Sociopath Community

I was moreso answering your questions, and everything you reiterated here I've responded to, but we can go to more depth. To me this is a case of someone having an issue with their bicycle and then another person arguing that the bicycle doesn't exist and that he should entertain the possibility that praying to the Mantis God will magically summon him a perfect bicycle from the Heavens and when he explains why he doesn't think it's about the bicycle not existing the other guy accuses him of dominating the discussion and saying he can't see the Mantis God unless he follows instructions and that he's arrogant and domineering and should be grateful to the Mantis God because only then will Mantis God give him what he wants, which is a bicycle that is not broken. And then when he prays to Mantis God, and nothinh happens, he insists that he still needs to pray to Mantis God. I do agree that looking for alternative explanations is a profitable route tk novelty, but not exploring things you've already explored.

Regarding what you wrote, I read what you said very carefully, and I tried to respond to all your points. So I'm honestly ssurprised you would say I didnt respond to you. If there's something specific that I didn't respond to, I'd love to know. I read your posts twice, and then took some time to digest, read it again, and then wrote a ton in direct response. I replied to the arrogance thing, the mensa thing, the adhd thing, the empty cup thing, the perspective thing, the dunner kruger bias thing, the why-no-other-smart-people-have-this-problem thing, the constructivist shared reality thing, the objectivity thing, the psychology/self bias thing, and many other points. I really don't see what I ignored, so help me out. Was it really just "no" that you got out of my posts? Am I really that bad at communicating?

I have addressed the whole intelligence is an independent variable thing. The whole epistemology rant was addressing that, entire 3 posts aimed at the overarching "how do you know it's not something else than intelligence?", because ultimately that question is an epistemological one in nature  but I also addressed the more specific "why is it that no other intelligent person has this problem" thing.

The other intelligent people thing I guess is more interesting, but I've already pointed out that there are other intelligent people who've said similar thing. It's hard to come up with a person who bitches so openly and shamelessly about it, but Jordan B. Peterson did do it, for example. However, this is a problem only the smartest people havw because the smarter you are the more towards the tail of the normal distribution you are and thus the rarer finding people smarter than you becomes. However, even for us at the tails, there are plenty of people who simply enjoy being smart. I don't. I want to surround myself with people smarter than me who can teach me. So why would all extremelt smart people nevessarily have the same problem as me? You can both be smart and not mind being the smartest in the room, figuring out all thr solutions yourself and watching people raise a statue in your honor.

Regarding the Mensa thing, if what you say is true, that the only thing you're suggesting is I try to surround myself with "geniuses", as in Mensa people, then would it change anything if I said that the typical PhD graduate on average already qualifies for Mensa, and less than 3% of those PhDs get tenured, and I interact with the top 5% of those people?

Regarding the adhd thing, what you're missing here is the fact that I am extremely mindful of and patient with other people IRL. You would enjoy talking with me. I talk slowly, I elaborate, and most of the time I teach. How much of the time do I let others control the conversation? I believe in socratic dialogue and constructivism, so I'd say about 80% of the time. That is, I let them.be in control.most of the time.

You're thinking that the fact that I feel unchallenged with having nobody who can teach me something I don't know is indication that I move in the conversation too quickly, whereas the root is moreso that the conversation needs to build up through 46 hours of lecture to get to where I am, on almost anything. It's not the speed of my brain that is the problem  but the fact that I've built my own mental framework through decades of study and thinking and questioning the world around me, while others were playing beer pong.

It's like someone saying that they feel isolated because nobody around them can speak French fluently and you suggesting that others actually can speak French fluebtly but that the guy's just too adhd because he says he needs to stick to very basic topics or teach people French which slows down everything.

People have different levels of knowledge and abilities to think.

I can see that my approach has rendered you increasingly defensive, which itself is not helpful when it comes to exploring beyond the known. This in turn has had you retreat into yourself for reference, and as a secondary factor I am also otherwise unable to match your energy today, as unlike people on the more hyperactive end I have limits.

While people within the ADD to ADHD range are gifted with speech as long as their attention span lasts, I am instead prone to waxing and waning between two different stages over how I woke up that day and over if anything made me tired surprisingly quickly. 

I'll try to respond tomorrow. 

