Turn about is fair play
May. 30th, 2022 07:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenstormIf Tucker and Josh read this they're gonna laugh, but: being close with an external processor is a whole skillset, isn't it? It's been a long time since I've spent much time with anyone who talks things through in order to think things through. That's how I operate; I talk my way through things, and so during talking I will catastrophize a bit and then rule catastrophe out, explore unlikely best-case scenarios, run through what-ifs, say all the things folks don't normally admit to and then release those feelings by talking. It's a big lift for my partners; they need to withhold belief and judgement because in working my way towards my correct actions and moderated feelings I pass through all this intense and ridiculous, off-the-wall talking.
That kind of talking needs to be set apart from the decision-making, relationship-navigating logistics discussions. It needs to be set apart from statements of intent and action; it needs to never be confused with clear communication of emotion.
So for anything to be successful there needs to be a way to differentiate and properly contextualize the difference between "this is new to me, I need to talk it out" and "this is new to me: here's my final response". There'll be cues involved; I suspect mine are talking quickly and continuously, using lots of what-ifs and eventualities in the conversation, not settling on any one particular scenario but instead flitting around. When my scenarios start to converge with likely reality, and when I start connecting potential multiple responses to scenarios ("well if that... then I could") then I'm likely coming down out of exploratory processing space.
And none of that knowledge works if it's not put into practice; I guess a check when a conversation starts to lift off of likely reality and get a bit wobbly is good practice anyhow. I've definitely been reliant on my partners to make that assessment and catch a conversation early on; it's a part of situational awareness that's not well-developed for me. Wherever this settles, that is a skill I would do well to pick up.
The danger with two external processors in a conversation is the tendency to spiral, for one person to pick up the most extreme part of the sensitivity analysis and iterate on that with their own most extreme version. It's easy to get so far away from reality that it's not actually processing, but is just digging a hole. So for me it's extra important to honour someone else's processing space instead of reflexively processing their processing at the same time.
I'm also super grateful I've had partners willing to hold space while I did so much of his work myself. It means that when I can't, when I don't have anyone to talk to for situational reasons, I've already had a chance to work through my needs and boundaries in similar situations and I have a body of experience to rely on.
Oof. Okay. This new thing has taken up some bandwidth lately. Today is a gorgeous day out. Time to shift some energy back to my garden. The tiller hasn't arrived yet but I guess it's just time to improvise-- just as soon as I'm done this workday. Oof.
And maybe time to think about setting an alarm to be sure I'm asleep on time. This sleep deficit has done from something to be tolerated to actively interfering.
That kind of talking needs to be set apart from the decision-making, relationship-navigating logistics discussions. It needs to be set apart from statements of intent and action; it needs to never be confused with clear communication of emotion.
So for anything to be successful there needs to be a way to differentiate and properly contextualize the difference between "this is new to me, I need to talk it out" and "this is new to me: here's my final response". There'll be cues involved; I suspect mine are talking quickly and continuously, using lots of what-ifs and eventualities in the conversation, not settling on any one particular scenario but instead flitting around. When my scenarios start to converge with likely reality, and when I start connecting potential multiple responses to scenarios ("well if that... then I could") then I'm likely coming down out of exploratory processing space.
And none of that knowledge works if it's not put into practice; I guess a check when a conversation starts to lift off of likely reality and get a bit wobbly is good practice anyhow. I've definitely been reliant on my partners to make that assessment and catch a conversation early on; it's a part of situational awareness that's not well-developed for me. Wherever this settles, that is a skill I would do well to pick up.
The danger with two external processors in a conversation is the tendency to spiral, for one person to pick up the most extreme part of the sensitivity analysis and iterate on that with their own most extreme version. It's easy to get so far away from reality that it's not actually processing, but is just digging a hole. So for me it's extra important to honour someone else's processing space instead of reflexively processing their processing at the same time.
I'm also super grateful I've had partners willing to hold space while I did so much of his work myself. It means that when I can't, when I don't have anyone to talk to for situational reasons, I've already had a chance to work through my needs and boundaries in similar situations and I have a body of experience to rely on.
Oof. Okay. This new thing has taken up some bandwidth lately. Today is a gorgeous day out. Time to shift some energy back to my garden. The tiller hasn't arrived yet but I guess it's just time to improvise-- just as soon as I'm done this workday. Oof.
And maybe time to think about setting an alarm to be sure I'm asleep on time. This sleep deficit has done from something to be tolerated to actively interfering.
