if you could design a communication curriculum...

[Epicurean Pariah]

Hi NTgirl I like what you wrote very much, and as a auspie I have suffered a fair amount over the years on the hidden empathic sentiments conversational rules. I have struggled greatly with the competing needs of honesty and and social grace. I do not like hurting peoples feelings and I try to avoid it if I can, but I also feel like throwing up when I have sit there quietly and listen to the moon is made of green cheese arguments that are stupider than dirt...it offends the core of my soul. And yes I can and do listen to the opposing side for merit, there is nothing I value more than learning something new of merit, that I missed...I don't find very many people who share this view.
So the great paradox is how to be kind and polite and still fight for truth, correctness, and honesty. I have found being sweet as Mother Teriesa when challanging and stupid or evil belief that is held dear doesn't buy much more mercy than all out Holy war. How one charts the best course on this is still a mystery I'm working on.

On the social side I'm getting tagged for NT empathic sentiment violations etcetera... here in aspie land just as much as in NT land. Apparently the street on I don't value NT empathic social graces rules only goes one way...much of the time. My view is don't dish it out if you can't take it, aparently that is incorrect as well.

So I'm going back to NT rules...which are charm them if you can...and always watch your back, even with friends...and listen for steel being sharpened on stone, you never know who is are real friend until a sacred cow is in danger.

So call me fake for the charming and whatever stuff...I don't care, it's not like anyone is really giving me a choice...it seems to me that to survive you have to pile on the sugar, or learn to be the biggest Rooster real fast.

I prefer mutual benifit and cooperation and truth in life...I have found that position to be a very lonely one.

Maelstrom , I just wanted to drop you and NTgirl4276 a quick note here. Relevance, undetermined.
We all assume that there is a mutual common thread of understanding at this forum. This is not fact. The difficulties in failing to agree on terms, definitions, facts and fictions, true and truths, the emotional vs the reasonable, is just as nuanced, and equivocating in regards to socio/ political " peacocking" in the virtual world as it is I'm the real world. It can be as uncomfortable here as it is out there.
We all base our perceptions on our individual nature/ nurture equations as well as experiences. At the bottom line I think the very definition of " what is reality" may not be agreed upon.
At that point doesn't all the other thought become an exercise in futility. Add in the fact that over time the context is lost and issues become repeated, repeatedly. I have followed some of the threads and related threads backwards to at least a year. Important thoughts and insights have been obscured in the fog of elapsed time. The thought de jour, seems to be the thing. It is like reading today's news without the understanding of the history that promoted as truth.

 

[NTgirl4276]

Do you think it is universally good? As in, all situations? I don't. While directness is helpful in the "norm" situation, that same directness can be a Blunt Object, and one aspies are well-equipped to wield.

great point, A4H. for one thing, i rarely, if ever, claim any "universal" good. for another, you're definitely right that context is king. while i agree that directness is generally good, claiming "directness" or "bluntness" as cover for being malicious or disrespectful is not.

the examples that were coming to mind when i upheld the virtues of direct, straightforward communication are ones that i encounter frequently when teaching a bunch of hormonal, anxious, and vulnerable young adults. one of the things we've talked about with them is that a lot of people, when dating, are concerned about hurting other people's feelings (at best) or are not concerned at all with other people's feelings (at worst). so instead of saying, "Hey, this isn't working out for me," they opt to simply stop communicating with the person they're dating. they just "ghost" them and disappear, never to be heard from again. my students have generally learned this communicative pattern and accept it as the normal way to end a relationship! i feel that is definitely a situation in which directness should be both expected and required, though certainly with tact and compassion.

You might want to know about a technique that effectively makes the Learning Style Inventory and its siblings almost obsolete, not because they're useless, but because the level of customization they require is expensive. Before you jump into that pool, have a look at Trautman's Teach What You Know. I've taken his class. Now I teach it to my corporate clients. It works. Happy to PM about it if you like.

will gladly take you up on your PM offer about this , but i agree that thorough attention to students' individual learning styles would be both expensive, in terms of both resources and time. it's not practical for me to believe i can tailor my teaching to each student's individual styles.

but, do you think it might still be a viable "entry point" for conversation? in other words, by talking with them and encouraging them to learn about their individual styles, some students might be more comfortable coming to me with their specific concerns? someone earlier mentioned that, even when invited to do so, they might hesitate to come to a teacher with any problem that might not be considered "normal." i understand that fear or hesitation. i'm hoping (perhaps too optimistically) that a discussion about learning styles might emphasize that everyone learns differently, and perhaps someone will feel a little more comfortable coming to me and saying, "I can't learn via lecture, I need to get my hands on something."

 

[Aspergirl4hire]

great point, A4H. for one thing, i rarely, if ever, claim any "universal" good. for another, you're definitely right that context is king. while i agree that directness is generally good, claiming "directness" or "bluntness" as cover for being malicious or disrespectful is not.

... so instead of saying, "Hey, this isn't working out for me," they opt to simply stop communicating with the person they're dating. they just "ghost" them and disappear, never to be heard from again. my students have generally learned this communicative pattern and accept it as the normal way to end a relationship! i feel that is definitely a situation in which directness should be both expected and required, though certainly with tact and compassion.

...but, do you think it might still be a viable "entry point" for conversation? in other words, by talking with them and encouraging them to learn about their individual styles, some students might be more comfortable coming to me with their specific concerns? someone earlier mentioned that, even when invited to do so, they might hesitate to come to a teacher with any problem that might not be considered "normal." i understand that fear or hesitation. i'm hoping (perhaps too optimistically) that a discussion about learning styles might emphasize that everyone learns differently, and perhaps someone will feel a little more comfortable coming to me and saying, "I can't learn via lecture, I need to get my hands on something."

• Last point first--yes, I think it's a viable entry point. And that's Trautman in a nutshell: See, Do, Read, Write. The LSI assumes we all strongly favor one. Trautman's discovery is that to learn something, we do them all, and it's the order in which we do them that determines how long it takes us to learn something that we can learn. His other great discovery: let the apprentice lead. Not the SME.
• I have to think about this ghosting thing. It's interesting.

Hope this helps!