[yagr]

Often, describing how I think can be challenging. I know it's different than how most people think, but I don't know exactly how it is different. I'm not in anyone else's head so I couldn't tell you how they think but I know by the strange looks I get that we are not on the same wavelength. I said all that to say this:

I was watching an episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles last night on DVD and the perfect example came up. I'll describe it to you all here in a moment, but what I'm really looking for is a little direction. I assume that I'm not unique in the way I think and therefore, there's probably a name for it. I'm not big on labels but they are helpful to communicate - and my therapist and I are having some difficulties there.

Cameron, a cybernetic organism in a sixteen year old female human body, is talking to the school guidance counselor. He is trying to offer grief counseling to students after a suicide at school. He says to her, "People say that you were the last person to speak to her; is this true?"

Immediately, and before she could respond, I thought to myself, "Is it true that people say this or is it true that she was the last person to speak to her?"

Cameron replies, "Is it true that people say this or is it true that I was the last person to speak to her?"

Guidance counselor: "Is it true that you were the last person to speak to her?"

Me: "How could she know?"

Cameron: "How would I know that."

Anyway, with this fresh in my mind, I recalled many, many instances of spontaneously beating Spock from Star Trek or Data from Star Trek TNG to their lines. That is how I think. Always. Everything is processed logically and then translated into social norms. It happens very quickly, but it happens all the time. By all the time, I do not mean 'it happens a lot', I mean it literally.

I can't always figure it out, but in those cases I use humor as a way to avoid detection.

In the above example, if someone asked me my example question above, "People say that you were the last person to speak to her; is this true?" I'd immediately break it down to the two possibilities I mentioned previously. If I couldn't figure it out fast enough to avoid an awkward pause in the flow of the conversation, I'd probably say something along the lines of, "I don't know" insuring that I added inviting body language and tonality so that the conversation could continue.

'I don't know' incidentally, responds to both possibilities but will almost always cause the person asking the question to rephrase the question and usually, in doing so, clarify it. I would expect either:

"Well, do you think people are saying that about you?"

or

"Well, do you think you were the last person to speak to her?"

Both give me a clearer sense of direction. There's no way I could know the answer to either of these questions, but at least I know what he's asking me now. By the way, this is why I hate social interactions - I never know what people mean and while I can almost always get them to tell me without a great deal of awkwardness felt on their part - it's a fair amount of work.

Got a name for this? A direction to look? Thanks.

[Permacultural]

Check out the term "subception".

[CaptainChaos79]

I don't mean this in a mean way by any means but ...manipulative comes to mind...you are able to manipulate people via conversation and get the information you want...that is talent not an odd way of thinking

[Crescent Moon]

I'd have to go with perma on this one

[yagr]

Originally Posted by Permacultural

Check out the term "subception".

I'm grateful for the response Permacultural, but I'm not seeing it. Could you connect the dots for me a bit?

I'm familiar with subliminal perception. In fact, I've done some work with it, both studying and application. Seems like apples and oranges to me though, so I figure I'm missing something.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by CaptainChaos79

I don't mean this in a mean way by any means but ...manipulative comes to mind...you are able to manipulate people via conversation and get the information you want...that is talent not an odd way of thinking

Without a doubt - and I'll take it as a compliment (that you called it a talent). In fact, in my first book I teach people how to...well, some call it manipulate, but I argued that point. Lessee...

This chapter will make some people uncomfortable. Ultimately what I am discussing here sounds like manipulation, and that word has a dirty ring to it. One definition of manipulate describes the word this way: "Getting people to do what you want without giving them something they value in return." Using this definition, it becomes more difficult to call this type of influence manipulation. The vast majority of the players you will meet at the poker table are coming to have a good time and be challenged.
If you ensure that your opponents' needs are being met, then you are giving them value. If your opponent is coming to your table for a good time, then show him a good time. If he is coming for a challenge, then challenge him. Give 'em hell - but also give them value.

But I went and got long-winded. I'm not really debating whether or not I'm manipulating them to get the information I want. I can agree in principle that this is what I am doing. My issue is why it is needed. Most people know instinctively what the question means. I don't. That's the part I'm referring to as 'odd'.

