Notes/ Responses:"How to Lie Like a Geek" talk at Free Geek on 1/13/2010
Schwern's talk at Free Geek tonight, helped illuminate the specifics I've been searching for: Why is communicating with certain people so difficult? What's the root of specific miscommunications?
Well, in part, I overload people with information. While I think the information is pertinent (or just think it's shiny data that should be shared), and it helps complete the flow of data- so there are no gaps in reasoning or logic- those rules do not apply to everyone. I'm making the erroneous assumption that others process or parse things in the same manner that I do, and will respond in a predictive pattern accordingly (either as I would or as I think they should/ would). Please note that this does not indicate any personal character judgment. It's only an indication of process bias, a strict process of "if x, then y" given my particular parameters (my past experiences, gleanings from those experiences, overall history, etc).
Also, as with most humans, I have a habit of stating the obvious. This often leads to fouled communication. While I am of the mindset that I'm stating a simple fact, it's often interpreted as an attempt on my behalf to imply a particular judgment regarding whatever or whomever my statement involves. However, most of the time, I'm stating something that is obvious to me as a way to personally work through whatever understanding I hope to gain from it. So my statement of the obvious is necessary for my own processing of things, and really has nothing to do with whomever the statement appears to be directed.
Schwern also pointed out that, for geeks, the filter of being tactful is applied to the input (hearing of and processing of whatever data is being received from an outside source). However, a non-geek/ "person" often places the burden of communicating with tact on the person speaking rather than listening. It's not a matter (as a general rule) of being mean, an ass, rude, or crass on the part of the geek speaking. It's all about a misplaced tact filter. Apparently, a geek isn't a person. It's a harsh culture clash, to which some cannot grow accustomed.
For a non-geek example, look at the speaking styles/ language of the Vietnamese or Native Americans. For the Vietnamese, they are very direct about addressing their expectations of monetary aid from relatives in America. While those relatives raised as Americans find this a crass burden being thrown at them, when the American relatives are listing "meet the far away relatives" as the only priority on their list, the Vietnamese relatives find nothing shameful in their requests. For the Vietnamese raise relatives, it's just a matter of stating the obvious (e.g. Mom is getting older and needs help. You live in a more comfortable society. While we've done what we can to take care of her, it's your familial obligation to have her live with you for a while and for you to take care of her. Also, you're from a richer country, and should be able to help us out. Please give us $x.xx). In regards to the language of Native Americans, there is a lack of vocabulary indicating questions. As an example, you will not be asked if you are hungry; you will be told to come eat. It's a matter of a perceived, rude command versus the intended, language specific/ limited statement. The words may contain a specific denotation when literally translated to English, but it lacks the broader context. Oh, the woeful trial and tribulation of a translator!
Finally, there's "Literalist Fuckhead Mode." This probably goes back to an internal bias of various protocol (such as simple conversation) following certain rules. Usually, it crops up in form of semantics. This can cause me to focus more on the means (the words being used/ steps being followed or not) than the ends (what the other person is trying to say/ ask) causing there to be a near-complete to complete melt-down in communication. Combine this with the misplaced tact filter, and everyone's in for a fun time.
Unfortunately, a "person" will interpret this (my/ a geek's) sort of communication as being based in personal judgment against them/ their upbringing/ various other personal attacks. This couldn't be farther from the truth. My manner of communication is much more based in process and an internal, direct route of gaining or processing information. In most situations, the "person" will misread the "geek" (my) intent on a much more emotive level and react accordingly. This cues all sorts of OMGWTFBBQ, and begins the geek brain meltdown sequence.
In short, please be kind to your geek and yourself. We don't mean to misrepresent the truth- lie- or intend any personal attack against you (unless we're feeling snarky or you've already initiated geek brain meltdown). Maybe I should carry a sign that reads: "No really, I didn't mean it that way." It's not as catchy as "Be Kind. Please Rewind," but maybe it'd prevent unnecessary hour long attempts at expanding our verbal/ written "empathetic bandwidth" only to find that our tact filter is damaged or out of place.
