Missing conversation background info

Post Reply New Topic

I don't talk much.

When I do manage to have a conversation I usually remember it word for word and analyse the conversation every which way afterwards to ensure I understand what was said and make sure what I said was what I meant to say and that I was understood.

Anyway ...

Sometimes people accuse me of not telling them something that I *know* I told them, or of telling them something that I *know* I didn't tell them.

That, in itself, wouldn't cause a problem because I know the truth and I would feel confident in that if it weren't for ...

THE PROBLEM:

The problem is that sometimes, although I remember the conversation word for word I don't always remember other things about it: I'll remember who was speaking, exactly who said what and where they were located in relation to me .... but I may be mistaken about what someone was wearing, who else was around, what the weather was like, where the conversation took place or numerous other things that don't relate to the conversation itself.

For example, in the incident that is bothering me right now:

I had a conversation with two people (P1 & P2) in the usual location (L1) and on the usual day where I meet them in which I definitely told them something - call it Fact A.

Now, P1 is telling me that I never told them Fact A.

When I recount the circumstances of the conversation and the conversation itself word for word, P1 argues that I am lying because the conversation actually took place in L2 not L1.

I admit that the conversation *may* have occurred in L2 (a location where I wouldn't usually see P1 & P2): With P1's mention of L2, I do recall that I did see P1 & P2 there as well as in L1 on the day the conversation took place, but I can’t be sure whether the conversation took place in L1 or L2.

P1 says that because I’m not sure about where the conversation took place, I must be mistaken about telling them Fact A - otherwise I am accusing her of lying when she says that I never told them Fact A!

I don't see the logic in this.

P2 refuses to comment on the situation at all.

During the conversation I would have been more focused on the actual conversation than the surroundings - because of the particular effort involved in that for me. Is it possible that because of this, and the fact that I wouldn't usually have seen P1 & P2 in L2, my brain filled in the surrounding scene with L1?

I'm not diagnosed but strongly suspect I do have an ASD (see previous posts for more background – but in summary, I'm 37 and finding it increasingly difficult to "keep up appearances"),

One of the reasons I don't talk much is because it usually ends in meltdown for me (another is because I sometimes actually can't talk because I get frustrated when I can't express myself clearly); it is those conversations that do not end in meltdown that are the ones I am able to recall word for word, and that seem to have the missing/mistaken background information.

As I learn about ASD, I am beginning to think that what is happening in these situations is that I am shutting out the additional sensory information from things that are not relevant to the actual conversation in order not to overload.

Is that possible?

Does this kind of thing happen to you?

Do you think this is related to ASD, or is it "normal", or is it "something else"?

If this doesn’t happen to you, do you think that P1 is correct and because I am confused about L1 & L2, my recall of the conversation (and the telling of Fact A) must also be wrong? If this is the case, how can I ever trust my memory or experience of anything?

So much writing. In writing I often over explain to my detriment – sorry.

I would really be interested in reading your thoughts, opinions, experiences of this …

And finally - one other thing I can't figure out - why is P2 refusing to comment?

I would say this is very possible.



Happens to me a lot. Because I have to focus a lot when I'm having a face to face conversation with someone the surroundings and what is going on around me tend to be left out of the memory unless something unusual happen at the time outside the conversation.




I consider it "normal" but hey that is just how my mind works



Here is my take on it:

P1 is lying about not getting or think they didn't get Fact A. P1 is using your confusion over the location to shift the blame to you. Be careful though P1 might not have been paying attention when Fact A was given out and therefore think you didn't say it. Your confusion over the location makes them think then that Fact A was not given.

P2 might not want to get involved in the confusion over the telling the fact.

Just my opinion on the matter

Yes, I agree. A slight variant is that it is possible that P1 heard the fact and just forgot it. Some people with poor memories are very defensive if you suggest that thir memory is imperfect. Or, maybe P1 has a slight hearing problem. People with a bit of trouble hearing often do not want to admit that they have trouble hearing.

Thanks for the interpretations ... they sound plausible.

Should I not have admitted that I am confused about the location of the conversation? Would that have helped matters and stopped me being blamed for not passing on Fact A, when I definitely know I did?

How are you supposed to deal with these situations?

This is precisely why I don't talk most of the time. It's too confusing, and too open to misinterpretation ... with me missing non-verbal clues and, apparently, filtering out surroundings ... and the other person doing whatever they doing (not listening, not hearing, forgetting what you said).

I would resort to writing or communicating in other ways if that were seen as acceptable. But by most people, it isn't.

Anyway, I'm curious as to whether other folk experience this type of missing background information because you have to focus so much the conversation like mikeseagle and myself?

You know what is really confusing is that it depends on the situation. Is Fact A important or not that big of a deal? From what you described of P1 then telling him that you are confused about the location allowed him/her to pass the blame. With some people admitting to your error about the location will defuse the situation.



Be confident about what you feel is right. Do not let the fact that you have troubling recalling the location cloud your judgment. You know what facts where said and go from there. If the other person can see your confident and calm about your interruption of the telling of the facts then they might back down and consider themselves at fault.



You have that right!! !! !! !! Because we miss the non-verbal we cannot tell if P1 is lying, believes they didn't get Fact A, ,was distracted at the time or something else. Or better yet why P2 will not get involved.



Well you can use other forms of communications to help you with your face to face communication. When you get done with P1 and P2 you can summarize what was said to make sure they get the facts, just in case they where distracted the first time you mention it.

You can write down the facts and use it as a cue card when your talking. That way you can make sure you cover all the facts. Just don't look at what you have written constantly. Big turn off. But you can glance down at the notes once in a while. I find a lot of people find that acceptable behavior

When you get done with the conversation, summarize on a piece of paper what was said, where it was said and at what time. That way you can refer back to it when there is a problem. This is a trick I use a lot with phone conversations. Helps out when you feel unsure of what was said and where.

You might have to find your own techniques that will help you out in these situations. Just have to keep trying to work at communications and eventuality you will find a way that works for you and NT's find acceptable (even if they think your a little weird for doing it )

I very frequently get accused of not just "not saying" things that I've said many times, but of actively hiding things that I've said many times. It's infuriating after awhile.

I see this sort of thing in my workplace a lot, and my workplace is rife with political bs. It seems that when a bunch of people are together a pecking order develops, and although it might never be verbally acknowledged, people will defer to others who they believe to be more of a leader (think of a pack of wolves with a freshly killed prey). If you're one of these people and you know you're not the leader, the next best thing to be is a loyal supporter of the leader, if you're good enough, your leader will reward you. So, P2 may very well know what's going on and who said what where, but if there's no strategic advantage to saying anything, you'll never know! This is why I deal almost exclusively with people one-on-one, it gets too complicated