Curious

You seem to almost necessitate rigid and explicit definitions for the terminology we throw around here carelessly. Would you like me to write up a subpage for the policy that defines these terms as those of us with more empathetic experience (I really mean no offense here, sorry) interpret them?

If it would benefit you for me to do so, and if it would make these longwinded discussions smoother, I would gladly do so.

Regards. :]

You are probably being sarcastic but if you really do want to do so go ahead, the more clear basic law is the better.

Of course not, I'm legitimately trying to reach out.

Despite the insults and hatred constantly hurled into your face I have to wonder if you still remain unaware just how many people ask me to ban you. I've even seen offsite commentary saying that you're the reason we don't have as many editors as we could. Now, I'm not telling you this to upset you but I want you to realize the reality of the situation. There is a pervasive issue here and I'm afraid saying that it's everyone else isn't going to fly.

I've spent the day reviewing your communications and I've realized the major issue here. You're not a bad editor, your arguments are fairly solid from your own frame of reference despite the unadmitted flipflopping on occasion, and you're not really breaking any rules or anything. The issue is that of communication ability, and that is specifically empathy. You regard everything on a very technical basis, a basis that most people don't care about. You have this propensity to communicate specifically but on definitions that are so thorough that they're unseen by others. This isn't a good thing, of course!! Communication is intended to convey your thoughts to the listeners, not to raise yourself above them by saying such things as "it's their fault if they don't understand." You are missing this secondary layer of implication and inference, emotions and empathy, and many other secondary cues. This is a layer that other people are using. They are able to assume a certain level of understanding between participants that you strive to define in order to be able to clearly understand a situation.

It isn't a bad way to think, I'm not trying to mock or judge you, but most people aren't capable of working with it. It's my job to facilitate an environment in which all parties can successfully discuss issues and come to real conclusions, and to also work together in a productive way. Though it's not right for Nise/Yinato et al to rag on you as much as they do, it is actually an expected response to this wall between you and other contributors. I don't want to be presumptive on why this wall exists but I have a good idea. Nonetheless, me be willing and capable, I want to help you break down this wall so that you can become a valued and respected contributor.

What do you say?

Oh, I'm sorry then for suggesting you were being sarcastic. I'm just so used to negative feedback particularly from this website, I guess I've kind of numbed down to it and convinced myself to just deal with it. I am surprised you took the time to analyze me, and most if not all of what you've concluded is probably true.

Throughout my life, I've learned to over-intellectualize things (intellectualize in the Psychological tense), which in turn makes it difficult for me to balance trying to be convincing and trying to be rational to those who do not try to do so as well. I find difficulty in dealing with the relational dimension, especially in text based communication. I want to change, but usually when I do attempt to, not necessarily from this website, people often ridicule the attempt more than the unfavorable state. Like people like polar opposites which I've spent my life finding to be meaningless restrictions we place down just to make things comfortable, wanting everyone to confirm to these norms. To me, this sounds very disturbing. Comfort is not everything and I think expression is more important, but people try to achieve expression by forcing comfort which means halting expression which is downright confusing. I want to change the way I think, but I also don't want to think like that, so I'm faced with reluctance to change as well. I also do not think it is right to force or even ask others to change they way they are, so I'm not entirely sure how to make the two compatible. And even the times I did try to change, I do not know how to. I have no guidelines to go by and to me, the first step is always defining the parameters.

I am willing to accept help if you are willing to offer. Do you have any advice for what I should do and possibly how?

Edit: And no, I was aware that there was negative feedback of me but I did not realize people were actually calling for banning me.

I have a couple responses to this.

1) I feel like overanalyzing things and trying to ascertain some sort of really explicit definition for everything is exactly the act of tying yourself down and escaping the expression you claim to pursue.

2) I don't want you to change yourself as a person, and that's not anything someone can ask of you. However, I can ask you to change the way in which you communicate. Norms are created so that humans have a protocol by which they can interact, coexist, and work together. The norms in question (ie. not one's like having to be straight or whatever; rather just norms of actual communication, like conciseness) exist to facilitate peaceful interaction. Comfortability is actually very important. Even if you're challenging someone's opinion, even if you're arguing, you will generally want to do so in a way that makes the person feel comfortable - thereby not on edge, angry, spiteful, etc - so that they can clearly see your point of view and you can discuss the matter like mature adults. People use confrontation and emotional ploys for the express purpose of making people not see their argument rationally. So if your goal is in fact rationality, I would suggest approaching discussion in a more courteous manner, so that all parties can be rational. The goal of proper discussion is to really consider the other person, after all.

I don't really have a gameplan for you offhand, and I'm too busy to put one together for now; but if you want to look over your recent discussions and try to notate where you felt like someone wasn't understanding you, or where someone claimed you weren't understanding them, I can help you sieve through them.

I just have one question for now, how can someone stop overanalyzing? If you're overanalyzing and are trying to stop overanalyzing, you just end up overanalyzing overanalysis. To me it feels like asking someone to not think about elephants, the only way out I can think of stopping is to distract yourself and not deal with thinking about it, but if instead of thinking about elephants it is something important, then you just stop attempting to make progress. And I just realized I was probably overanalyzing while I was writing this.

I think that it's because you like things acutely defined. When you encounter a situation you seem to have to understand a lot about the situation, by eg. proposing hypotheticals. Your overanalysis comes from this sort of need. The one thing I really think you need to do is trusting your raw emotions a bit more.

At a subconscious level, you likely understand a situation already, but to verify its truthiness as it were, you analyze it to bring it into your conscious mind. This manifests in things like hypotheticals, devil's advocation, and so forth so as to bring about an all-encompassing understanding.

What you need to realize is that you don't need this. That feeling you had initially is enough. Generally, you can just trust it. Sometimes there will be mistakes, and then you can ask for clarification and fill that little bit with the missing information.* When you come to have a good understanding of the human experience, your gut will be correct more often, and you can come to be more comfortable interacting with others, because you begin to understand what makes people feel one way, or what it is that can mark different forms of expression like sarcasm and irony vs. direct speech; and you can learn when each is appropriate.

*Here is a point where you're currently erring a lot. Over time, you've encountered a lot of situations with gaps. However, instead of asking, you've tried to fill in the gaps with your logical analysis. Many of the times, you've filled this in with incorrect assumptions that still make sense, and have solidified these in your mind as relateable fact when it isn't. After doing so, you've probably forgotten what you've even done this for. Now, when you communicate based on these wrong foundations, people get upset, judge you, etc.

So what it comes down to is feeling. When you read something (that's communication, rather than say a wiki article), the intention is to evoke a certain feeling. You can't treat these words like they're written law, picking apart their technical meanings to identify the legality of the sentence. Because in the end, the person who wrote it didn't do that, they simply wanted to get a point across, to share a feeling of theirs with you, and that is what you need to focus on reading.