Educating People Against Their Will

[greyman24]

I'm going to apologize in advance for length, here. This is something I've been thinking a lot about and wanted to get out in written form.

This is, essentially, a revelation I had that I think applies to many of us in this forums. Whether it's because of comic books' long form or the generally more technical content within, as comic book fans we often trend towards a certain kind of characteristic.

It began about a year ago, when I listened to an episode of This American Life. TAL is a radio show I love. This particular episode was about insular groups, and the piece was around a puzzle convention, where participants solved incredibly complex thought puzzles. The guy being interviewed was talking about fitting in and gave an example from his job.

He was taken to task by his boss at the greeting card company that employed him, informing him that he wasn't getting along with his co-workers. When he asked why, he was told that he made too many references. Not grotesque or obscene references. Just too many references in general.

This didn't make sense to him, so he did a full analysis of how many references he made against others in the office. The results showed that he made no more references than his co-workers did.

Then, one day, a bunch of people from work were talking about monkeys on greeting cards. In response, he told them about the differences between apes and monkeys--in particular, the presence of tails on gibbons. Once he was finished, there was silence. Then, someone at the table cracked, "Yeah. That's fascinating. Want to hear about the rat's ass I give?"

Everyone cracked up, and provided the subject with insight to what his boss meant. As he said, "I inform people against their will."

I clearly saw myself in this. But I was unsure as to how BAD this was. I mean, information is good, right? Even if the information isn't useful, people can put it in their back pocket for the next Trivial Pursuit game or whatever.

The second revelation came much later. I was cleaning my bathroom. As I was trying to bleach out mildew and considering whether I needed to re-grout, I thought about Doris Roberts' character in Everybody Loves Raymond. I sometimes think that the writers of that show hid out in my mother's home when looking for ideas. Marie Barone is my mother taken to the extreme.

And I thought that, should I not do a good job, Marie Barone would inevitably use the bathroom and then take me aside to tell me, "Just so you know, I can tell you how to re-grout those tiles. I just tell you because I've done it and I saw the mildew in your bathroom."

That made me reflect back to educating against someone's will. I suddenly realized why it was such a bad idea.

You could want to tell someone how to re-grout because you just did it for the first time last week and you recognize a kindred spirit. You could feel excited that you went through the process of figuring it out and you just want to save the person the headache of doing that research him/herself. You could be fascinated by grouting, be an expert in the field and just want to share your expertise.

Unless the person ASKS for help, though, you come across as kind of a jerk.

Whatever your intention, you read as a know-it-all, trying to tell others how to live their lives. There's a reason why Emily Post constantly refers to the "wait until asked" rule. Unless your advice is solicited, you come across as rude and condescending.

What do you guys think? Do you see moments where you've tried to share knowledge, but that knowledge was not received in the manner you intended?

Do YOU inform people against their will?

[Gaumer]

No

Because I add "You know what I heard?" to the beginning and "What do you think about that?" to the end of whatever I'm telling.

And I call it conversation

[litanyofthieves]

I feel there's a difference between telling someone a random trivia fact and passive aggressively telling them they're bad housekeepers.

But to answer your question, yes I do. Because like Gaumer said, they don't have to listen.

[Navarre]

I think a lot of people are too consumed with pride to take anything less than a positive ego stroke in a favorable manner. If I have factual information to share, not just an opinion, then why wouldn't someone be interested in knowing that? The answer is because people are defensive of their ignorance and focused on their need for external validation.

I'm not interested in playing that game from either side.

If I don't know something and you do, and you feel it's important enough to tell me, go right ahead. I can always choose to ignore your facts if I want.

If I know something you don't and genuinely wish to offer it in the spirit of assistance or education, I will. If you don't want to hear it I won't be offended because I am not responsible for your choices. I don't tell you to prove my mental acumen and it isn't necessary for you to bolster my ego.

