mishtheelf wrote:
I am still not terribly clear on this, and what research I have done is pretty minimal, but experientially it seems to be true, so take this opinion as only that, please: a theory, if you will.
I think a big part of the issue with us a communication with most people is a matter of emotion. Emotion, I believe, is somehow attached to many if not most of the thoughts and ideas normal people have. With us, that isn't true, or at least is much less true. I can't comprehend it really, but my experience and limited research seem to point that way. A person has a thought or idea, and an emotional connection to it at the same time. Challenge the idea, and you challenge the emotion, which defies logic.
The emotion, I think, could be anything. Love for tge person they got the idea from, or hate, or pleasure from the ice cream they ate while thinking about it, I don't know. Makes no sense to me, but I think that is how it works.
That is also how advertising works. Exposure theory and such: eventually a good feeling is generated to associate with the product, then logic is no longer as relevant, and people buy the advertised products. That I, for example, don't work this way to the same degree, is possibly why commercials and othrr advertisements only irritate me rather than convince me of anything. Others are convinced by them.
This applies to face to face communication rather dramatically, because you can pick up a collection of techniques to appeal to emotion when talking to people, even if you don't understand it intuitively. For example, if another person is sitting and you want to speak to them, particularly if you want to challenge something they have said or done, you have to sit as well. Standing beside a sitting person majes them feel threatened and defensive. Another example is a firm (not soft... that took me a while to get right) clap and squeeze on the shoulder. Makes people feel reassured and cared about (only if they know you and know you are there, don't do this from behind as it changes the emotional connotation).
My whole set of interaction methods is built this way: methodically, and mostly from trial and error of ideas based on this concept and observations of how NTs interact with each other. Much I cannot replicate, but it is possible to get enough tricks down to communicate better, more often.
Consider it this way: We speak a different language, in a sense, than most people. It is reasonable for us to ask those who are closest to us to learn a bit of our language for us. But for us to ask 98% of people to learn this for us is not reasonable: we must learn some of theirs. I recommend making an effort to study Nt-Nt interactions and start trying some of the patterns you see, as though they were new words and phrases. It doesn't really matter if you understand why they are what they are, just figure out how to use them to your advantage, help connect people to you, so they will want to hear what you say.
I believe you're referring to psychology.
The standing/sitting example relates to mirroring.
Mirroring = copying/imitating another person's posture, gesture, facial expression, etc. non-voluntarily to create emphasis, connection, and to be of the same social status as the other person.
Standing especially in a situation when expected to sit indicates you feel you have a higher social status than the other person.
Sitting down with them, along with mirroring, intentionally evokes an 'I'm at your level, not above you. Now, let's talk, as equals' mindset.
I self-teach myself a variety of psychology and this is what actually taught me my debate skills - to be extremely clear, succint and accurate in what I say.
Though I do agree about most people applying their opinions as tied to their emotions.
I still have the issue of basing my opinions off logic, and trying to explain them in this precise way as well.
Perhaps I should get back to the psychology thing again to think of some tricks and methods of interaction again.
17 Jan 2016, 2:29 pm