In a rough skimming sense, you otherwise seem to think that your reason for being above others is because you read more books as if academics are all there is to life. Is that really a sensible litmus test when it comes to learning life experience? Have people without these books not lived a life of their own without it that otherwise serves as data over paths you could never take? 

You keep asking me to do the job for you when you say "help me out", but all I can do is give my own portrayal. If that is deemed beneath you or otherwise irrelevant there's little to nothing I can do, since appealing to you in such a case is over non-objective criteria. If none of this adds up to anything on your end I can't really fix that for you, nor is it my responsibility, as I am not the one living your life. If I can't happen to fall upon the very words you're looking for to find the change you need, at least you tried talking about it at all with someone. 

To be honest I just enjoy the room for conversation, and when I have the focus for it feel as if I am not wasting my time. The fact that I gain more from these discussions than you appear to has me feel kind of bad, but considering there is always something to learn from talking to people, as I've demonstrated with talks with people like Turquie, I otherwise through projection don't see that as my own fault. 

Jada said:

That is, I let them.be in control.most of the time.

Having the other person be the topic of discussion does not mean they are the one in control of the conversation. 

When otherwise uncomfortable, you force the conversation to reframe into how you'd prefer it go. Following that you complain about how you forced it to become predictable as if it's the other's fault, but to me it sounds more like you're finding yourself predictable while unable to escape yourself through them. It's a big world out there with people who have had experiences vastly different from your own, there's always more to learn if you are otherwise capable of it. 

In the past when people have pushed you to act outside of your own expectations, you retreat from the conversation, ridding you of wherever that might have gone as you reiterate who you "really are" to people. 

Okay I have miraculously found the focus, at least half-assed: 

I was moreso answering your questions, and everything you reiterated here I've responded to, but we can go to more depth. To me this is a case of someone having an issue with their bicycle and then another person arguing that the bicycle doesn't exist and that he should entertain the possibility that praying to the Mantis God will magically summon him a perfect bicycle from the Heavens and when he explains why he doesn't think it's about the bicycle not existing the other guy accuses him of dominating the discussion and saying he can't see the Mantis God unless he follows instructions and that he's arrogant and domineering and should be grateful to the Mantis God because only then will Mantis God give him what he wants, which is a bicycle that is not broken. And then when he prays to Mantis God, and nothinh happens, he insists that he still needs to pray to Mantis God. I do agree that looking for alternative explanations is a profitable route tk novelty, but not exploring things you've already explored.

This to me appears as more reframing as redirection, it has nothing to do with the actual topic. 

First it's teleporting chickens, now it's about a mantis god summoning a bike. Is it really that hard to stick to the subject matter directly? 

Regarding what you wrote, I read what you said very carefully, and I tried to respond to all your points. So I'm honestly ssurprised you would say I didnt respond to you. If there's something specific that I didn't respond to, I'd love to know. I read your posts twice, and then took some time to digest, read it again, and then wrote a ton in direct response. I replied to the arrogance thing, the mensa thing, the adhd thing, the empty cup thing, the perspective thing, the dunner kruger bias thing, the why-no-other-smart-people-have-this-problem thing, the constructivist shared reality thing, the objectivity thing, the psychology/self bias thing, and many other points. I really don't see what I ignored, so help me out. Was it really just "no" that you got out of my posts? Am I really that bad at communicating?

If my attempt to communicate with you otherwise did not end up communicated correctly over a pre-existing resistance of your own, don't worry about it. The effort on both of our parts is the part that actually matters, and perhaps with enough disconnected reinforcing elements working in tandem you may find what you're looking for. 

The text is still there, maybe it will mean something more later whether through your own revisiting or the room for it to be quoted, and if not that's fine too. 

I have addressed the whole intelligence is an independent variable thing. The whole epistemology rant was addressing that, entire 3 posts aimed at the overarching "how do you know it's not something else than intelligence?", because ultimately that question is an epistemological one in nature but I also addressed the more specific "why is it that no other intelligent person has this problem" thing.

Every time it's been about intelligence you've either repeated former general statements over yourself or found ways to change the focus. 

If you are unwilling to explore it being beyond your gifts for why you are cursed, then I can only do as much as I could for others who didn't want to hear otherwise. If you already know, then why are you asking questions? 

