Now, how do I fix this?

[elfs]

Oh, gods, this is so Omaha and me:

Your nerd has built an annoyingly efficient relevancy engine in his head. It's the end of the day and you and your nerd are hanging out on the couch. The TV is off. There isn't a computer anywhere nearby and you're giving your nerd the daily debrief. "Spent an hour at the post office trying to ship that package to your mom, and then I went down to that bistro -- you know -- the one next the flower shop, and it's closed. Can you believe that?"

And your nerd says, "Cool".

Cool? What's cool? The business closing? The package? How is any of it cool? None of it's cool. Actually, all of it might be cool, but your nerd doesn't believe any of what you're saying is relevant. This is what he heard, "Spent an hour at the post office blah blah blah..."

You can be rightfully pissed off by this behavior -- it's simply rude -- but seriously, I'm trying to help here. Your nerd's insatiable quest for information and The High has tweaked his brain in an interesting way. For any given piece of incoming information, your nerd is making a lightning fast assessment: relevant or not relevant? Relevance means that the incoming information fits into the system of things your nerd currently cares about. Expect active involvement from your nerd when you trip the relevance flag. If you trip the irrelevance flag, look for verbal punctuation announcing his judgment of irrelevance. It's the word your nerd says when he's not listening and it's always the same. My word is "Cool", and when you hear "Cool", I'm not listening.

Information that your nerd is exposed to when the irrelevance flag is waving is forgotten almost immediately. I mean it. Next time you hear "Cool", I want you to ask, "What'd I just say?" That awkward grin on your nerd's face is the first step in getting him to acknowledge that he's the problem in this particular conversation.

Comments

[lionman.livejournal.com]

The Nerd must make eye contact.

No TV.
No computer.
No Palm?
No iPod?
Close the magazine.

The Nerd must make eye contact.

[rowanf.livejournal.com]

Nooooo! Not eye contact.

My worst thing is that SO starts talking when there is a computer/palm/ipod and expects me to be listening from the first word when it takes a sentence or two to register that talking is happening.

First - engage the Nerd and then say meaningful content.

[lionman.livejournal.com]

Mmm...truth you speak, indeed!

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Fen body language is also different from mundanes. (http://web.mit.edu/munch/Public/not.humor/geekspeak) Fen tend to not use eye contact nearly as often; when they do, it often signifies that it's the other person's turn to speak now. This is opposite of everyone else. In mundania, it's *breaking* eye contact that signals turn-taking, not *making* eye contact.

[lionman.livejournal.com]

Indeed, so while the SO is speaking, you should make eye contact. When they are done, the Nerd then breaks eye contact and inserts reply, which is hopefully not, "Cool." Unless, of course, it's appropriate. :-)

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

Or acknowledge that something has been said and the Nerd has heard it. When I say something to you, if I don't get an ACK, then I'll resend it.

Oh good gods, I'm nerdier than I thought I was.

[lionman.livejournal.com]

But in the case above, the Nerd does ACK the data packets. The ACK just doesn't grok with the data transmitted. :-/ ACK/NACK must make sense, otherwise it's just noise. :-(

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

True. In my case, the Spouse has this annoying tendency to not respond *at all*, and then when I repeat the question, bitches that he heard me the first time. And then I tell him that if he doesn't want to hear the same thing twice, answer me the first time.

You'd think after 17 years he would have learned this. Apparently not.

[lionman.livejournal.com]

Carry around a handful of cotton-balls. Pelt him with one before your repeat yourself. Maybe he needs a physical interrupt to release your NACK packets? ;-)

[srmalloy.livejournal.com]

The protocol responds to the data transmission, but if the input processor doesn't recognize the destination address on the incoming packets, they won't get handed off to a general-response processor to be evaluated, they just get dropped on the floor. It generally takes an NMI to spawn a full-fledged evaluation process listening on the port.

[lionman.livejournal.com]

I vote for use of a physical interrupt to requests cycles from the processor. Usually it's more reliable. ;-)

I went through a lot of pain with behaviors like that

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

It helped screw up a relationship for me. The first time he told me "Let me know when you say something important", I thought he was joking, but when he told me some time later that he was absolutely serious about it, it really just about cracked my heart. I hate being told that pretty much everything I say is irrelevant. Even worse, if I DID tell him something was important, such as a social engagement, he'd just put it out of his mind unless it was vital to him as well. As you say, it's really just rudeness, and I shouldn't have tolerated it as long as I did.

Re: I went through a lot of pain with behaviors like that

[pteryxx.livejournal.com]

But "Let me know when you say something important" is true for those of us who can't listen as instinctively as normal humans. It takes as much concentration for me to listen to a conversation as it does to read a difficult textbook, and with all due respect, at the end of a long day I am not going to summon that much power just to hear that there's something cute on icanhascheezburger today. When is it rude for you to demand our attention be spent on trivia just to soothe your need for significance? But when you DO give me the courtesy of alerting me, then you WILL get my full attention, mind heart and soul, you will get intelligent and caring responses. And that's more than you can say for a mundane SO who has the social skills to fake it.

All normal conversations are trivia?

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

My current SO has no trouble listening to me, without treating me as a chattering irrelevance, either.

