A distinct (mis)communication pattern I've noticed

Post Reply New Topic

I noticed this pattern, or a variation of it, keeps happening for me in a variety of circumstances. I'm curious if others experience this frequently.

1. Person is talking to me in an informational way
2. I acknowledge what they have said with a yes, a murmur, "I understand" etc.
3. They pause for an additional response
4. I have nothing else in particular to say
5. They nudge me verbally for a further response (eg. "you know what I mean?" "what do you think?")
6. I give my opinion, and/or fumble for something else to say.
7. Person is obviously dissatisfied with what I have said
8. I feel uncomfortable and I do not know what else to say
9. Person then repeats everything they already said in step 1 but with much more emotional emphasis
10. Steps 2-7 are repeated and I begin to feel bored/frustrated at the repetition
11. I stop acknowledging the repetitive statements because I have already done so
12. Person suddenly accuses me of not listening, not understanding, etc.
13. I affirm that I am listening and have understood their point the very first time they said it
14. Person asks me to explain what I have understood
15. I repeat the main points that the person has already stated.
16. Person becomes angry, argumentative, hostile
17. I become totally silent.
18. Person continues to argue their points loudly
19. I make a polite request to end the conversation
20. Person ignores my request and continues trying to persuade or convince me of something
21. I simply have to walk away, hang up the phone, etc.

Doesn't happen to me.

How does one go about giving another emotional validation? I must investigate this further at once!

Edited to add: btw, that whole hive explanation is perfect. It's never been clearer to me. Now, since I must be part of a hive to retain employment, how can I emotionally validate people without putting them off or raising flags? (being creepy with it, as I've been known to do lately in my efforts).

It usually happens in reverse to me. But it has happened as described to me before.

Sounds like this emotional validation thing would be extremely challenging for me. I suppose if I was medicated for my ADHD I could at least listen long enough to practice social skills...

However this section in the link above : to quote"

Level Three is Mindreading. Mindreading is guessing what another person might be feeling or thinking. People vary in their ability to know their own feelings. For example, some confuse anxiety and excitement and some confuse excitement and happiness. Some may not be clear about what they are feeling because they weren't allowed to experience their feelings or learned to be afraid of their feelings.

People may mask their feelings because they have learned that others don't react well to their sensitivity. This masking can lead to not acknowledging their feelings even to themselves, which makes the emotions more difficult to manage. Being able to accurately label feelings is an important step to being able to regulate them.

When someone is describing a situation, notice their emotional state. Then either name the emotions you hear or guess at what the person might be feeling.

"I'm guessing you must have felt pretty hurt by her comment" is Level Three validation. Remember that you may guess wrong and the person could correct you. It's her emotion and she is the only one who knows how she feels. Accepting her correction is validating.

"

This in particular the challenge isn't it?

I don't relate to most of that. For me it goes more like this:

1. Person is talking to me
2. At most I acknowledge what they have said with a yeah, a murmur, "Right" or similar.
3. They pause for an additional response.
4. I have nothing else to say. I wanna leave, but don't say it.
5. They nudge me verbally for a further response (like "you know what I mean?" or repeating part of they just said)
6. I just don't have anything more to say about it, and can at most repeat what I said at point 2, or not even that. Just isn't anything to say, not that comes to mind for me anyway.
7. They leave.

For these people it's not enough for you to understand what they're saying. They want you to agree with them. I notice this a lot at work. Someone will state some kind of opinion or idea and the others will agree without even thinking about it. Usually while the first person is speaking, the others are nodding their heads already. Seems like some kind of brainwashing because sometimes the opinions or ideas are really stupid.
In contrast, when I listen to someone's opinion or idea I don't nod or make any comments other than an occasional "ok". I'm busy filing all the information for later processing and problem solving but they view me as oppositional because I've given no sign of agreement.
That's why they get angry. You're not telling them how wonderful they are for having such a brilliant opinion/idea. Anyone who doesn't think like them is against them. It is validation, as Olympiadis said. It's both a social and communication problem.

I think I know the type, but in general I find it hard to relate to because it doesn't usually happen to me. Maybe if I worked in an office or somethiing, it'd be a different story, but right now I'm struggling to think of even one conversation in my life which has played out that way from steps 1-21.

Obviously there aren't enough people around who know how great my opinions are, because then they'd be asking me for them constantly

I had to laugh too. Very familiar.

NTs are often very indirect.

It might look to you like an information session, but really (somewhere in their minds) it is a bonding session, where you show bonding by enthusastically agreeing with them.

So your step 1 is really the point of difference. You see information, they see agreeable or disagreeable social relationships.

NTs can be very exhausting. Why don't they just say what they mean? All this secret social bonding stuff is difficult to work out.

I have difficulty saying I like an idea if I really don't - or even if I haven't yet had time to think it through. And for me, if I find an idea "different" but interesting, I'll argue tooth and nail against it trying out all my counter arguments ... and if it survives that, my respect for the idea, especially as I think about it afterwards, goes up a lot. So, for me, arguing against an idea may be a compliment, especially if my comments are of the type "But what about....?" I suspect people think I am angry with the other person or attacking them, where I think I am trying to test out a disconcerting, but interesting, idea - and paying them the compliment of taking the idea seriously. If I think an idea is stupid, and if I think the person proposing it is unlikely to engage in thoughtful discussion, I'll just avoid the topic as much as possible.