My wife assures me that in my example question above, she knows they mean, "Were you the last person to speak to this girl" although she admits freely that the way they ask the question is logically ambiguous. She doesn't know why she understands the intent of questions like that with, let's say 99+% accuracy, and for me it is more 50%-50%.

That's the part I'm trying to understand.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by Crescent Moon

I'd have to go with perma on this one

Thanks Crescent. I hope you know I value your input, and this time is no exception - but I am truly lost. Same question to Permacultural...can you help clear it up for me?

[yagr]

Okay, I found this and it is being used quite differently than the definition I found in the psych dictionary. Too, the emboldened part kindly defines it as I think you mean it.

Optimal development, referred to below in proposition 14, results in a certain process rather than static state. Rogers describes this as the good life, where the organism continually aims to fulfill its full potential. He listed the characteristics of a fully functioning person (Rogers 1961):

1. A growing openness to experience – they move away from defensiveness and have no need for subception (a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness).

If this is indeed what you meant Permacultural and Crescent Moon, then am I to understand that my belief that I do not understand is actually a defense mechanism? And if so, what would be an example of a troubling stimulus?

I am open to the idea that it is a defense mechanism - not because I can see it in me, but because defense mechanisms by their nature tend to be difficult to see.

Originally Posted by yagr

Often, describing how I think can be challenging. I know it's different than how most people think, but I don't know exactly how it is different. I'm not in anyone else's head so I couldn't tell you how they think but I know by the strange looks I get that we are not on the same wavelength. I said all that to say this:

I was watching an episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles last night on DVD and the perfect example came up. I'll describe it to you all here in a moment, but what I'm really looking for is a little direction. I assume that I'm not unique in the way I think and therefore, there's probably a name for it. I'm not big on labels but they are helpful to communicate - and my therapist and I are having some difficulties there.

Cameron, a cybernetic organism in a sixteen year old female human body, is talking to the school guidance counselor. He is trying to offer grief counseling to students after a suicide at school. He says to her, "People say that you were the last person to speak to her; is this true?"

Immediately, and before she could respond, I thought to myself, "Is it true that people say this or is it true that she was the last person to speak to her?"

Cameron replies, "Is it true that people say this or is it true that I was the last person to speak to her?"

Guidance counselor: "Is it true that you were the last person to speak to her?"

Me: "How could she know?"

Cameron: "How would I know that."

Anyway, with this fresh in my mind, I recalled many, many instances of spontaneously beating Spock from Star Trek or Data from Star Trek TNG to their lines. That is how I think. Always. Everything is processed logically and then translated into social norms. It happens very quickly, but it happens all the time. By all the time, I do not mean 'it happens a lot', I mean it literally.

I can't always figure it out, but in those cases I use humor as a way to avoid detection.

In the above example, if someone asked me my example question above, "People say that you were the last person to speak to her; is this true?" I'd immediately break it down to the two possibilities I mentioned previously. If I couldn't figure it out fast enough to avoid an awkward pause in the flow of the conversation, I'd probably say something along the lines of, "I don't know" insuring that I added inviting body language and tonality so that the conversation could continue.

'I don't know' incidentally, responds to both possibilities but will almost always cause the person asking the question to rephrase the question and usually, in doing so, clarify it. I would expect either:

"Well, do you think people are saying that about you?"

or

"Well, do you think you were the last person to speak to her?"

Both give me a clearer sense of direction. There's no way I could know the answer to either of these questions, but at least I know what he's asking me now. By the way, this is why I hate social interactions - I never know what people mean and while I can almost always get them to tell me without a great deal of awkwardness felt on their part - it's a fair amount of work.

Got a name for this? A direction to look? Thanks.

Hi...

I think I understand what you are doing because I kind of do the same, I think. Too me in me, it's just an example of ones logical intelligence in analytics with an active brain, and I doubt that there is a word for it.

