anneurysm wrote:
You have a different view of self-awareness, in that you see it as how to keep yourself functional in order to accomplish a task. I will define the concept I am talking about differently, rephrasing it as "social awareness".
Agreed so far. I believe I AM self aware but I am NOT socially aware.
anneurysm wrote:
In turn, they will not confront you directly about things, like others have done, and will go to secondary sources because they will assume you will are too socially unaware to explain things...even when you try to.
But explaining things only requires self awareness rather than social awareness. In order to explain why I did what I did, all I have to do is say what went on in MY OWN head, and I am well aware of that part. Now, PART of what "went on in my head" MIGHT be referring to my ideas of other people and how they operate. So if I dont have social awareness that would be obvious from the fact that certain things simply wont figure in my explanation. In this case the other person can ask me whether I was aware of these things or not, and I can give several answers such as
1. I knowingly chose to violate them for such and such reason
2. I didnt realize these things but now that they pointed it out it is obvious
3. When they first pointed it out it see\med surprising but after thinking for 5 minutes I finally understood
4. These social rules are odd and I dont understand them nor did I know them
Now,
if they first tell me what it was that I did wrong then answering the above questions requires self-awareness but NOT social awareness. They first specify the social rule and then I look back and remember whetner I knew that rule or not during the incident under discussion. On the other hand, if they never TELL me what have happened then I wont be able to tell whether I kenw the "mystery rule" or not. So thats why communication is so important.
Now I understand that it is not about me but about my interaction with others. BUt you see, as far as the second part, "other people", the NT knows themselves all about it (after all, they are the ones who are upset with my actions, so they obviously know what it is they are upset about). So if I will supply them the information about my part, and they supply to me the information about their part then the productive discussion can take place in which we will both understand both parts.
17 Aug 2012, 12:22 am
