of the bigger challenges a person faces in his/her lifetime. The next step is learning to manage other people's emotions and helping them blossom, bringing them out of their shell. I try to do that to a small extent :)

xlm1717 11y ago

I would say the problem with the psych, in the article at least, is not so much they don't deal with precise language, but that they deal with precise, and rigid, protocols. The psych didn't take the time to clarify because the protocol (probably) was, if a patient shows any risk (no matter how small, apparently) to self-harm, put them in the hospital. Instead of being pedantic about language, the psych is being pedantic about protocol.