What I know I do is governed by a few factors like plot lines are linear and are designed to fit in a time frame, so I am time conscious. The story has to develop in a direction to fit the time or reach a established conclusion. I suspect that I know something, a descriptor about the show/movie that I read somewhere, saw advertised, heard about,...

There is heavy foreshadowing in the beginning of the movie. I can see the progression of the writers thinking in the story line that I can expect what's about to happen next. Sometimes the dialogue leaves little room for much else to be spoken, like a decision to be made or choice to be chosen. The characters character is well established and understood that they are predictable.

Many movies and shows follow a pattern of development to the conclusion as in a formula that we have surmised or can see...especially made for t.v. ones. Also suspecting what happens in the end and mentally making logical deductions in the story line to reach the movies conclusion. I can see the movie as a whole.

I believe or like to think that I understand human thinking and behavior more than common (intuitive, logical thinking), and are able to apply it to observed fictional and non-fictional human characters because after all, it came out of the mind of a human.

In short, through the use of overactive intelligence, it's more along the lines of educated second guessing is the best wording that I can muster or think of.

It's a game I sometimes play, especially when it's totally predictable as to what's about to be said or happen. Or if I'm totally emersed in the movie I can identify with the character and it's situation.

Even in real life it can be done because people are predictable because we follow human thinking in the box, some not so easy because they are out of the box. Box thinking, hmmmm.

I don't find it odd, I find it highly creative and intelligent of an active mind.

Sometimes I wonder though, does being a multiple have anything to do with it. I don't know if this fits, but hopefully it's an example of my "odd thinking".

[monkeybrains21]

Originally Posted by yagr

Okay, I found this and it is being used quite differently than the definition I found in the psych dictionary. Too, the emboldened part kindly defines it as I think you mean it.

[/LIST]If this is indeed what you meant Permacultural and Crescent Moon, then am I to understand that my belief that I do not understand is actually a defense mechanism? And if so, what would be an example of a troubling stimulus?

I am open to the idea that it is a defense mechanism - not because I can see it in me, but because defense mechanisms by their nature tend to be difficult to see.

Maybe it's a troubling stimulus to you to perhaps Choose wrong. Therefore it is a defense mechanism. Also the average person is dull and sees nothing that isn't in front of them (no offense anyone). Therefore if it isn't something that can logically happen in a linear instance they will not get it. It's a movie therefore the writers and everyone else working on the movie want to entertain the masses. It's how try make their money. We are a society of action and being given everything needed to go forward. So by cultural standards it must follow that line of thinking in order to succeed.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by monkeybrains21

Maybe it's a troubling stimulus to you to perhaps Choose wrong. Therefore it is a defense mechanism.

This was the one possibility I came up with for defense mechanism. It is true that I don't like to be wrong - although it seems rather unprovable. Don't want to choose wrong so see all possibilities so I don't miss one OR see all possibilities therefore, don't choose wrong. Kind of an associative property thing going on; hard to tell which came first.

Originally Posted by monkeybrains21

Also the average person is dull and sees nothing that isn't in front of them (no offense anyone). Therefore if it isn't something that can logically happen in a linear instance they will not get it. It's a movie therefore the writers and everyone else working on the movie want to entertain the masses. It's how try make their money. We are a society of action and being given everything needed to go forward. So by cultural standards it must follow that line of thinking in order to succeed.

I may have overplayed the show examples a bit. I chose those examples because they are examples that anyone reading might have seen - rather than using examples from my life. For instance, a psych test question that just stopped me in my tracks:

"People seem to lie to me often."

Do they mean that people try to deceive me often or do they mean that people tell me things that are untrue often? The first answer is false, the second is true.

[monkeybrains21]

Originally Posted by yagr

This was the one possibility I came up with for defense mechanism. It is true that I don't like to be wrong - although it seems rather unprovable. Don't want to choose wrong so see all possibilities so I don't miss one OR see all possibilities therefore, don't choose wrong. Kind of an associative property thing going on; hard to tell which came first.


I may have overplayed the show examples a bit. I chose those examples because they are examples that anyone reading might have seen - rather than using examples from my life. For instance, a psych test question that just stopped me in my tracks:

"People seem to lie to me often."

