most 'talk' is used to establish status

As I read ballastexistenz' writing, the thing that strikes me over and over again is that I think we are both confused by the 'meta-messages' of most so-called conversation. She may disagree, of course - but I think the reason speech is so difficult for her (this is all speculative, an emerging theory, right?) is because while she's generally trying to communicate an idea, an experience, perhaps a feeling - in other words, information, most people only appear to be sharing information. What they're really doing under the surface noise of the apparent topic is vying for status. They're establishing their place in the pecking order.

Now, why do some people use almost all conversation this way, and others don't? I used to think it was primarily a gender thing, that men were far more concerned about status than women, but I've realized this isn't true.

These days it seems to me that some people simply aren't aware of the attempts of others to categorize them into 'higher' or 'lower' than themselves; thus, much so-called 'communication' can be entirely befuddling to those of us who are actually trying to communicate.

So my 'resonance' with ballastexistenz seems to be in this area - my sense is that we both generally use conversation to communicate, whereas many of the people we're actually trying to communicate with are often not trying to communicate at all, but are instead trying to decide whether they're more or less important than we are.

When you refuse to play this game (in my case I think it's becoming a conscious choice) or in BE's case, I think maybe she really can't play the game - or at least, she's unable to play it in the dynamic, in-the-moment way required for 'normal' speech - people tend to discard you as irrelevant. Or possibly they become curious - I sometimes feel as if people talk to me to see if they can get me to conform, if they can somehow persuade (?) me to behave the way they expect me to.

And why do they do this? I don't know. They seem to lack the flexibility that allows for different ways of being, different ways of thinking. They seem to have an extremely narrow comfort zone, and can hardly function at all unless everyone around them is acting the same way.

Maybe it's just because I was the oddball in my family - I was the one who didn't conform, so I'm really used to being surrounded by people who aren't like me. Whereas everybody else in the family (or, the men, at least, who outnumbered the women) was used to being surrounded by people who were just like them - who thought the same way, acted the same way, sought the same goals and rewards in life. More or less - at least enough so that they could feel comfortable with each other and not seem to be in constant conflict about their basic assumptions about life.

Women who succeed are the ones who, for whatever reason - temperament, intelligence (or lack thereof), upbringing - are more willing to conform to the expectations of the men who, by and large, shape the world we live in.

Men are complaining a lot these days because women are finally, at long last, beginning to have enough power in the world to influence the way things run, and finally men are getting a little uncomfortable - they're having to share the driver's seat, and are finding it quite crowded. And men suck at being passengers - except for the mildest among them, most seem to like to be in charge all the time. The ones I like best are the ones who, literally, will hop into my car with me driving and not make a big deal about it. The ones who always insist on driving, no matter what, are a big fucking pain in the ass. Sure it's nice to be a passenger sometimes, but I like it to be a choice, not a position 'assigned' to me by some guy who presumes he's in charge.

All communications convey information about power and respect for the people with whom we're conversing. The level of politeness one uses, kindness, tone of voice, gestures, facial expressions - all of these show whether the person values you as a human being or whether they are just using the interaction as a way to increase their own power, status or position.

I was just reading a post on ballastexistenz' blog where she's talking about a lawyer who apparently doesn't like people like BE self-advocating.

The question is, why do people like BE bother this man so much? First I would want to know why he's involved in autism 'advocacy' in the first place - why does it matter to him? And once you know the answer to that (which I don't, and am not sure I care to do the research to find out - he sounds like a pretty slimy and intractable type), you might be able to figure out why he's so set on keeping people like BE 'in their place'.

Sometimes people like this lawyer get involved in something like autism because they find themselves unable to exert any real power elsewhere in the world. They think they can come into this field and become 'heroes', and throw their weight around in a way that they can't manage elsewhere.

And yet they encounter someone like BE who on the surface appears to be only minimally able to cope with the world in standard, 'normal' ways, and who yet possesses a sharp, incisive mind that can run circles around this power-mongering lawyer.

So what happens inside his little pinhead brain at this point? Well, he sees her as a threat to the little fiefdom he's trying to establish. He's not interested in her, or indeed any autistic person, as a person at all - he's only interested in establishing some power for himself in a place where no one else seems to be trying to take hold of the reins.

***
I keep looking for the commonality, for what exactly it is that is drawing me to BE's writing. It's something about the cognitive dissonance of the message a person appears to be conveying versus the underlying social message they're actually conveying.

For instance, as a musician, if somebody says to me, "Wow, you're great," they may mean, simply, "I really like listening to the music you play," or they may mean, "Wow, I really wish I was a musician who could play music like you do, and if I hang out around people like you, maybe a little of that will rub off on me, so I'll say nice things to you so you'll let me hang out with you and thus I can get a little closer to my goal." Or something like that - since I don't really know why people say stuff like that, my guess at their 'thinking' is pretty fuzzy.

I feel as if I'm unable to resolve the conflict between the surface message and the underlying message - the surface message always feels like a lie, a manipulation, a power play. I am unable to ignore it.

And since I have no desire to be manipulated by other people into whatever position they think I should be in - whether upward or downward, either one feels like they're 'pushing you around' in some way - I don't like the underlying 'power' messages, either.

It seems like people are constantly doing this - constantly trying to get you to conform to their view of how the world should be. As if we're each playing the starring role in our own play, and we try to get everyone around us to play a particular part, often something as simple as a 'prop' or stage set - a background, maybe, or a piece of furniture to be moved around.

How do people get to be this way, where we only see others in terms of their utility to us, rather than as people in their own right?

I'm not exempting myself from this way of behaving - I think I do it, too. But I think it's destructive and damaging - whenever I become aware of someone else doing it to me, I get angry. So I imagine that other people must feel the same way? Guess I dont' know.