So, I have been thinking about my last post and I just feel that as I write there are so many thoughts that go through my head about each topic and that I am bound to forget things while I write. I guess that is where editing becomes an important part of the blog writing process, but who really has time for that? I could go back and reorganize my thoughts and then present a polished entry or I could do what I think might be a little less casual and just add as I go. Of course I looked at my first blog entry called "The Discovery" and I said to myself, "I sure do like simple sentences." Simple sentences are my favourite. If I were a superhero, my name would be "Simple Sentence Man" and my arch enemy would be the subordinate clause. My weakness would be prepositional phrase. I digress. The point I am making is that I am aware that my writing needs work, but I will get better. I have so much to say right now and I will try to correct poor grammar as I go. The result is instead of getting one post about nonreciprocal conversation, you get more than one. This part will talk about stuff that I thought of after I concluded my original post.
My thought about my first post on nonreciprocal conversation was that I left you with an example of the two types of conversation, reciprocal vs nonreciprocal. But the problem I faced while at work today was that I didn't really explain what the difference was, I only gave examples. So here it is.
Reciprocal Conversation: When two or more people are talking about anything... the people engaged in the conversation are able to meet each other's input with an appropriate response based on what was last said. If a new topic is introduced, then the group of people or person involved in the discussion take that new topic and build new conversation around that. There is a synchronicity to it and it flows naturally from one topic to another in a fluid way.
Nonreciprocal Conversation: The flow of the conversation is inefficient. This is the type of conversation that I wind up in all the time. It is a dialogue that has suddenly turned into a monologue. Instead of having a balance between all the participants, the balance has shifted to one person who controls the conversation, almost like a lecture. The topic of conversation always seems to revolve around or get turned backed to what one person wants to talk about. In the example that I provided in Part 1 of this post was that I all I wanted to talk about was what I wanted for lunch. I ignored the topic that was introduced and only talked about the topic that I was interested in. A burger in that case.
So, two things that come to mind that needs to be addressed.
1. Why does it happen. Why do people like me, who have Asperger's Syndrome, tend to wind up in nonreciprocal conversation?
I have read a lot on the Internet and in books to try to figure out the answer to this question. It is not as if I want to have non reciprocating conversation with everyone I meet. Neurotypical people tend to notice this and tend to want to avoid people like this. I shouldn't say just Neurotypical people. I would say that even people with Asperger's Syndrome would want to avoid people who engage in nonreciprocating conversation. It's annoying to listen to someone who will only talk about their own interests.
The answer that I have come up with has come a few different sources and is based on my own experience. The nonreciprocating conversation from my point of view has to do with the difference between intuitive thinking and non-intuitive thinking. Intuition is something that people use when there is too much information to process to come up with an answer that is correct. I like to use a chess example. In chess the rules are simple and it is a basic game of logic. One player makes a move, then the other. If a person can make a move that leads to checkmate then the game is over and that player wins. In any given situation there when a person is thinking about a move, there are several moves that make sense. In a game there is a limited time to make these moves, and as a result only a few moves can be calculated to the end result at any given time. The player has to play what 'feels' right based on their experience. A neurotypical person engaged in conversation just goes with what 'feels' right. Their intuition lets decide how to procede in a conversation, the approriate body language is responded to efficiently, when a new topic is introduced they adjust, the balance of power is bounced around from person to person. With me, the Aspie, my intuition just sucks. It's not that I do not have intuition, it just is incorrect most of the time. I do not respond to the natural changes that occur in any conversation. I miss the queues from the people I am engaged in conversation with. If a new topic is introduced, I immediately try to steer the topic back to that I know something about. I have to use non-intuitive thinking to make it through a conversation. This is inefficient and slower. I have to calculate a series of potential responses to any given situation that arises in conversation. It is extremely exhausting to do this, I do not just 'know' what to do. I have to calculate a reaction to potential changes in the course of conversation. That is what I do if I want to have a conversation which is reciprocating. If I do not, then it is nonreciprocating.
The solution that I usually use is simple, I have to rehearse my conversations before they happen. It doesn't always prevent failure in conversation. I try to imitate the people who I think are very gifted at social interaction, even their body language, tone, and such. I play and replay conversations over and over in my mind, I lose a lot of sleep when I know I have made an error that day. I'll ask myself, what will I do different next time?
2. If I am aware of the difference and the reciprocating conversation is the desirable choice, why not just choose to do it?
The answer to this isn't that simple. I seem to be aware of what and why I make mistakes in conversation, but I am powerless to change it. I look at how natural conversations that occur between neurotypical people and I am actually amazed at how easy it seems to them. They can talk about the most boring stuff too. I don't get it. If you were to ask me about the weather, depending on my mood, I can give you a slew of answers. If I am in a good mood, then I might give a fake neurotypical response such as "It's great!" If I am tired, and I am disinterested, I might just ignore you, or I might something like, "It's there."
I mean isn't the weather "there" everyday? If for some reason it wasn't there... that would be interesting enough to talk about. I would be happy to talk about that... so last night on the news the weather man said that it wasn't there, what are your thoughts on that?
To end this post, I will post an interview with Temple Grandin. I can imagine that my conversations with people would be similar to this. Of course, this is an interview for tv, and as a result the intent by George S. is to allow Temple to speak for most of the time. The interview is intended to be nonrecipricating to begin with. I think that the points I make still reign true to an extent in this interview. Temple Grandin is the only person I know of that is famous because of her Asperger's Syndrome. In another post I will talk about people who are famous for other reasons who happen to have Asperger's Syndrome. Even though Temple Grandin is fully aware of her ASD in this video, she still makes the typical mistakes that I would make. The interupting, she introduces the topics that she wants to talk about,... not the interviewer. It's a perfect example of what a nonreciprocal conversation looks like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwnlWX4iyj4
No comments:
Post a Comment