Do they mean that people try to deceive me often or do they mean that people tell me things that are untrue often? The first answer is false, the second is true.

Whether to deceive or just be untrue it's all lies. There is a spectrum of lying some are way worse than others but still fall in that category. Like if u have cancer u have cancer. It doesn't matter what stage, it's all the same just different severity. Same with diabetes. So lying is the same. As is all MI different levels and spectrums but no matter where u land on te spectrum of any MI u still have that MI.

I just saw this thread.

I don't see any defensiveness in the way you respond. It seems like the logic part of your brain points out to you that the question could be taken two ways.

I do this myself sometimes and there have been times when it has led to awkwardness.

I think saying "I don't know" is by far the best option if you 1) either can't quickly decide what the person really means or if 2) the person has phrased their question awkwardly enough that there really is no way to tell what they mean. (And speaking of awkward, that sentence was.)

I've decided that "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is the best response after saying "I don't understand" several times and getting a defensive response.

I'm sorry to say that I don't know the name for this particular phenomenon. My impression from inside my own head is that it may have something to do with processing speed. It's like my brain slows down for a split second when it realizes that two meanings are possible.

My brain doesn't do this all the time, and it seems to crop up less often the older I get. I'm happy about that, because as you said, it requires a lot of work trying to figure out what people meant. (I think you said that; I can only see the last two lines of your post on my screen and I'm too lazy to scroll back to confirm.)

[Permacultural]

Originally Posted by yagr

Okay, I found this and it is being used quite differently than the definition I found in the psych dictionary. Too, the emboldened part kindly defines it as I think you mean it.[/list]If this is indeed what you meant Permacultural and Crescent Moon, then am I to understand that my belief that I do not understand is actually a defense mechanism? And if so, what would be an example of a troubling stimulus?

I am open to the idea that it is a defense mechanism - not because I can see it in me, but because defense mechanisms by their nature tend to be difficult to see.

Apologies for the delay in my response. Yes, I was referring specifically to Rogers' definition of subception.

An example of a troubling stimulus *could* be : emotions associated with possibly being evaluated by another person (regardless of setting, their role, your role, etc). I'm sure there are some dots that you can connect with this. I hope you take this as a supportive observation

[yagr]

Originally Posted by monkeybrains21

Whether to deceive or just be untrue it's all lies. There is a spectrum of lying some are way worse than others but still fall in that category.

Perhaps you are right; I certainly will accept that as a possibility. However, I don't see it as the same, so I process it differently.

For instance, "Hi, I'm from the Internal Revenue Service and I'm here to help" is an attempt to deceive. On the other hand, the sixteen year old driving the new BMW living in a McMansion with her wealthy parents telling me, "I know that I would never steal, even if I were starving because stealing is wrong." is simply untrue. It may be true that she would never steal but it is patently untrue that she knows this. She has been insufficiently tested by life to know this about herself.

Those may not be the best examples, but I hope it illustrates the difference that I see.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

I just saw this thread.

Thank you for weighing in; I always appreciate your posts - even in threads I don't contribute to.

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

I don't see any defensiveness in the way you respond. It seems like the logic part of your brain points out to you that the question could be taken two ways.

My education is in mathematics and physics, I'm a chess master and backgammon grandmaster. Whether by childhood programming or design, I'm really wired for logical thought. Through a lifetime of effort (I am fifty years old), I have learned to make good use of my right brain, but I have often said that while proficient on both sides of my brain - I always lead with my left (logical).

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

I do this myself sometimes and there have been times when it has led to awkwardness.

I think saying "I don't know" is by far the best option if you 1) either can't quickly decide what the person really means or if 2) the person has phrased their question awkwardly enough that there really is no way to tell what they mean. (And speaking of awkward, that sentence was.)

I've decided that "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is the best response after saying "I don't understand" several times and getting a defensive response.

*nods* I agree, the problem is, and really the reason for this question and the accompanying anxiety surrounding it (which is mild but measurable), is that I am facing a series of psych tests in the near future and I can't answer a ridiculous number of those questions.

