I intellectualize everything. My emotional intelligence is low. My life has very limited emotional dimension.
If I must interact with others, I must decide whether to think about them or not. I decide to think about them because that seems safer. My reasoning is this: if there is nothing to think about regarding other people, then all I risk is a wasted effort. But if there is something to think about and I choose not to think about anything, a bad misunderstanding might happen.
So, what do I think when I think about others? I think about understanding them. Is there anything about anyone to understand? Probably. There are things about me to understand, and I make the same claims that others make. I say that I want things, that I feel things, and that I am conscious. I am having experiences. It seems safe to assume that others are like me. People probably aren't blank objects, but maybe they are. They seem to act with intention, but maybe they don't. If I'm wrong that there is something to understand, then that is OK. There's not much risk there. So I assume that people have minds, that they have emotions, and that they will act in their own self-interest. In my experience, this is a good assumption.
When I act on the small knowledge my observation has afforded me, it can appear from the outside that I am intuitive. But I am not. My insights into people don't emerge from my naturally being one of them. I have to assume that I am one of them and that I am not somehow extraordinary in my ability to think and feel. If I know for sure anything about people, it is that they demand things of me. My time, my care. They seem to want things. All my knowledge is empirical. None of it is intuitive. I have insight into people the way a primatologist has insights into nonhuman primates. I watch them and I interact with them and I think that there must be some intelligence there. I feel that I see strong evidence for it. Sometimes I see myself in them. Sometimes I can work out their motivations, but no insight will ever make me one of them. The primatologist will never be a gorilla.
Do I have an understanding of social reciprocity, for instance? I know that social reciprocity is an idea. I see behaviors that look reciprocal. People seem to expect reciprocation. I assume that they do. In my experience, this is a good assumption. Is this assumption the same thing as an understanding? I don't feel connected to my ideas about people. My ideas about people are reactions. They are mostly meant to protect me from others. I understand social reciprocity insofar as such an understanding can protect me. I am as insightful as I need to be to keep myself safe. Even when I use my own example to support my assumptions about people, I feel that I am not one of them. I see the eyes, the brow, the hands, and they're like mine. I see signs of feelings that might be like my feelings. But I am not identical to my subject. My study is clinical, pragmatic, even if it's thorough. And it can only be so thorough at this distance.
I know that I'm human. My point here is that this is the only way I can think about people and, importantly, I have to do it every time I interact with someone. People seem essentially unpredictable. I never know how they will act or when they will expect me to make an inference and produce an appropriate reciprocal response to something they haven't stated. But I have to attempt a guess or I have no way to interact. So I overthink, trying to make the best guess possible. This makes social interactions extremely taxing. Every single one is a puzzle.
So I'm trying to explain how I intellectualize my understanding of other people. I can only understand them intellectually. I understand myself in deeper ways. I see into me as I can never see into others. Regarding others, I can only record what I observe. I can only make assumptions. If there is a way to understand others that is the same as understanding myself, I'm not capable of it. I'm a personologist by necessity, but that's all I can ever be. I can study, I can make informed guesses, and I can even see how I am like other people. I'm a good researcher and I draw solid conclusions. But I am not the same animal, so to speak, and I never will be.
If I must interact with others, I must decide whether to think about them or not. I decide to think about them because that seems safer. My reasoning is this: if there is nothing to think about regarding other people, then all I risk is a wasted effort. But if there is something to think about and I choose not to think about anything, a bad misunderstanding might happen.
So, what do I think when I think about others? I think about understanding them. Is there anything about anyone to understand? Probably. There are things about me to understand, and I make the same claims that others make. I say that I want things, that I feel things, and that I am conscious. I am having experiences. It seems safe to assume that others are like me. People probably aren't blank objects, but maybe they are. They seem to act with intention, but maybe they don't. If I'm wrong that there is something to understand, then that is OK. There's not much risk there. So I assume that people have minds, that they have emotions, and that they will act in their own self-interest. In my experience, this is a good assumption.
When I act on the small knowledge my observation has afforded me, it can appear from the outside that I am intuitive. But I am not. My insights into people don't emerge from my naturally being one of them. I have to assume that I am one of them and that I am not somehow extraordinary in my ability to think and feel. If I know for sure anything about people, it is that they demand things of me. My time, my care. They seem to want things. All my knowledge is empirical. None of it is intuitive. I have insight into people the way a primatologist has insights into nonhuman primates. I watch them and I interact with them and I think that there must be some intelligence there. I feel that I see strong evidence for it. Sometimes I see myself in them. Sometimes I can work out their motivations, but no insight will ever make me one of them. The primatologist will never be a gorilla.
Do I have an understanding of social reciprocity, for instance? I know that social reciprocity is an idea. I see behaviors that look reciprocal. People seem to expect reciprocation. I assume that they do. In my experience, this is a good assumption. Is this assumption the same thing as an understanding? I don't feel connected to my ideas about people. My ideas about people are reactions. They are mostly meant to protect me from others. I understand social reciprocity insofar as such an understanding can protect me. I am as insightful as I need to be to keep myself safe. Even when I use my own example to support my assumptions about people, I feel that I am not one of them. I see the eyes, the brow, the hands, and they're like mine. I see signs of feelings that might be like my feelings. But I am not identical to my subject. My study is clinical, pragmatic, even if it's thorough. And it can only be so thorough at this distance.
I know that I'm human. My point here is that this is the only way I can think about people and, importantly, I have to do it every time I interact with someone. People seem essentially unpredictable. I never know how they will act or when they will expect me to make an inference and produce an appropriate reciprocal response to something they haven't stated. But I have to attempt a guess or I have no way to interact. So I overthink, trying to make the best guess possible. This makes social interactions extremely taxing. Every single one is a puzzle.
So I'm trying to explain how I intellectualize my understanding of other people. I can only understand them intellectually. I understand myself in deeper ways. I see into me as I can never see into others. Regarding others, I can only record what I observe. I can only make assumptions. If there is a way to understand others that is the same as understanding myself, I'm not capable of it. I'm a personologist by necessity, but that's all I can ever be. I can study, I can make informed guesses, and I can even see how I am like other people. I'm a good researcher and I draw solid conclusions. But I am not the same animal, so to speak, and I never will be.
Comments
Post a Comment