While I'm certain that I could expand on various intricacies, it's late. So, I'll end this here and leave the proof-reading and unabridged response to this talk for another day.
Well, in part, I overload people with information. While I think the information is pertinent (or just think it's shiny data that should be shared), and it helps complete the flow of data- so there are no gaps in reasoning or logic- those rules do not apply to everyone. I'm making the erroneous assumption that others process or parse things in the same manner that I do, and will respond in a predictive pattern accordingly (either as I would or as I think they should/ would). Please note that this does not indicate any personal character judgment. It's only an indication of process bias, a strict process of "if x, then y" given my particular parameters (my past experiences, gleanings from those experiences, overall history, etc).
Also, as with most humans, I have a habit of stating the obvious. This often leads to fouled communication. While I am of the mindset that I'm stating a simple fact, it's often interpreted as an attempt on my behalf to imply a particular judgment regarding whatever or whomever my statement involves. However, most of the time, I'm stating something that is obvious to me as a way to personally work through whatever understanding I hope to gain from it. So my statement of the obvious is necessary for my own processing of things, and really has nothing to do with whomever the statement appears to be directed.
Schwern also pointed out that, for geeks, the filter of being tactful is applied to the input (hearing of and processing of whatever data is being received from an outside source). However, a non-geek/ "person" often places the burden of communicating with tact on the person speaking rather than listening. It's not a matter (as a general rule) of being mean, an ass, rude, or crass on the part of the geek speaking. It's all about a misplaced tact filter. Apparently, a geek isn't a person. It's a harsh culture clash, to which some cannot grow accustomed.
For a non-geek example, look at the speaking styles/ language of the Vietnamese or Native Americans. For the Vietnamese, they are very direct about addressing their expectations of monetary aid from relatives in America. While those relatives raised as Americans find this a crass burden being thrown at them, when the American relatives are listing "meet the far away relatives" as the only priority on their list, the Vietnamese relatives find nothing shameful in their requests. For the Vietnamese raise relatives, it's just a matter of stating the obvious (e.g. Mom is getting older and needs help. You live in a more comfortable society. While we've done what we can to take care of her, it's your familial obligation to have her live with you for a while and for you to take care of her. Also, you're from a richer country, and should be able to help us out. Please give us $x.xx). In regards to the language of Native Americans, there is a lack of vocabulary indicating questions. As an example, you will not be asked if you are hungry; you will be told to come eat. It's a matter of a perceived, rude command versus the intended, language specific/ limited statement. The words may contain a specific denotation when literally translated to English, but it lacks the broader context. Oh, the woeful trial and tribulation of a translator!
Finally, there's "Literalist Fuckhead Mode." This probably goes back to an internal bias of various protocol (such as simple conversation) following certain rules. Usually, it crops up in form of semantics. This can cause me to focus more on the means (the words being used/ steps being followed or not) than the ends (what the other person is trying to say/ ask) causing there to be a near-complete to complete melt-down in communication. Combine this with the misplaced tact filter, and everyone's in for a fun time.
Unfortunately, a "person" will interpret this (my/ a geek's) sort of communication as being based in personal judgment against them/ their upbringing/ various other personal attacks. This couldn't be farther from the truth. My manner of communication is much more based in process and an internal, direct route of gaining or processing information. In most situations, the "person" will misread the "geek" (my) intent on a much more emotive level and react accordingly. This cues all sorts of OMGWTFBBQ, and begins the geek brain meltdown sequence.
In short, please be kind to your geek and yourself. We don't mean to misrepresent the truth- lie- or intend any personal attack against you (unless we're feeling snarky or you've already initiated geek brain meltdown). Maybe I should carry a sign that reads: "No really, I didn't mean it that way." It's not as catchy as "Be Kind. Please Rewind," but maybe it'd prevent unnecessary hour long attempts at expanding our verbal/ written "empathetic bandwidth" only to find that our tact filter is damaged or out of place.
While I'm certain that I could expand on various intricacies, it's late. So, I'll end this here and leave the proof-reading and unabridged response to this talk for another day.