The other intelligent people thing I guess is more interesting, but I've already pointed out that there are other intelligent people who've said similar thing. It's hard to come up with a person who bitches so openly and shamelessly about it, but Jordan B. Peterson did do it, for example. However, this is a problem only the smartest people havw because the smarter you are the more towards the tail of the normal distribution you are and thus the rarer finding people smarter than you becomes. However, even for us at the tails, there are plenty of people who simply enjoy being smart. I don't. I want to surround myself with people smarter than me who can teach me.

So why would all extremelt smart people nevessarily have the same problem as me? You can both be smart and not mind being the smartest in the room, figuring out all thr solutions yourself and watching people raise a statue in your honor.

People can also be smart and not find themselves at a dead end in conversations, or otherwise have skill in not dominating the conversation as a need. 

It takes a certain sort of intelligence to find the novelty in others. If you lack a less-than-literal appraisal of life, I can see why this might be difficult for you. There are many forms of mental strength, and if this one is not one you have and it's not otherwise standing in the way of your ability to enjoy your life, then it's not really an issue. 

It's like how a genius in science might have bad kinesthetic processing. 
 

Regarding the Mensa thing, if what you say is true, that the only thing you're suggesting is I try to surround myself with "geniuses", as in Mensa people, then would it change anything if I said that the typical PhD graduate on average already qualifies for Mensa, and less than 3% of those PhDs get tenured, and I interact with the top 5% of those people?

It would let the situation posed earlier be able to be painted, which in itself could offer further data towards potentially contradicting your belief. 

Regarding the adhd thing, what you're missing here is the fact that I am extremely mindful of and patient with other people IRL.

You would enjoy talking with me. I talk slowly, I elaborate, and most of the time I teach.

Hmm, defensiveness is certainly something that should be addressed if it were a problem. You know, with us both saying no repeatedly to everything I wonder if we're falling into a pattern here?

Who knows, I can see the pattern, but I don't really mind it. To some extent, I'm purposely defensive and uncharitable because I think that too serves a purpose in reaching resolution, even if it's seen in a negative light, just like beinf angry or arrogant. If it's worth any consolation, I've taken today to reflect if I indeed do let people take control of the conversation and frame things in the way I like them.

Honestly it depends on the topic and on my mood, but I'd say it's an independent factor to all of this.

I've lived in Asia long enough to appreciate the confucius wisdom to let others talk in my stead, so especially by American standard you'd find me a very good listener. And by American standards you'd say I'm not very outspoken. I think you imagine I am a very different person than I actually am. Have you met anyone from Finland before?

When I have the pleasure of being in the company of someone particularly intelligent from South East Asia and among a group of people from US and Europe I usually get this feeling that is only shared by the Asian person next to me. Dominance in conversation is collectively paid significant attention to by South East Asians. 

I would recommend googling about Finnish culture, because it's rather Asian when it comes to sense of humility and listening. We're all introverts and don't want to bother other people... And we accommodate other people at our own peril, and do so genuinely and not just for the looks. Just google "Finnish business etiquete, interrupting sentences and listening" or something. It's a real thing. In fact, I had to get used to interrupting people more in the US because people used to be put off by how intently I listened to them.

What I think you might be referring to is this topic, which is very much about me. However, this is an exception rather than the rule, because I chose to be selfish this one time instead of letting it be about Med and others, because I was depressed.

I do 'learn' from others in the same way you do. However, what I'm learning is not for the most part particularly insightful on an intellectual level. I'm also horribly afraid of inflicting similar existential angst on other people that I rather shut up about existential questions most of the time, except in the presence of people I think can handle it. I'd say that is a serious limitation for me, as I am unable to be selfish, and in that regard just venting here about the problem has eased the burden quite significantly, even if I didn't quite get what I was looking for, so thanks for that.

Jada said:

Hmm, defensiveness is certainly something that should be addressed if it were a problem. You know, with us both saying no repeatedly to everything I wonder if we're falling into a pattern here?

I'm not really saying "no" beyond your presumption of not having a faster brain. By comparison I am doing a "this tells me" approach, expressing a separation between how it appears and what you seem to believe, as a commentary on your own responses, while comparatively you are shooting down ideas. 

While you continue to remain stuck in this idea it can only be this one answer, an answer that does not conform towards all with the same situation, I am attempting to explore other ideas like ADD to expand the brainstorming radius beyond your preset boundaries. That being said, if you are comfortable with your personal truth then I don't see why you are still exploring this, there are plenty of people even on this forum who are content accepting themselves as the smartest person in the room so why not you too? Surely multiple people feeling alone for the same reason could find solace in eachother, unless it's otherwise something else going on. 