The other relationship degraded to the point where the other person essentially ignored me a great deal of the time, and if I did point out that something was important, it was interpreted as "nagging". There was no way to coexist. Please pay enough attention in your own relationships that this never happens to you.

Re: I went through a lot of pain with behaviors like that

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

I hate being told that pretty much everything I say is irrelevant.

Well, think of it from the other side. You have this person, who feels the need to poor irrelevant information at you, and expects you to remember all of it.

The second part? That's valid. What is defined as important to you *should* be defined as important to an SO. Just by virtue of being important to you.

Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

It's called "being a good listener", and it's one of the traits that human beings value in each other. The things I was talking to him about weren't trivial as far as I'm concerned, either. It's normal for people to talk about how their days are, what needs to be done around the house, and what they plan to be doing that involves the other person. Brushing those things off as insignificant is not the act of someone who should be in a relationship.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[mo-hair.livejournal.com]

omg- this, this, and even more THIS! i run the household around here, and do not feel that when i need a serious chunk of time to catch dh up on the kids' goings on that it is irrelevant!! if i need to bitch about my part time job, it is not irrelevant! if we don't share both the vital parts of our experiences, as well as some of the minutiae, then how do we continue to even know each other??

i have dh look me in the eye when i am about to mention something i need him to remember. and we got palm treos so we can sync our schedules and he can textually keep up with out lives. text communication seems to work better for him. his mantra is, if it's not in the phone, it doesn't exist. when he forgets to add something that can work to my advantage :-)

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[elfs.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, it can take time for a geek to context switch, especially when that context switching requires more brainpower than he's currently got. When that happens, the current context needs to be written down somewhere, and waiting for that can be really frustrating for the verbally adept who have "something really important to say right now."

A man walking in with a gun is a good reason to throw away a context. A kid bleeding/screaming/barfing is a good reason to throw away a context. "I want to talk about politics/dinner/us because it's really important to me" is not, because nothing bad will happen to either one of us if you wait the two or so minutes it takes for me to save what I'm doing, including writing down all the stuff that's currently loaded up in my skull that, if lost, would take an hour to rebuild.

All human beings have an engagement threshold: not a measure of the relative importance of something, but the measure of addressing that something right now, relative to what else is going on at the moment. Nerds are just people for whom the engagement threshold is somewhat configurable and whose intellectual pursuits require that it be so if they're to accomplish anything at all.

I find the language of "I'm categorically different, so treat me special" to be offensive; "I'm a human being and therefore I'm different; try to treat my idiosyncrasies with respect and I'll try to do the same for you" is a much better way to word things. Yeah, I fall into the category "nerd"; that doesn't give me an excuse; it gives both myself and my friends an interesting and sometimes painful burden, but it's nothing human beings haven't dealt with for centuries.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[talek.livejournal.com]

I find the language of "I'm categorically different, so treat me special" to be offensive; "I'm a human being and therefore I'm different; try to treat my idiosyncrasies with respect and I'll try to do the same for you" is a much better way to word things.

Amen. The first phrasing implies that the speaker is unwilling to make any (further?) effort to find a working middle ground, and that the listener is solely responsible for any friction (by not being accommodating enough). Yes, I know that many people will claim that they have already put in the effort to the best of their ability/capability... but that doesn't make the phrasing any less offensive (or their claim necessarily true).

It's much the same as "I didn't do it, so I shouldn't have to fix it", or the eternal wail of "it's not my fault!". In many situations, it simply doesn't matter who (if anyone) is to blame; we all, as adults, have to clean up after.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[pteryxx.livejournal.com]

And that's why those of us with problems processing spoken information are not 'valued' by many normals such as yourself. If someone doesn't make eye contact with you because they're blind, you cut them slack, don't you? But no amount of effort will ever make parsing daily speech as easy for me as it is for you. It is not necessarily a matter of laziness or disrespect. I honestly cannot hear spoken conversation unless I focus on absolutely nothing else, and it is hard work to do so.

When my SO and I talk about things that need to be done around the house, plans involving the other person, and such, we preface it with 'Let's take a moment to check in' or 'Let's plan the weekend.' That is all it takes to alert me to turn my monotasking focus onto the conversation. Then both of us can relax, him with confidence that what was discussed was attended to, and me with confidence that I can switch focus to another task without being randomly attacked for not paying attention.

And I will have you know, with all due respect, that my SO and I have been monogamous for 21 years. When you say "Brushing those things off as insignificant is not the act of someone who should be in a relationship." obviously, you intend to say they should not be in a relationship with YOU. If you are not willing to meet the other person halfway, in whatever area you disagree, then you are both better off separate.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[tagryn]

From what dakiwiboid describes, the SO in question was turning off unless they decided was something important to *them*, which is pretty far short of halfway. That's not being a nerd, that's being a selfish a$$; I've known both, and there is a difference. The analogy would be between someone's who blind and someone who can see but decides you are not worthy of their time, so pretends you're not there.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Yes. And I agreed that the second behavior was bad. The first behavior, on it's own however, is what I do. And I don't think it's any worse then requiring that I drop whatever it is that I'm working on to give someone else my full attention, and hang on their every word.

