Do you miss social cues?

MotherRussia wrote:Nebuz wrote:
Nuanced communication?

Well first off, you should ask yourself if you even want/need the nuanced version or not.
When you have ruled that out you realise that people are quite simple. Follow the social
guidelines, or learn more by not doing it.

Point is, you shouldn't care. They will care in your place, so don't make life more complicated.
Oh sorry, I guess you're a regular human.


Did I imply that I care? I don't feel much emotion or caring about it but I like to analyse people and situations. Well I guess it kind of bothers me to feel "blind" in some way. Not sure that is the same as caring.

I could be overanalysing and probably am. It doesn't really matter anymore in this situation since I won't be meeting with the person anyways.

What are you apologising for?

MotherRussia wrote:Are you usually able to read between the lines in social interactions vs. when people's actions should just be taken at face value?

UK SPD wrote:Now, is that my misreading his social clues? Or the charity committee picking the wrong photo?

Nebuz wrote:

MotherRussia wrote:Nebuz wrote:
Nuanced communication?

Well first off, you should ask yourself if you even want/need the nuanced version or not.
When you have ruled that out you realise that people are quite simple. Follow the social
guidelines, or learn more by not doing it.

Point is, you shouldn't care. They will care in your place, so don't make life more complicated.
Oh sorry, I guess you're a regular human.


Did I imply that I care? I don't feel much emotion or caring about it but I like to analyse people and situations. Well I guess it kind of bothers me to feel "blind" in some way. Not sure that is the same as caring.

I could be overanalysing and probably am. It doesn't really matter anymore in this situation since I won't be meeting with the person anyways.

What are you apologising for?

If apologising means sarcasm, I'd say it was for the fun of it. And frankly, it doesn't matter if you care about it or not. I simply stated that peoples shouldn't woe themselves about not getting the whole picture. Especially since it's other peoples who makes the picture. Then why should you ever be held responsible to feel blind?

Dalloway wrote:

MotherRussia wrote:Are you usually able to read between the lines in social interactions vs. when people's actions should just be taken at face value?

Yes, I'm, most of the time, I think.
And as a principle rule, I ignore them and take everything at face value. I have no patience for the frail ego of some wannabe who wants to play it safe. If someone wants to play it safe, they should shut up and go away.

UK SPD wrote:Now, is that my misreading his social clues? Or the charity committee picking the wrong photo?

In my area is a poster for a charity with a big eyed mideastern child and the words “violence against children”, although “violence” is crossed off by design.
So everything left is “against children” …
I thought about donating.

They do not only pick the wrong pictures.

UK SPD wrote:There's a charity poster on bus stops around my town lately (it my be national in the UK) which shows a young man with learning difficulties looking straight into the camera, with the caption "This is who I am" (actually, I can't recall the caption exactly, but it's something like that).
The problem is that he is looking straight at you with a rather grim expression.
To me, he looks like some threatening young tough out to start a fight, and rather frightening.
Now, is that my misreading his social clues? Or the charity committee picking the wrong photo?

julllia wrote:The point was to treat them and view them equally.so if you saw him threatening that was their point.you saw him as equal.