This is all miles from the point. You can look at the mechanics of conversation all you like, it MEANS nothing unless you're emotionally connecting.
Yeah that's true. I just meant that machanics of conversation can indicate for instance where, how to change the topic etc. assuming that if your talking about something you have in common, that it's easier to relate emotionally.
I haven't researched it thoroughly but hopefully RDI makes use of these useful elements from linguisitics.
Read about Steve Gutstein's work in this area, and 'RDI', his therapy franchise.
I was at Gutstein's site immediately after my son got his diagnosis.
Let me explain one things I don't like about RDI.
This is about the book "Cradle of Thought" which Gutstein says "is at the cornerstone of RDI".
Imaginative and creative thought is what distinguishes humans from animals...
what gives us the capacity to think is the quality of a baby's exchanges with other people over the first 18 months of life...
Human thought, language, and self-awareness are developed in the cradle of emotional engagement between infant and caregiver; social contact has vital significance for mental development...
He (the author of Cradle of Thought) follows the thread of mental development over the first 18 months of a baby's life to describe and to explain the emergence of thinking; he shares startling insights into mental development gained from his studies of autism; and he shows how, from infancy to adulthood, disturbances of thinking may be rooted in troubled early relationships.
Um, excuse me. I "caused" my child's autism. Ok, I will just put aside my outrage for a moment to explain calmly why I know this is wrong.
My child was "hardwired" to learn to read. He learned to read two languages by age four. He didn't speak until after he learned to read. He didn't speak fluently until after he learned to spell words spontaneously.
We notice from a young age of his interest in letters. This was not something taught to him but rather even at four months -- fours months -- his mother noticed letters being more comforting to him than a human voice.
I know many people who raised their children identically but one has autism and the other doesn't.
Yes we work on appropriate social interaction with my son, but no we did not cause it.
Moreover, it can not be said he lacks imagination and creative though. Actually he has lots of it -- too much of it -- much too much of it. His jokes and creativity are funny to him but not necessarily to others and he is relentless in having that behavior. Amy on this site helped me realize that his behavior was humor and now I realize much of his "autism" is rather just his imagination/humor and that he doesn't realize/care how it causes other people to act. Well actually he does realize that he can "control" people and get a certain reaction out of them and so continues his behavior because it is rewarding to him socially. What we want to do is help him be creative and funny in a way that other people will appreciate.
Of course, I will closely scrutinize RDI for anything valuable that it seems to have to offer but I can say without a doubt that a "cornerstone" of RDI does not seem able to account for my son and actually is offensive to me as a parent.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you. I know people who really believe in RDI. I am not saying it is less useful than anything I suggested. I am just saying I know for a fact that a "cornerstone" is wrong and so keep that in mind.
I thought that friendships were where you could drop the chit-chat? There is some amount of "long time no see" that goes on, but I prefer to talk about important or interesting things with my friends. I save the chit-chat for people I don't know.
When I do the chit-chat thing, it's all formulaic
"hi, how are you?" "fine and you?"
though I'm not sure that's what your friend was talking about.
My personal insights from being bored at work and thinking too much:
Lunch.
Two women are talking.
They always go in pairs. The same pairs.
I am three tables away but can hear them easily. (hypersensitivity has its benefits)
They are speaking low tones.
I am, therefore, eavesdropping. This is bad. I don't know why.
Problem to solve: why is eavesdropping bad?
The information exchanged is pointless.
One woman is talking about locking herself out of her house that morning.
I listen, because she is attractive and has smiled at me before.
Why is it wrong to hear this information?
When vital information is exchanged, eavesdropping is wrong because it is theft.
I take knowledge, secrets, useful information.
I listen to small-talk, I take no vital information, but, the mode of conversation is identical.
The mode of conversation, whispering, is used for vital material.
What is vital in this situation?
Logical conclusion: emotion.
The small talk serves to provide emotional, not intellectual, exchange.
Does this conform to observed behavior?
Yes. If the goal is emotional exchange, then the intellectual component of the conversation would be kept at a minimum.
Conclusion: itellectual exchange and emotional exchange interfere with each other.
Pair groups.
Logical assumption: the women pair off into the same groups to optimize the emotional exchange.
"There's always a friend."
The cliche' now makes sense.
So, why is eavesdropping wrong?
It is theft of emotional information.
Final conclusion: Small-talk is nonverbal communication. The conversation is a carrier signal for the emotional exchange.
See Eric Berne, Transactional Analysis and "strokes" for further information.
I listen, because she is attractive and has smiled at me before.
Um, well seeing how unactractive people might have to actually say something interesting in order to get people's attention...I wonder if that is the best strategy. [/quote]
The small talk serves to provide emotional, not intellectual, exchange.
Surely it does. They are conveying their feelings about the incident (being locked out) and quite possible how it effects their mood now. There's also the element of bonding...we choose who we tell what to.
But I wonder sometimes, is it exchange or people looking in a mirror. I know I can understand my own feelings better when I express them, but have learned it doesn't have to be to others (such as in a journal)
Conclusion: itellectual exchange and emotional exchange interfere with each other.
interesting, yeah on linux user groups to which I belong there are lots of "ignore the emotions and focus on the technical discussion" type of suggestions posted because poeple often get bent out of shape over how their messages are recieved by people who know more about the subject and like to point that out in a very snobbish way.
The conversation is a carrier signal for the emotional exchange.
this seems on target though. I'm a goofy NT though, so what do I know???
Greetings from a chatterbox! Personally, I find that context is everything: If I am at lunch with my co-worker friends, I more than hold my own, am quick to respond with humor, and am often the life of the party! But if I am stuck in the presence of people with whom I don't click, and they say stupid, unfunny or condescending things and clearly expect me to laugh, to be their immediate friend or, in the case of old men, to flirt with them because they are customers at my job, I quietly boil, and their presence becomes quite intrusive & irritating, and I although I usually have no trouble with eye contact, I WILL start to avoid it to keep the irritant from further barging into my mental airspace. Chit-chat under those circumstances becomes impossible. I know people---usually the kind of people who are praised as being "so down to earth!"---who seem to genuinely warm to a lot of the people I can't stand. They manage apparently heartfelt smiles in response to stupid, corny jokes and they will encourage conversation as if they ENJOYED it...their relaxed body language seems to confirm it! Now I, on the other hand, hate to feel trapped or obligated in a chit-chat situation, and I become abrupt & occasionally hostile. :evil: Context is everything. Also, I tend to monologue, so I am happy when I have the floor. I have standup-comedian urges and I talk for sport...as long as I can choose the company!
That person was pointing out facts, but in quite a harsh way.
Examples of idle chit chat -
The weather is nice.
I am happy.
I am listening to some good music.
I saw a film on tv last night.
I feel tired today.
They are usually meaningless and boring, but some people like to do it.
I find that stuff very hard, and have been called a robot for not doing such chit chat.
I find its easier to communicate in our chat room where other people are talking, and theres no need to make small idle chit chat unless you wanted to.
I also find it hard,people always deem me unfriendly because I am awfull at listening to gossip and "chit chat"
chit chat is an NT thing. its kind of like dogs sniffing each others butts. so you just memorize the questions everyone else seems to ask.
i did that once, asked someone if they were my friend. NTS don't seem to like that either. apparently there is some unwritten kind of code that means you're supposed to know.