I like this approach. “funny meme” aside, I think it is a good way of showing how much a certain language can affect how other people think and feel about a subject. Just read it THAT way and “being neurotypical” suddenly sounds like a disorder that isn’t fully compatible with the public, doesn’t it?
We live in a world that isn’t exactly kind to people on the spectrum. It is loud, flashy, hectic, overwhelming, unrewarding but you’re still expected to work like a cog in a machine, despite having fewer and fewer places where you’d actually “fit in” without grinding gears, and whenever there is some sort of public talk about that topic, it always, always sounds like the affected person is the problem and personally responsible for fixing themselves, when a no small part of “not fitting in” is due to society itself. Maybe a change in language is due to remove that stigma.
You literally just did the thing I complained about.
Is there a best of Lemmy yet?
This was just 🤌🏼
I mean, it wasn’t, though. I didn’t actually do the thing they described, they just failed to understand their own point.
I mean, no, not really. What I said is still a part of what you proposed, just not specifically.
Like you can’t suggest that everyone should jump off a high cliff without also suggesting that everyone should fall to the bottom. You can’t say “I said jump, not fall! You’re reading into my words beyond my intent!”
Have you never encountered symbolism? Poetry? Is your favorite book “See Spot Run” because every statement is entirely literal with no interpretation needed?
If you read the phrase “Upon seeing the knife in the strangers hand, she let out a scream.” would you not infer that “she” is afraid of the knife person, or would you sit there scratching your head wondering “why did she scream? I don’t understand, knives can be used for many purposes.”
Absolutely not. What you said had nothing to do with anything I said. I did not say we should “believe everything everyone says.” That’s not even a part of what I said.
You then proceeded to:
The alternative to “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” is not to “believe everything everyone says.” It’s simply not assuming someone intended to say something completely different than what they actually said, which is what you did.
And the alternative to “expecting others to infer what you think based on subjective social rules” is to just say what you mean in the first place.
See the conflict we’re having right now? We could have avoided this if you simply didn’t read into what I said past the actual meaning.
Ah I see the confusion. You said “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” but defined that as “assuming someone intended to say something completely different than what they actually said.” This is not, in fact. “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” and is, in fact, called “assuming someone is lying”. With that cleared up, I agree with you. People should definitely stop assuming others are lying without a good reason.
You just did it again!!
No, I didn’t! You have no idea what you’re even trying to say! I’m sorry but you’re just incorrect. At no point have I interpreted anything you’ve suggested to mean anything other than exactly that.
deleted by creator
Okay but should I interpret that comment literally like you suggest or should I “read into” it and determine you’re being sarcastic?
Weren’t you just saying people should “say exactly what they mean”?
Am I to interpret this as a sincere thank you, then? In which case. You’re quite welcome. You seemed very confused and I’m happy to have provided some clarity in this matter. I hope what you learned today will be helpful to you going forward.
deleted by creator
No.
When I someone asks if I want to eat at a particular restaurant and I say no, they frequently assume some kind of reason. For example, they might assume I didn’t want that type of food, or that I am not hungry, or something else. That is reading into it, not lying.
Most people wouldn’t just assume a random reason. They might assume there is a reason, and they would be correct even if that reason is “just dont feel like it”, which is a perfectly valid reason.
Furthermore, what you’re describing is not “reading into”, its “drawing likely inferences based on evidence and observation” and it’s literally the foundation of every piece of knowledge we currently possess.
What you’re objecting to is called “thinking”.
An example of what you’re trying to describe would be if person A said “I can’t hang out tonight, I’m busy” and the person B thinks “they’re just saying that to be nice, they actually hate me” when really person A is actually just busy. Person B is “reading into” person A’s response. Which ties back into my previous point about what you’re actually objecting to, which is people assuming someone is lying when there’s nothing to suggest dishonesty.
All your examples are exactly what I am talking about (assuming) but then you follow it up with telling me what I really mean.
No, my example had nothing for them to use for experience and context. On fact, they did not even need to assume those details in the first place because the reason is not really important or I would have volunteered it. I would have also provided it if they asked!
But overexplaining the reasoning for things being a common trait for autistic and ADHD people is likely caused by trying to head off misunderstandings by people who just assume things and not listening when told the real reason. Heck, I often feel defensive with some people because the whole conversation is just trying to correct their assumptions so we can focus on what was actually said.
“whole conversation is just trying to correct their assumptions so we can focus on what was actually said.”
Please read this over and over until you understand why its so hilariously ironic that you just said that.
What was “actually said” is that inferring information from people’s statements is a bad thing, which is ridiculous, and the exact statement I’m attempting to address. Everyone in this thread assumes I’m saying something else, and that I am somehow attacking them rather than engaging in a discussion.
Imagine if every conversation had to contain every single explicit detail of what’s being discussed, imagine being completely unwilling and unable to form a conclusion based on information provided to you. That would be awful. This leads me to believe that this is not actually what OP intended, and upon further discussion they revealed what they actually have a problem with is people jumping to incorrect conclusions based on insufficient evidence. A sentiment with which I agree entirely, but which is not equivalent to the wording of what was, as you put it, actually said.
No, inferring the wrong assumptions and never letting them go is the problem. You are a prime example of someone who does that.
And yet, I’ve experienced people doing exactly this quite often.
Yes. Exactly. See, you get it.
Nope; I take it back. You’re still lost.
Lmao you can’t agree with the 2nd point and not with the 3rd, it’s literally the same point. Once again you have demonstrated a complete failure to understand what’s being discussed here.
Dude. Just look at the dictionary mening of the words. That’s the actual meaning. If you want to say A, use words that mean A literally. Don’t say A and B and expect us to know that you actually mean C.
You know exactly what you’re doing because you proceed to complain about us wanting to not have poetry and metaphor.