For instance, on the MMPI-2, which I am about to take, I am equally stymied by questions numbers two, five, eight, nine, twelve... There are 567 true/false questions and not answering forty or more of them makes the test invalid. There is no one to ask the questions to because the administrator of the test is not allowed to answer questions during the test - and there isn't time prior to the test.

Quick FAQ to save time:
Yes, I know all the questions on the test, by heart and in order which is how I know which questions are problematic for me.
Yes, I've told my pdoc and therapist this. My therapist even tested me verbally, i.e. What is question number 265? What is question 412? What subscales does it correspond to? etc.

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

I'm sorry to say that I don't know the name for this particular phenomenon. My impression from inside my own head is that it may have something to do with processing speed. It's like my brain slows down for a split second when it realizes that two meanings are possible.

I think, and this is just a thought - you may be right that it slows down, that my processing speed remains the same until it reaches an error message. For instance, when I realize that there are two meanings (which happens so quickly, I can't determine which meaning I identified first), I oscillate between the two trying to find which is more likely. It's like I start with 50-50 and try to analyze them both to get to 60-40. If that fails and I can't move from the 50-50 analysis, I come to a full stop (i.e. the error message).

Originally Posted by jo_thorne

My brain doesn't do this all the time, and it seems to crop up less often the older I get. I'm happy about that, because as you said, it requires a lot of work trying to figure out what people meant. (I think you said that; I can only see the last two lines of your post on my screen and I'm too lazy to scroll back to confirm.)

Oh how I wish getting older slowed it down, but I think it's just the opposite for me. As I've gotten older and the experience that comes with age, I see more possibilities in everything instead of less. Thanks so much for weighing in.

[yagr]

Originally Posted by Permacultural

Apologies for the delay in my response. Yes, I was referring specifically to Rogers' definition of subception.

Heck, I'm just glad you responded. I was so interested in confirmation that for the first time on this forum, I considered PM-ing you and asking you if you wouldn't mind returning to this thread. I didn't obviously, purely out of respect and a desire not to cross a boundary. Thanks for coming back.

Originally Posted by Permacultural

An example of a troubling stimulus *could* be : emotions associated with possibly being evaluated by another person (regardless of setting, their role, your role, etc). I'm sure there are some dots that you can connect with this. I hope you take this as a supportive observation

Absolutely supportive. At first glance, the idea that I care what others think of me seems pretty far-fetched, but of course that doesn't mean that it is. I know that I am capable of 'not making waves' by going along, but usually that is only when I am completely uninvested in the relationship and simply looking for the interaction to be over.

I'm going to reflect on it nevertheless and see if there is something there. My wife and I will discuss it today. She's incredibly perceptive and knows me better than anyone, so her input will be interesting.

[Permacultural]

Originally Posted by yagr

Heck, I'm just glad you responded. I was so interested in confirmation that for the first time on this forum, I considered PM-ing you and asking you if you wouldn't mind returning to this thread. I didn't obviously, purely out of respect and a desire not to cross a boundary. Thanks for coming back.


Absolutely supportive. At first glance, the idea that I care what others think of me seems pretty far-fetched, but of course that doesn't mean that it is. I know that I am capable of 'not making waves' by going along, but usually that is only when I am completely uninvested in the relationship and simply looking for the interaction to be over.

I'm going to reflect on it nevertheless and see if there is something there. My wife and I will discuss it today. She's incredibly perceptive and knows me better than anyone, so her input will be interesting.

Good to hear When I've reflected on this issue for myself, I have found that I make a distinction between 'caring what others think of me' vs. 'the emotion or defensiveness aroused in me when I feel eyes (and evaluative brains) on me'.

When I feel 'eyes on me', and see people's nonverbals showing that they will soon begin talking to me, I begin predicting the most likely comments to happen so I can come up with a verbal response that will deflect the interaction without inviting more inquiry.

The conflict comes because I know when I feel this way, and especially when I feel trapped, my ability to think logically decreases by about 30-40 IQ points. Makes it really frustrating to follow a pre-charted cognitive map.