Dense communication

[sonia]

A friend told me that my communication is unusually dense, by which she appeared to mean that I actually expect what I say to be listened to, I'm not just babbling to hear the sound of my voice. Which is true. The odd thing is that she said she doesn't have that "problem" with other people she talks with.

Now I'm curious. What are your expectations around being heard when you're talking one-on-one with someone? What are your expectations when listening to someone speak?

Comments

[boxofdelights]

I'm like you, I don't talk much but I mean the things I say, and I am puzzled and unhappy when the person I am talking with tells me later that yes, they heard that, but they didn't know I meant it.

It also puzzles and distresses me when I discover that I was supposed to know that the other person didn't mean what they said.

I don't mean sarcasm; I do get and use sarcasm. I mean things that get described after the fact as "blowing off steam" or "thinking things through," without any indication at the time that this is not meant to be taken seriously.

[sonia]

Yeah, there's, "Didn't know you meant it," and also, "Didn't think it was important." It does sound puzzling and distressing to have people want you to discount what they said.

It makes me wonder if I'm missing some essential Clue about conversation, some kind of bonding ritual that doesn't involve actual communication. Talking. It's for conveying information of one sort or another, right?

[dorothean]

My THERAPIST told me a few sessions ago that it can be difficult to talk with me when I assume that every word she says is carefully chosen and has strategic significance.

Me: But that's the only way I know how to listen in a serious conversation!

Therapist: You seem distressed. Are conversations often uncomfortable for you?

Me: No ... because everyone I trust enough to have this sort of serious conversation with talks as carefully as I do.

I'm still slightly freaking out about this.

[sonia]

... I got nuthin. I suppose it could be useful to explore that dynamic? (But THERAPISTS. Are supposed to be choosing their words carefully! Right?!?)

[dorothean]

That's what I thought! I hope to figure this out soon...

[untonuggan]

My partner and I had to work out a cheat code for this, because (with some people, like her, who is trusted) I sometimes do sort of stream-of-consciousness out-loud extroverted thought-stream. Sometimes it is "ideas for knitting projects" and sometimes it's "how many cats should we one day get", etc. OTOH, my partner generally is more of the "when she says something all the internal thinking has already happened and she is providing a finished product. Usually."

Anyway, after an embarassing number of years of miscommunication about this, we now sometimes stop each other and go, "Wait, are you thinking out loud or is this a finished thought?" (Because sometimes now we do the thing the other does, and that is actually where more conflict arises now, when say I don't realize she's just thought-streaming about going back to school and I flip into BUT MONIEZ when she is actually just exploring the idea of possibilities. It's a thing.)

Dunno if this is what's happening with your friend (because "dense communication", really? Those words don't communicate anything to me.) IME it's usually "how much of your thought process happens outside your head most of the time."

[sonia]

Glad you and your partner managed to sort that out!

With my friend, it's more that she's in a lot of pain and gets distracted. Apparently, with most people, she tunes out and back in and no one notices. Or pretends not to notice, anyway. But with me, if she says a non-sequitur, I repeat what I said and try to clarify.

I understand pain, distraction, etc. I don't really understand making it my fault when she misses something. I suppose it's a coping mechanism.

[kaz]

That kind of reminds me of something I do...

Basically, sometimes the gap between my processing what other people are saying, figuring out a response, and formulating that into words grows too long for natural communication, and when that happens auto-response mode is triggered. In auto-response mode, I either throw the general idea of what I want to say at my vocal cords (if stalled in stages two or three), or say something where the... intonation-shape of the reply matches the intonation-shape of what the other person said (if stalled in stage one, and no, I can't describe that any better). I will generally figure out what on earth they and/or I just said some seconds after the fact. It works surprisingly well, except that auto-response mode can't tell the difference between "hi", "bye" and "thank you" which causes some odd moments.

I'd be pretty mortified if someone noticed, though, and definitely not inclined to blame them!

[sonia]

Thanks for describing your experience. Gives me a sense for how it is for you, and also a little of how it might be for my friend.

Also I'm sitting with "mortified" and wondering about when it might be polite to not-notice that someone didn't respond to what I said.

[untonuggan]

Yeah making it your fault is not really okay, even if she's embarassed about it.

[wired]

I think of density as having to do with how many things require reaction or cogitation from me, as opposed to "looser" conversations where I am mostly useful as a person who serves as sounding-board and question-asker.

$spouse and I have been having a lot of really dense, meaningful conversations lately, and it's exhausting, because I need to react, think, respond appropriately, classify as something to store in long-term memory. They are not as couple-bonding for me as looser, goofy conversations about things we are going to do together in the next few days, or reports about our day.

They're super important! But the density does make them notable.

[sonia]

Thanks for the thoughts on density! My friend and I weren't discussing anything earth-shaking, but maybe it was still over her limit of Importance for that moment.

[kaz]

Something I've noticed which might be part of it is that it seems like often, a large part of communication isn't really there as direct information transfer. It's more like... social bonding. You talk about inconsequential things you share, and the underlying message is "hi, I'm a human being! I'm acknowledging you as another human being, who is in the tribe that shares [thing we are currently talking about!]" The intention isn't to delve deep into the shared thing, the intention is more to make clear you share it. It reminds me of when my linguistics professor talked about how language may have evolved as a substitute for grooming behaviour in cementing social hierarchies. *g*

Anyway, it seems like often a significant chunk of conversation is taken up with that sort of thing. Actual meaningful-information-heavy content may not be present at all, and if it is it's almost certainly bracketed by some of the social stuff. I've noticed that sometimes talking with other autistic people can lean very information-heavy in contrast, which tbh always feels like something of a breath of fresh air to me but which I imagine comes as a shock to many people.

I AM SORRY I WILL STOP BABBLING NOW Kaz's amateur sociolinguistic theories let me show you them.

[sonia]

Heh, grooming behaviour! Thinking this over. On one level, I'm like, "Yeah, yeah, I know all that." On another level... maybe not so much.