Unconditional self-worth, by definition, comes from within. The facts will remain the facts whether I give them to you, you give them to me, or no one shares at all. I will be too busy trying to develop myself into a better person to worry a great deal if you have issues with something as small as a little knowledge.

[The Mighty King Cobra]

Well, I'll be honest:  I work in a corporate environment, and if somebody stopped a discussion to go off on a tangent that did little but reinforce the fact that they clearly believe they know more than me, I'd be pissed, too.  I think there's a lesson to be learned from that feller's upbraiding, especially in my case.  I have a lot of pieces of useless information that I throw about during a day, but the trick is to make sure of the response of the people around me during conversations.  It's the workplace, not a monologue.

We all know "That Guy," the one who interrupts every discussion, no matter how important, to tell you something he heard on Jeopardy that nobody cares about.  We've all BEEN "That Guy."  "That Guy" is annoying, and if the boss had to sit down and talk to me, I'd be mortified but I'd have to take steps to change my behavior because it's MY JOB.

If I know something you don't and genuinely wish to offer it in the spirit of assistance or education, I will. If you don't want to hear it I won't be offended because I am not responsible for your choices. I don't tell you to prove my mental acumen and it isn't necessary for you to bolster my ego.

That's probably a good plan.  Nobody wants to be told that they're an idiot, especially at work by a damn-near-complete stranger who wants to talk about monkey asses.  

[Navarre]

And I do think it is the intent of the person that often rubs people the wrong way more than the factual exchange itself. You can tell when someone is determined to talk because he has to prove something. He just never seems to realize he's trying to prove it to himself more than you.

I don't mind people who have something intelligent to say. Hopefully it fits the conversation at hand but everyone goes on a bit of a tangent sometimes.

What I do mind is the person who won't shut up because they absolutely must be heard and will say anything to do so.

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

I know a lot of things, both useful and useless. When I was a kid I used to just say these useful and useless things expecting to contribute to the conversation and found that people often reacted in exactly the opposite way from what I wanted. So I came up with a list, which I still follow to this day when having conversations with strangers and casual acquaintances. I find that by keeping the points of the list in mind I am able to navigate social situations with greater ease.

1) Nobody cares what you think
It's true, offering your opinion on any given subject is likely to get you weird looks, if you want to continue the conversation ask people about their opinions and keep yours to a minimum.

2) Just because something is interesting to you doesn't mean it is interesting to others
Self explanatory, nobody wants to hear about your level 16 Dwarf Psion, fantasy football team or kids.

3) People often talk to keep from communicating
So when you tell them something true about yourself, or god forbid themselves, they freak out.

so you might ask "Well, then how in the heck am I supposed to make friends?" well, you do that by taking a risk and violating one of the points on the list, if the person responds positively then you can become friends, but you can't do that with everyone at the lunch room, this is strictly a one-on-one proposition.

[Navarre]

Restating Rodrigo's list in the harshest light:

1) Our thoughts and feelings mean next to nothing to anyone other than ourselves.
2) That which holds interest for us only annoys other people unless it is their interest as well.
3) All this verbiage being spewed about in our daily lives and the media only serve to divide us.

I don't disagree with Rodrigo's points. But it sure doesn't say much for this society humans have constructed, does it?

[Gaumer]

Restating Rodrigo's list in the harshest light:

1) Our thoughts and feelings mean next to nothing to anyone other than ourselves.
2) That which holds interest for us only annoys other people unless it is their interest as well.
3) All this verbiage being spewed about in our daily lives and the media only serve to divide us.

I don't disagree with Rodrigo's points. But it sure doesn't say much for this society humans have constructed, does it?

I can't believe this is true. I might as well just go live in the forrest ( ) and be a hermit if it is true or if I decide to believe it.

But I wouldn't say that violating one of those rules is a risk, although I do believe one must do those things to be social and make friends. What's the risk in talking to someone in this way who won't reciprocate? They won't be your friend? That was going to happen whether you opened your mouth or not.

