Studying humans

Post Reply New Topic

can you give me an example of a subtle thing you miss?

All I can tell you is that sometimes after a social gathering a friend will say to me, "Did you see that?" (e.g. someone flirting, getting angry, showing disgust). I just wouldn't notice.

It's the same here. In real time, I usually give a simple interpretation to things, but when I evaluate in hindsight, suddenly subtext becomes clear. For instance, my best friend and I will argue, but it seems like she can always talk me around into thinking I'm the one with the problem. She sounds so reasonable, her tone so earnest and compassionate that I take what she says at face value. She claims she was never angry, that whatever she said was just open, friendly conversation, but I went and took unnecessary offense. She believes it, so I believe it. Yet upon reflection, later, when I have time to evaluate all the behavioral cues, tone of voice, word choice and "vibes", it becomes clear to me that she was angry at me to begin with and deliberately provoked me because she wanted to fight, but wanted to be able to pretend I started it because she doesn't like to think of herself as an angry or resentful person.

By now, I know this is a common behavior pattern, and yet I still find myself buying what she's selling in the heat of argument. She can talk me in circles, because logic has no affect on her and I have no idea how to combat an irrational, untruthful, blame-shifting strategy. I can plan how I intend to approach or respond, but she simply shifts position, which catches me wrong-footed and I can't improvise to account for it. It's maddening.

*Whoosh* [The sound of most of this topic going straight over Ashariel's head]

But I do relate to the fascination of watching people from afar, and trying to figure them out, but not wanting to interact with them myself.

I have so many experiences like that as well.

When you say that it 'catches [you] wrong footed and [you] can't improvise to account for it', I feel as if I can relate, and then relate that back to the original point you made about faulty real-time processing speeds (though I do believe there are other factors I can't be bothered stating too). I'm far, far more successful when communicating online especially if arguing and will make far less blunders even when instant messaging. The extent to which there's a difference is large enough to warrant that when important issues are being discussed, I request my mum read an e-mail that I send her about something I want to say to her, so it comes out as I want it to and without blunder. If I have to use my microphone to talk to someone, it's slightly better than in real life but still significantly worse than if I was typing them. It's as if my use of logic/intellect is inhibited when I speak even if I have a bit of time to think. I'm not sure how to describe it accurately.

I share your madness in those situations. It's far more easier for me to judge what's going on when I observe/ponder something, rather than when I'm a live part of it.

EDIT - I have edited this post 3-4 times already since posting, because I looked back and wanted to add/fix some things. Ironic I suppose.

Last edited by Norny on 13 Feb 2014, 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I did this for many years by watching TV. I study how each character interacts with each other. I also do the same thing when I have the opportunity to do some people watching in Vancouver.

I absolutely relate to this. I used to be very active in online settings and found that the written medium totally transformed my ability to communicate. I met my best friend in an online writing club for fan fiction. We hit it off immediately and never seemed to have any communication issues, even when we started talking on the phone. It wasn't until we became roommates and met in real life that suddenly we had communication issues. She even said as much herself a few weeks after I moved in with her. She said it was like suddenly, the minute our interaction became face to face, we started having misunderstandings and conflicts. We attributed it to Texas/California culture shock, but I think now that it was more like NT/AS culture shock.

I like studying humans from the paleolithic, their origin and evolution. I feel we were more natural then and not quite so insane, even if we were less knowledgeable. If humans had acted towards each other back then as they act now I believe we would have died out. I think we have devolved and become less civilised since the dawn of civilisation.


If I could I'd emulate their lifestyle.

http://youtu.be/4vOwUtywxI8

Journaling my personal interactions sounds like a good idea actually and very helpful. Thank you.

How do we really know how humans from the paleolithic behaved though? We can assume (and archaeologists seem to always assume everything was about religion) but not really. People assumed for many years that early men went hunting and early women gathered. Which has been discovered it's not so true. Women hunted as well. For an animal that likes meat like so many humans do, it doesn't make sense to cripple half your population's hunting ability.
I'm inclined to think humans are humans are humans. Humans now, same as humans back then except now less saber tooth tigers. I don't think they have drastically changed that much. Culture puts an overlay of differences but the basic underpinning is still there.