Why don't neurotypicals care about using true definitions?

Post Reply New Topic

I assume it comes from doing a lot of their communication via inferences and loose assumptions. People say something then expect you to make loose associations and get a vague feel of what they mean.

People also like to use hyperbole for effect. Someone might say, for example, 'I think that girl has ADHD' meaning only that she's very energetic, and expect you to pick up that they don't literally mean she suffers from ADHD.

another thing i dislike are eupimisms

*sigh* I suppose some find it whimsical to speculate on this, but that's not how evolution works.

Words have multiple meanings depending on context. Part of the context is non-verbal. Insisting that this shouldn't be so will just get you frustrated.

Yes. Exactly.

I like to keep an open mind, and toy with ideas. Nobody knows everything. There could very well be a higher purpose in things that science just can't figure out. There's a textbook explanation for many things, yet the mind itself has defied reason.

I understand what they're trying to convey when they exaggerate because I do it myself at times. However, I do despise how so many of them cheapen words such as love or friendship. I also despise how they think the term hate denotes irrationality or a strong emotional feeling. It's not that people say they hate each other that bothers me, but rather that they deny they have this feeling in the first place. I know and understand what they mean in these instances but I hate what they are doing to these words of such significance.

"Love" and "hate", to use your two examples, have fluid and context-dependent definitions. If you insist that people should never go outside the exact dictionary defintion, you will always be puzzled. It's the dictionary defintion that has to play catch-up. Language is dynamic and in constant flux. Words can have multiple meanings depending on conversational context and non-verbal cues. Callista is exactly right. Words can also have meanings added that don't into the dictionary because of slang. I'm sure it infuriated Aspies of the 60's and 70's when "bad" sometimes meant "good" depending on context. Thta slang has now been dropped, probably further infuriating those Aspies who had eventually learned when "bad" meant "good" only to discover that by the 80's it didn't any more. These days "sick" can mean "in ill health" or it can mean "impressive".

There is a reason dictionaries go through more editions than the DSM. It's because the dictionaries have to pay attention to how people use language to figure out what a word means, not the other way around.

I jokingly use that phrase all the time to describe hyperactive people who often jump from topic to topic in a conversation. I do the same with OCD to describe neat freaks. It just bothers me when terms significant to me (love, hate, friendship) are misused or denied their proper use.

For some reason, the use of ill or bad in those senses never bothered me because I didn't really attach as much significance as I do to the words love and hate. In the early 90s, as a girl I instinctively knew the nuances of colloquial language. I'm just bothered by people saying they love someone when they're clearly after his or her status or simply wants to sleep with the person. Another example would be a person saying they love their significant other when it's evident they don't by their sheer cruelty. I'm bothered when someone wishes malevolent harm upon a person yet denies hating him. I know it's to protect their reputation and to make them look reasonable but it makes me want to scream at them. I guess I should change the thread title since I have no problem with most use of non-literal language.

That makes more sense. It sounds like what you are actually angry about is that people are often not honest about what they feel inside and claim to feel something else. This may uinfuriate you but it will continue happening because it is a wise move on those people's parts and abandoning the practice would be detrimental to them even if it would make you happy. There is an expression, "don't wear your heart on your sleeve". These people are following it. It may infuriate you. But people are unlikely to abandon a practice which is working for them. You can call them on it if you wish. Lots of NT people do. If you eavesdrop, you will hear somebody say, :"you don't love him at all, you just don't want to give up those weekends in Paris" or "if you real;ly loved her, you'd stop belittleing her in public". If you are in a conversation it is perfectly fine to say such things yourself. This really has nothing whatsoever to do with the defintions of words and everything to do with not wearing your heart on your sleeve.

I should have created a different thread title but I was too angered I couldn't think straight. I despise the fact they aren't honest about their emotions, especially when they are obvious to the average onlooker. What infuriates me even more is that some of them expect others not to see through their act. You are right in saying that it's perfectly appropriate to point it out. They may think they're not wearing their feelings on their sleeve but their true feelings are often blatantly obvious to anyone who observes what's really happening. They want to make themselves appear better than they truly are. I'm sure some of them swallow their own BS.

There is probably some unconcious, instinctual strategizing going on. Like when playing poker, you don't show your cards, or your true reaction to them. Doing so gives others an advantage. (and socializing is almost always competative in some way) It's more benefical to try to modulate what others think by selectively filtering (or inventing) what data you put out. (I'm speaking hypothetically here -- I cannot actually do these things myself.)

I.e. say A hates B, and says so. Now B may decide to 'get' A pre-emptively, but A may not want to deal with flat out conflict at the time. And C, who is B's friend would be alerted also by a flat-out admission, and then draw in D who is friend's with A's boss, who is susceptible to gossip, and... etc etc. So, showing open hate can be really "stirring the sh**" which is going to provoke a lot of counter-strategizing.

I think people going with the flow is, right or wrong, about wanting peace. And so when you're badgering someone to admit they hate a person, their resentment is from you messing with their peace. People don't want to have fight every single person they don't like; that would be miserable.

Enscripted topic

NT lingo is heavily scripted, but not based on lines from movies.

Plug in a script and spit it out to your friends. They will answer in kind. How very meaningful, to use a trite word.

What to do? I just keep my words to the point, calmly expressed, and get the answers I need, without the verbal and non verbal embellishments.

But it's often blatantly obvious that A hates B even if she doesn't flat out admit to it. If B knows about As dislike through reading the signals, couldn't she be plotting as well? Could B be waiting for A to make a stupid move so that she can use it against her? I understand the motivation of A wishing not to make waves so she isn't fired. It's about giving the false illusion of peace when in reality there is a cold war occurring. Some conflicts such as this should be avoided for practical reasons but in cases I have nothing to lose, I go right ahead.



That could be why I never got it. I know I'm abnormal in this sense but I have craved conflict ever since I was young. It gives me an adrenaline rush like no other. I love to argue, question, and point out logical fallacies. I love riling up the people I despise in any way I can. It may seem unusual but it's clear to me that my nature is often the polar opposite of most others. At other times, it's a matter of standing up for yourself. I proudly defend myself and there is no need to feel ashamed about it.

Last edited by timeisdead on 20 Aug 2009, 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

thank goodness that someone finally understands that 2 people can't actually communicate if they all use separate made-up definitions.


I have no problem with the flow of language. I just have a problem with no one willing to start at the same point and head in the same direction.