I'll take that risk every single time. That's just how I am.

[Navarre]

I don't follow Rodrigo's rules either. It's an odd sort of stance in that I agree that his points are likely true yet I still choose not to follow them, as I'd stated somewhere above.

The world isn't going to be a more open, connected place by me standing around keeping my mouth shut. Fearing to interact with others out of some conjecture that I will annoy or offend them only exacerbates the problem.

There have been times where I have spoken to complete strangers in a moment where it seemed socially acceptable to do so. And there have been many times where I felt that person not only appreciated that moment of human interaction but maybe even helped change this dismal perception that is being bandied about on this thread.

How is taking that risk a bad thing?

[Gaumer]

I could see someone who may take a negative response from someone they are reaching out to socially as a negative response to them as a person. They may take it personally.

I can see that having a negative reaction on the person trying to reach out and making their life worse, if only in their own minds. This is the serious issue I see in folks being so outgoing in the way we are saying.

What I'll say to them is, be brave, be socially nice, and be outgoing. Don't think for one second that the douche bag who replied negatively to your attempt to be a freaking human being is doing anything but using your attempt to be a nice and outgoing person in a negative light to make themselves feel better by bringing you down. They have the problem, not you.

If you allow them to do that, you are being just like them. Becoming another evil Agent Smith in a weird way. I like to think my show of caring for another person's life, no matter how insignificant my small talk may be, can be nothing but a positive in someone's like, because when it the other way around, and someone just asks me about my selection of groceries on the Kroger aisle moving food belt out of nowhere, I enjoy it.

[Navarre]

I once knew a woman and fell in love with her. One of the reasons I loved her so was her spiritual approach to the world.

She never felt obligated to be heard or push her thoughts toward others. But neither was she ever afraid to be herself and share.

I have seen her specifically notice a stranger who looked like they were having a bad day then politely approach them with a random question like asking for the time. When they gave her the time she thanked them for being so kind and would take notice of something positive to say about them, such as complimenting them on a pretty sweater they had on or something.

There was nothing phony about her approach (other than maybe suddenly caring about the time). She sincerely wanted to try and make the other person smile and she only complimented them on things she found worthy of it.

She said everyone likes to feel good about themselves but on some days that's difficult. So she tried to help a person when they looked like they needed it. She figured the worst that could happen is the person wouldn't give her the time.

She was a person well worth loving, imo.

[greyman24]

I actually agree with Rodrigo's points pretty closely as a general guideline. Caveat, of course, is unless someone asks, and, even then, proceed with caution.

Thing is, everything that we do is dependent upon social cues. And some of us are better at reading them than others. Those people it comes to naturally don't have to worry about guidelines, research and miss manners. The rest of us, however, need to remind ourselves of the reality of the situation we're in.

So, Navarre, to your point, your thread on the passage of time totally hit me the wrong way. Why? Because my perception of it was that it was condescending.

Now, did you ever say within that thread that you were better than anyone else? No, of course not. Did you ever denigrate those that disagree? No.

My point is that it's tough enough to gauge what someone's response to your statement will be in person. On a message board, where's there's no visual cues, it's impossible. And I also knew a woman who would walk up to strangers to compliment them on their outfits. However, rather than coming across as spiritual, she was taken as shallow and as someone who constantly required attention.

[greyman24]

Also wanted to say that it's easy to confuse "educating" with "conversing." Talking about the new Tom Cruise movie is one thing. Telling someone all about Tom Cruise's biography, filmography and his religion is something else.

[Navarre]

If you take my 'Passage of Time' thread to be condescending then you may not take my responses to this thread any better. I will, of course, assure you none of my statements are meant that way.

But how would everyone have been better served if I had never said anything at all (in the 'Passage of Time' thread) versus making my statement and then clarifying as needed? Is that the purpose of communication, to engage others and share ideas?