Methods of socializing in order to compensate for a lacking

Post Reply New Topic

My question:
Treating the described method in the overview as a base, is there any way that I can either extend or change how I approach others? Are there any resources on the topic, or is this just a general case of lacking central coherence?

Problem:
Given a statement/problem, what is the scope, how can I communicate the extent of the problem, what assumptions to make, the scope of the assumptions, the domain, intention of the person making the statement, etc.,

What I am worried about:
I am worried that I am shifting the conversation into an uncomfortable domain for the other party in order to regain a sense of control. This sense of control is not necessarily tied to progress in concept formation or progress in the conversation. I am worried that I am shifting it into a perspective where I have a sense of certainty since the other party doesn't know what is going on.

Overview:
I have a hard time determining when a heuristic is applied to an area that I am unfamiliar with. Yet when I am familiar with an area, I have a particular set of structures that determine the flow of concepts. Such that whenever I have a conversation, and someone uses a heuristic, it is like creating a structure independent from others. I then have an extreme urge to find a way to wire up the existing structure to the disjoint one. This can be done by extension or contradiction mainly. So by creating more structures that can lead me to the introduced one or a subsequent contradiction of an existing structure that naturally leads to the formation of a connection.

What this looks like:
In a social circumstance, this looks like an interrogation. In which the other party more than likely feels an immense degree of stress and emotional pain as I ask question after question to figure out how to wire my existing semantic/syntactic structure to theirs. To expect people to be okay with this is more than irrational. Yet, if I don't do this, then I simply don't understand what they are saying. As a result, this leads to shallow forms of mimicry and subsequent isolation when the actions are expected to be extended under the assumption that I "understand."

Yes, agree I have been told I tend to interrogate people with a lot of questions. Do what works best for you and try not to worry about the reaction you are getting. I know that is a lot easier said than done though. I think it comes down to the way you are asking the questions. People in general feel like they are being questioned (in my case by someone being condescending even though its unintentional) and go into defensive mode because they are insecure or uninformed on the topic you are questioning. What has often helped me is listening to everything being said instead of cutting them off and rambling with a lot of questions. I think it is perceived as more "respectful"? Good luck I feel your frustration.

You may want to experiment with the Rogerian style of interrogation. This was demonstrated on the old "Bob Newhart Show". Bob (a psychologist) would ask, "How does that make you feel" so frequently it became a trope for the non-directive method of inquiry.

Non-directive inquiry is less efficient, but it also is less alarming to those from whom information is sought.

Eventually one may develop routine humorous comments that can be used to put the person a ease and compensate for inquiry that inadvertently becomes too direct.

One difficulty in communicating with someone with whom you are not familiar or without a context is that the information one receives can fit into several widely different categories each of which would require widely various responses. Non-direct inquiry can buy time during which peripheral information may arise that will help one determine context.

Since this is your first post, Welcome to Wrong Planet!

I have an INTJ personality. For me the most important thing when presented with a problem is to find the best solution. It is what drives me. I cannot find the best solution if most of the important informations is hidden or missing. So when I pursue a solution, I am not socializing. I am methodical. I am a thinker.

This can lead to misunderstandings and social conflicts. But I accept these because that is the way I am. And I will not change my personality.

So let me give you an example. I was hired and moved into a new job. I had very little technical experience in the new job. So I would find individuals in the office and ambush them. I would ask them a whole series of technical questions and write down their answers. Many times I asked why they did something a certain way. After doing this to around 20 people, I was called into the front office. Several employees were filing complaints.

Some employees considered themselves as experts. When I asked them questions, they thought I valued their expertise and they gladly passed on their knowledge. But when I then went to someone else and asked them the same question, they felt like I was slighting them. That I didn't value their judgement. They were offended.

Some employees had never in their lives been asked a question and were pleased that someone took the time and effort to listen to their perspective.

By asking these questions I was able to come up to speed extremely quickly in order to perform my job. And I was very effective at it. I simply merged all the questions together and look at approaches from a variety of perspectives and then made my own mind up on the proper technical approach.

So when my supervisor pulled me into a corner to find out what was going on. I explained the process to him and he then said just to keep doing it but try not to ruffle too many feathers.

I rarely socialize. But if it is a social event, I will bring my wife along. She has an extreme extrovert personality and I let her handle the social aspects.