If you don't like my views, you are free to disregard them, but it's effectively me saying "well what about" while you don't feel like exploring it. From my own POV at least when I find myself in shoes similar to your own right now I am still typically curious what led to that impression out of them, and with enough data I can find it easier to ask myself more questions. 

Who knows, I can see the pattern, but I don't really mind it. To some extent, I'm purposely defensive and uncharitable because I think that too serves a purpose in reaching resolution, even if it's seen in a negative light, just like beinf angry or arrogant.

It keeps every potential answer that could be explored surface level and denied, I don't really see what you'd gain from it beyond me posing more potential guesses from your words that you'd just as quickly deny. Again, if I continued to do this there'd be a lot of things I've learned that I'd instead still be insisting is wrong for areas like Symbology and Astrology. 

The approach has me thinking you aren't really exploring answers so much as looking for confirmation, and through that lack of exploration and the presumption of pre-knowing that you will only find what you've already sought over and over again. 

You pose that it is because you are intelligent, and when presented other possibilities you repeat the same tired one like you struggle with imagination and brainstorming. If you're truly concerned that your intelligence is making you lonely, cannot drop the fixation on it, and don't plan on testing this idea of yours with anything new, then why not do something to temporarily inhibit your intelligence as a test that you've tried before like alcohol to see if it suddenly fixes the issue? 

Tryp seems to complain in a similar light when he lets himself speak from the heart, maybe you ought to talk to him about this. While he and I may not always see eye to eye, I would by comparison to you say he is a better listener in spite of his belief of being one of the smartest in the room persisting similarly to your own, offering a differing model from your own version. 

I've lived in Asia long enough to appreciate the confucius wisdom to let others talk in my stead, so especially by American standard you'd find me a very good listener.

Why do you figure this would only translate IRL, and not here? What do you figure would be making for that offset? 

I tend to find a lot of commonalities between typing style and IRL behavior, and meeting people IRL has further refined the room to make comparisons. It'd be strange to appear hyperactive online, yet patient and measured in person yes? 

So far you have not given me the impression of a "good listener", but rather of a "patient participant". When you could be looking at their minds, you instead look to yourself for reference, so of course everything you're "hearing" feels unoriginal over how you're moreover listening to other people as a prompt to get your own mind going. 

And by American standards you'd say I'm not very outspoken.

Less that and more your inability to bridge meaningfully with people, alongside your own safety concerns, keeps you distant in ways others aren't, which in turn robs you of things others who take more risks are gaining from it. 

Rather than refine your own strategies and let others in, you seem comfortable blaming those around you for not living up to your standard. This is something I see a remarkable amount of people doing, it's surprisingly common across people, which in turn makes it seem increasingly absurd and more likely a demonstration of ego compensation over charisma and listening struggles. 

I think you imagine I am a very different person than I actually am. Have you ever met anyone from Finland?

When I have the pleasure of being in the company of someone particularly intelligent from South East Asia and among a group of people from US and Europe I usually get this feeling that is only shared by the Asian person next to me. Dominance in conversation is collectively paid significant attention to by South East Asians. 

I would recommend googling about Finnish culture, because it's rather Asian when it comes to sense of humility and listening. We're all introverts and don't want to bother other people... And we accommodate other people at our own peril, and do so genuinely and not just for the looks. Just google "Finnish business etiquete, interrupting sentences and listening" or something. It's a real thing. In fact, I had to get used to interrupting people more in the US because people used to be put off by how intently I listened to them.

What I think you might be referring to is this topic, which is very much about me. However, this is an exception rather than the rule, because I chose to be selfish this one time instead of letting it be about Med and others, because I was depressed.

In general from past talks I've seen you have, you to me appeared to be aiming to dominate the structure of the discussion so that it'd go within your formulas, rather than allowing the conversation to flow naturally. 

While this has it's purpose in more academic areas, like your debate with Inquirer where there was an Objectivity to seek out, it becomes less helpful when otherwise trying to see beyond the walls you've built around yourself. Rather than exploring beyond those walls, you'd prefer people walk into your own and follow your rules, then complain when others don't follow them well enough as if it's over your own genius rather than your rigidity being potentially culprit. 