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That is what I was trying to say, and obviously failing at it.

It's not that I feel that my SOs small, irrelevant (to me!) conversations are *BAD*. Or even that I shouldn't make time for them. But, I can't figure out what is, and isn't, relevant at any given time. And so, I need for them to tell me "this is important, and I need you to listen to me." Chances are remarkably good that I'll drop whatever it is that I'm doing, and listen. Or I'll reply with "I need five minutes."

Re: Most people can filter what other people say to them without being rude

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Sure. Those things are normal. And I don't mind spending time on them with an SO. And it's not 'my' bar for setting what's important to 'you'.

But, interrupting whatever it is that I'm doing, and then talking to me about something that I find trivial, and not caring if what 'I' was doing was important to 'me'. is rude, and not the actions of someone who should be in a relationship.

Re: I went through a lot of pain with behaviors like that

[fallenpegasus]

If it was something like a calendar appointment, put it in the calendar.

Don't surround it with irrelevant and mindless fluff, or it will get lost, just like an important email in the middle of a stream of spam.

Most people call conversation "communication"

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

They don't call it "irrelevant and mindless fluff". They don't refer to talking about what's going on in one's life or the world as meaningless chatter.

As far as the appointments and social engagements go, I was the only person held responsible for them. We also didn't share calendar software at that point, which made the only possibility email reminders, verbal reminders, or actual notes on a physical calendar, all of which he'd ignore unless the appointment or social engagement really interested him.

It's not pleasant being made into one's partner's social secretary, and then accused of nagging for actually fulfilling that function.

Re: Most people call conversation "communication"

[grum]

Yup, most people do call conversation communication, most people also don't really interact all that well with me. I had a classmate inform me that "You just don't know how to talk to people. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks you're rude". I'm sure she's right.

That said, I value my partners irrelevant and mindless fluff, just as they value mine. I appreciate it more when it is exchanged at a time that it does not hurt either of us to either give or receive it, but figuring out that arrangement takes time, work, and compromise. It's worth it.

Small talk, especially with classmates that I'm not close to, just makes no sense. I don't understand why people bother asking how I'm doing when they don't want the answer. I don't understand why I'm the one in the wrong when I give a real answer to the question.

Conversation, on the other hand at least as I use the word, generally has a specific topic, both sides are interested in what the other person has to say, and often there is some attempt at persuading or informing the listener occurring.

The mind dump when a partner comes home from a bad day is not conversation. It's important, but it's not conversation. Same with the little fluff that gets exchanged as people move around the same space, or exclaim over some web-widget or other. It's interesting when I have the resources to pay attention to it, but if other things need prioritized, I need to be respected too.

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

I'm so amused that I, reading this post, also skipped the bit about the business closing. By that poing in the sentence, clearly nothing interesting was going to happen. :-)

[fallenpegasus]

"that he's the problem in this particular conversation".

I have a serious problem with that.

The irrelavent "daily debrief" is just that. Irrelavent. She is demanding that her nerd spend a huge amount of resource for no good reason.

If she would say something relevant, she'll get more attention.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

She is demanding that her nerd spend a huge amount of resource for no good reason.

Oh, I dunno. This might be a short-term vs. long-term payoff problem: "Pay attention to what I'm saying now and you might get laid later" is often not said explicitly enough.

And after eighteen years of marriage, I've come to appreciate the daily debrief. I just want us both to do it at a time when it's appropriate, like over dinner, and not "right now because I walked in the door and have something on my chest I want to unload and you're the most convenient target."

[slfisher.livejournal.com]

One of the things I miss the most, not being in a relationship currently, is the daily debrief -- mine and his. Of course it's trivial. And it's not. And that's the point. And I'm proud when I remember something, and I'm appreciative when the other person remembers something.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

I find the "daily debrief" trivial too, but it's how alot of people connect. And you need that daily renewal of the connection, especially when you spend so much of the day apart.

How to fix it? Not sure. My eyes glaze over sometimes when the housemates go on, but at the same time it can be amusing to hear their stories of the day. But I can definitely see how making sure you've got your nerd's attention first (and waiting for him/her to switch gears) could be a big help. I know I wouldn't be offended if someone needed to switch gears in order to focus on what I had to say. You're more likely to get whatever you need from the exchange that way.

A friend of mine has some interesting things he does to work on connecting with the people in his life. He makes a note of some of the things they are interested in and, as he goes through the day, he makes mental notes of things and "tags" them with a name or names of which person would be interested in the subject. Thus he doesn't dominate conversations with the things that interest only him and he has something to contribute that he's relatively sure will be well received. Sometimes he misses the mark, but the fact that he makes the effort tells us he cares about us. So I guess what I'm saying here is that another solution could be to try to engage more in the things that interest your SO and share in them. And hopefully your SO will appreciate the effort and understand it for the return of that willingness to connect.

[pteryxx.livejournal.com]

*applauds* Best analysis yet.

[tagryn]

Well said, thanks.

[amythis.livejournal.com]

What I want to know is when did "cool" replace "thank you," and am I supposed to respond "you're welcome" or something else, perhaps "keepin' it real"?