Wait what? He’s saying that allistics don’t understand when I say “let me back up…” that I’m backing up to try to clarify the misunderstanding we’re having?
I don’t think it’s limited to that specific phrase, rather the whole idea of some of us reasoning that we can discuss from a “third” perspective or just not engaging in the subject at hand without felling tied to coming back right at it. Clarification it’s not within that concept.
But like, there’s so much implied understanding of this concept in our language, our idioms and cliches etc.
“You need to get some perspective”
“I’d appreciate your perspective on this”
“It would be good to hear an outside perspective”
(I don’t think I’m making these up, imagining their common turns of phrase)
I think I’m misunderstanding his point probably. He’s not saying that allistics can’t or that they aren’t able to conceive the idea of it, rather he’s saying that allistics often don’t notice that we’ve made the perspective switch when we do?
We perhaps do it so often and so fluidly (or in my case probably with no more substantial a skip or conversational hiccup than is ordinary in my speech) … -so often or so fluidly that others tend not to notice whatever we think we’ve used as a sufficient cue to designate the back-stage explanation.
don’t notice that we’ve made the perspective switch when we do?
Precisely.
whatever we think we’ve used as a sufficient cue
I don’t even do that. I just straight up switch to back stage. I noticed it can be really annoying and sometimes upsetting but I always thought it was because of the other party engagement skills. Ofc I’m the one with a bizarre skill. Lmao.
Right, I honestly couldn’t define any cue really that I use. Maybe a change in my voice? But yeah, I often use it and the person I speak to often stares long and asks what.
Wait what? He’s saying that allistics don’t understand when I say “let me back up…” that I’m backing up to try to clarify the misunderstanding we’re having?
I don’t think it’s limited to that specific phrase, rather the whole idea of some of us reasoning that we can discuss from a “third” perspective or just not engaging in the subject at hand without felling tied to coming back right at it. Clarification it’s not within that concept.
Right, not limited to that phrase
But like, there’s so much implied understanding of this concept in our language, our idioms and cliches etc.
“You need to get some perspective” “I’d appreciate your perspective on this” “It would be good to hear an outside perspective” (I don’t think I’m making these up, imagining their common turns of phrase)
I think I’m misunderstanding his point probably. He’s not saying that allistics can’t or that they aren’t able to conceive the idea of it, rather he’s saying that allistics often don’t notice that we’ve made the perspective switch when we do?
We perhaps do it so often and so fluidly (or in my case probably with no more substantial a skip or conversational hiccup than is ordinary in my speech) … -so often or so fluidly that others tend not to notice whatever we think we’ve used as a sufficient cue to designate the back-stage explanation.
Precisely.
I don’t even do that. I just straight up switch to back stage. I noticed it can be really annoying and sometimes upsetting but I always thought it was because of the other party engagement skills. Ofc I’m the one with a bizarre skill. Lmao.
Right, I honestly couldn’t define any cue really that I use. Maybe a change in my voice? But yeah, I often use it and the person I speak to often stares long and asks what.