I do 'learn' from others in the same way you do.

I instead see you either acting as if someone else, without much heart or method behind it, to try to get more blood out of the same stones, or you act as yourself with a sense of streamlining and bullet pointing that robs you of subtext, much like your complaints earlier about how Acting or Depth in media does not grip you. 

From my experiences with you, rather than allow them the autonomy of a peer in most cases you'd sooner have yourself act differently to test their reactions. This still demonstrates a need to control the perimeters of the conversation rather than allow others to do so in your stead, which in turn will take some of the novelty out of your journey by having your life's authoring have less collaboration. 

Do I really seem like I'm either an introvert angry at the world not letting me speak, spewing hyperactively on the web rants about airheads, or a cruel domineering person who can't see past the logical structures that confine me to autistic NPC type dialogues and hyperconstructivism? The picture you have of me sounds awful. Most people seem think I'm a very pleasant person to interact with and a good listener, and they tend to be very grateful to me, but maybe they're faking it?

I'll reply in detail.

Jada said:

However, what I'm learning is not for the most part particularly insightful on an intellectual level. I'm also horribly afraid of inflicting similar existential angst on other people that I rather shut up about existential questions most of the time, except in the presence of people I think can handle it. I'd say that is a serious limitation for me, as I am unable to be selfish, and in that regard just venting here about the problem has eased the burden quite significantly, even if I didn't quite get what I was looking for, so thanks for that.

Or is your choosing to keep that to yourself as to not have to deal with them flipping out you looking to avoid blame and avoid them acting outside of your controlled conditions, thereby rendering it Selfish? 

Had to move this line further down from the other post, adding like two lines of text somehow had the post jump in character count. 

Jada said: 

Do I really seem like I'm either an introvert angry at the world not letting me speak, spewing hyperactively on the web rants about airheads, or a cruel domineering person who can't see past the logical structures that confine me to autistic NPC type dialogues and hyperconstructivism? 

I didn't say that you were angry or cruel, nor did I make it out to be something this hyperbolic. Control needs tend to be about a sense of safety. 

All of this from questioning if you have some problems common within hyperactivity. You even yourself mentioned how often you feel as if you have to slow down to match the other's pace. 

The picture you have of me sounds awful.

Suddenly reminded of a quote from Firefly: 

Mal: You might maybe make yourself useful.

Jayne: Come again?

Mal: The management here don’t take too kindly to sightseers, but that’s why we’re posing as buyers. There ain’t a one of us looks the part more than the good doctor. The pretty fits, soft hands, definitely a monied individual. All rich and lily-white, pasty all over—

Simon: Alright! Fine. I’ll go. Just stop describing me.

Words that describe someone are often not too flattering, and when neutered into a kinder form it tends to ignore a lot of the situation. That being said, it often offends more if there's some tether connecting an aspect of it to that person than if it came completely out of left field. 

That being said the words themselves aren't meant to be insulting, at least not any more than words I'd use towards anyone else. How is someone supposed to mention another's hyperactivity symptoms without sounding like they're saying unfun things, by sticking to only the positives? 

I'm sure if Sherlock Holmes described people to their face in real life that he'd have a few black eyes, even with his understanding in pugilism. 

Most people seem think I'm a very pleasant person to interact with and a good listener, and they tend to be very grateful to me, but maybe they're faking it?

Having me go with this premise is asking me to take at your word how others I haven't met are seeing you. 

You asked me regarding what I know about the usual response to anyone thinking they are smart. I've wanted to see how people react to arrogant, stupid, philosophical, logical, etc, so I have a fair grasp by now what ths usual reaction is when someone claims to be smart. In most cases it warrants a response that attempts to put you in your place at any cost. So that's why just like you speculate, based on your lived experience, that the reason that I'm defensive over your unflattering description of me is because it's true, I know what motivates the kind of adamant denial that I'm witnessing here. It's true I'm saying my problem's because I'm smart, while you seem adamant on anything but. So we're both really in the same boat. I don't really agree that you perspective-taking my reality would.be completely useless, since as you've said your experiences are different than mine and so you could potentially offer real insight.

Place yourself in the boots of.someone who is smart enough to be intellectually isolated from the rest of the world. Is that possible for you to imagine? I've never had your lived experience and so I can't know. But I'd be curious to know if you spent some time really imagining it, what you would see, or if it's just so disconnected from your reality that you can't even imagine it.

