I want some unbiased opinions so I will try to write this from a third person perspective.

There are two friends and they have the kind of relationship where they are open about everything and talk about everything. You could say that it’s similar in its depth to a familial relationship or a partnership. We will cal them friend X and friend S.

X is going through a lot and therefore is emotionally overwhelmed at times. S is also going through a lot, but not nearly to the same degree. Both friends are neurodivergent (adhd) but friend S is neurodivergent in a way that is probably more problematic for social interactions.

Both friends mostly interact over text, which S claims is a medium that lacks the nuance of other conversational mediums such as voice, video or real life. Friend X is prone to outbursts of rage over text and Friend S believes that this is because the medium lacks the nuance that could indicate for Friend S that Friend X is about to burst and therefore change their behavior.

I’m sorry that this is kind of dry and robotic, but I really want to get an unbiased perspective, which is very hard when you write things in your own words.

Now here is the issue. When X bursts, S usually would apologize but try to indicate that the conversation lacked the nuance that was needed to understand that this is an explosive topic. And friend x has in the past said that they will try to be clear about how they feel before reaching the point of an outburst.

X doesn’t accept this argument and ends up blaming S for lacking emotional intelligence. S on the other hand feels that accusing them of being emotionally unintelligent is insulting and unproductive, while X claims that saying that is just defensive and avoiding responsibility.

You don’t have to say who is right or wrong in this situation, but I would like to understand if calling someone emotionally unintelligent can be productive or is it just straight up like calling them dumb as they might claim.