I think you're right on the account that due to my.self awareness I tend to be in.control.most of.the time. Booze does help with that, as you suggested, but the whole.thing is entirely uncorrelated with my problem. The control.thing is not.intentional, its more that I see where it's going and I can choose to put it on a certain path or do nothing. Nothing I do probes what I would call nonlinear thinking, except with very few people, not even pointing out all the ways in which their thinking is linear and predicting what they're doing out loud, hoping they'd go against their programming. But alas, they don't. We're all just sophisticated machines, and most people live their life in zombie.mode. So what can I do? I can't not know how.my actions affect people and my own emotional state.

I'd say that you too feel in control of this situation which allows you to negotiate with me despite you stating that I unconducively shoot down your ideas. I'd say it's more the fact that I am doubtful and unwilling to explore.your suggestions that makes you feel at ease because you feel like you understamd why. Most people are calmed by defensive and angry responses. If you ever find someone suffering from a panic attack, blame them angrily for wasting your time and watch them calm down. I guess I don't usually talk about this stuff because it makes people guess my motivation and sincerity and I think that's the only thing that stabs me to the core. Someone assuming I'm insincere when I am sincere.

I didn't really get the thing you said about you having to take my word on how others see me. I'm telling it the way i see it. If you don't believe it there's not much I can do I guess. But then our two realities are pretty disconnected aren't they?

Jada said:

It's true I'm saying my problem's because I'm smart, while you seem adamant on anything but. So we're both really in the same boat.

I'm adamant about exploring possibilities, while you are adamant that it could only be one thing. 

The control.thing is not.intentional, its more that I see where it's going and I can choose to put it on a certain path or do nothing.

I tend to hear this the most out of mentally hyperactive people, a sense that the hyper person can do what the "slower" person is doing faster in their own head over how predictable it seems. When asked to recount what they've heard though it tends to show errors backed by prior knowledge. 

Also true out of hyperactivity is a need to feel like they're "moving", rather than staying in place to focus on something. Rather than focus on their own speed, many find it easier to externalize that blame to being about the larger world as if "the world is slow" or dumb or whatever else word can be substituted for this angst. 

The need for control tends to be automatic rather than intentional, even in other forms, as said need for control much like the urgency to speak at all denotes a discomfort with things as they are. If they were comfortable with how things were they would feel no desire to change it. 

So what can I do? 

If you're asking me, rather than generally, then I feel I have given a fair amount of advice. 

I can't not know how.my actions affect people and my own emotional state.

Actually that can prove remarkably easy to do when it comes to someone's own emotional state. 

I'd say that you too feel in control of this situation which allows you to negotiate with me despite you stating that I unconducively shoot down your ideas.

Is brainstorming an attempt at control, especially brainstorming that by design is meant to be over to the other person rather than myself? 

You're the judge and jury here, not me. 

I'd say it's more the fact that I am doubtful and unwilling to explore.your suggestions that makes you feel at ease because you feel like you understamd why.

Yet I am willing to keep exploring while you remain exactly where you began. 

Which would seem more productive if this scenario recreated itself out of two strangers? 

Most people are calmed by defensive and angry responses. If you ever find someone suffering from a panic attack, blame them angrily for wasting your time and watch them calm down.

Only if it confirms for themselves that "they are not the angry one" in a dialogue, which only applies for people with that presumption weighing themselves down. 

I also don't see how that'd help a panic attack, it'd be raising their blood pressure. 

I guess I don't usually talk about this stuff because it makes people guess my motivation and sincerity and I think that's the only thing that stabs me to the core. Someone assuming I'm insincere when I am sincere.

No worries there, I'm sure you already know my opinions on your sincerity. 

I didn't really get the thing you said about you having to take my word on how others see me.

For me to use that as data, I'd need to see the ones in question. On it's own I just know you believe that, or that it was otherwise convenient to say it for the conversation to go where you wanted it to. 

But then our two realities are pretty disconnected aren't they?

Everything's connected, yet it is the tendency of people to insist they are separate. 

Everything about us when split into bits and pieces are individually matchable to somewhere else, which offers comparisons as a guide over those distinctions, but those distinctions don't disconnect us so much as throw roadblocks at communication.