Many times I’ve known people and they have simply stopped talking to me and returning my calls/texts/IMs. I am given to understand that this means they don’t want to talk to me, and that this is a generally effective strategy.
However I have never been in a position (a) where I didn’t want to talk to someone ever again, or (b) in which I wouldn’t just tell them that I wasn’t really interested in talking at the time for [Reason].
Whenever I think about this overmuch I feel like I should ask these people why they aren’t responding to me at all… but they only ever respond by (a) not talking to me or (b) getting very upset, so I have stopped asking.
Has anyone here ever purposefully stopped talking to or responding to someone they know? Can you describe the the thought process behind it?
EDIT: In particular I’m interested in why one would stop talking to a person without some kind of explanation or at least statement. For example (Warning fuzzy details) I once went on a date with someone, and we made plans for another date (there was back and forth), then never heard from the person again, even after a few prompts. While I understand what this means, I don’t understand why one wouldn’t say “I’m not interested in seeing you any more.” Or at least some common stand-in like “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy.” My leading hypothesis is that I have an abnormal desire for closure.
I have frequently stopped responding to people because I failed to respond immediately, and then forgot that the conversation existed. I have no idea how common this is.
I do the same thing. With the added effect that if I do notice the conversation after a while, I still fail to respond. The reason is that at that point, if I were to reply I would have to start with an apology like “Sorry it took so long to respond, I forgot / I don’t think this conversation is that important / I am a lazy bastard”. I don’t want to do that, so it’s best not to respond at all.
Yes, I know this is a stupid bias. Maybe I should try to fix myself. Any suggestions?
Not a bias, just a desire to avoid projecting low status.
duckduckMOO’s suggestions amount to spinning the situation in a status neutral way. I find that I can spin almost anything I do as status neutral if I think for a little bit.
I’ve done this before, but usually they try again, and I make sure to respond the second time. I have trouble imagining friends braking contact because of one forgotten message.
It’s been my experience that people who want a reason for disengagement primarily want that reason so they can argue it is incorrect or can be overcome.
Nothing I can think of. All assurances to the contrary have ended up trojan horses. Social interactions are complicated. Full and unilateral disengagement is extremely low cost and high success rate.
To answer this more generally, instead of in example form people often have anxiety around social interactions particularly those they anticipate to be uncomfortable, conflict-ridden or dramatic. In a dating context (which is usually when this sort of thing happens, in my experience, but maybe you have something different in mind) it is usually a way to cease dating or flirting with someone without having to explain to them that you aren’t interested. It avoids the tension involved in waiting for the person to react, the drama of any fallout and the awkwardness of spending any time interacting with them after you’ve dumped them.
While I understand that this is an effective strategy, I don’t understand what makes people choose not to respond at all rather than just saying “I’m not interested.”
A possibility I’m considering is that I have an abnormally large desire for explicit closure. This also fits with my enjoyment of (or at least lack of being bothered by) anvilicious political points and technical digressions in science fiction.
Regarding your desire for explicit closure: I don’t personally feel that explicit closure is actually possible in most cases. I will give you my personal “case studies” to help illustrate my thought process, since I seem to be the kind of person you don’t understand.
I had a friend who was flakey and unreliable. I stopped contacting and responding to him after we agreed to meet somewhere and he never showed up, and gave no explanation. My thought process, insofar as I explicitly reasoned it out, was: The emotional cost (and “status” cost) of further incidences like this is greater than any conceivable value this friendship may have had. I do not want to repair the friendship, so there is no point in telling this person what they did wrong. I have no realistic hope that they will amend their pattern of behavior. So, I will terminate all contact without explanation.
I’ve had at least a couple of friends with whom interactions became increasingly argumentative and critical and decreasingly positive and fun who I just stopped responding to because I could think of no affirmative reason to respond.
I had a friend who I discovered had been very deceptive towards me. In this case I told her why I was terminating contact and then terminated contact. Frankly the only reason I told her the reason was because I was angry and wanted to hurt her feelings. My normal impulse would have been to just “disappear.”
It is interesting that both you (magfrump) and I seem to both be committing Typical Mind fallacies in how we expect other people to react to our actions. I see ceasing contact without explanation as the default course of action, and you see providing an explanation as the default course of action, and we misunderstand other people who have different default responses. I see now that my policy in the past has not been rational. Whether I am capable of meaningfully updating on this is a different question.
It is interesting that both you (magfrump) and I seem to both be committing Typical Mind fallacies
This is kind of the point of the whole thread :P
And while I, personally, am annoyed by lack of closure, there have been numerous practical reasons not to explain oneself which are both understandable to me and quite rational. Though if you know the person will take your response in good faith, I would (acausally via symmetry with similar agents) appreciate that.
There are some people I don’t engage with because I don’t expect my engagement to leave either of us better off than my non-engagement.
There are many people I don’t engage with because I don’t expect their response to my engagement to leave me better off than their response to my non-engagement and I don’t much care about how it leaves them.
The sets of circumstances that leads me to those expectations and those values are many and varied, and I don’t know how I could begin to summarize the general case.
There are some people I engage with regularly, either because I expect doing so to leave us better off (for example, because I ordinarily enjoy interacting with them, or we can learn something from one another, or etc.) or because I’ve gotten into the habit and have not yet really noticed that our interactions are no longer providing value, or because I fear the costs of breaking contact are more than I want to pay in the short term despite probably leaving me better off in the long term.
Again, the set of circumstances that can lead me to those expectations are many and varied.
Ah, right. Sorry, I lost sight of your original context.
Hm.
There are people I’ve disengaged with, to whom I’ve never announced disengagement, because I expect the costs of that announcement to be high. For example, I expect them to respond by demanding further explanations for my decision, and then respond to that by explaining why my reasons for disengaging aren’t actually justified, and so on and so forth.
There are people I’ve disengaged with, to whom I’ve never announced disengagement, because it has seemed rude. That is, quietly ending an interaction is one thing, but saying “I’m not going to interact with you any more” has felt (in those contexts) like adding insult to injury.
So, turning those around… I guess the thing that would cause me to respond in this sense is being asked for such an explanation, in a context that makes me confident that the explanation will be accepted. (E.g., “Do you want to continue this conversation? It’s fine if you don’t, I’m just trying to establish whether we’re having a very slow conversation or not having a conversation at all.”)
I think some of it is a fear that the other person will take being told “I don’t want contact with you” as evidence that the person is still on speaking terms with them.
I guess I’m volunteering to answer these things, heh. Well, other people need to answer these things too, right?
Well, so I did stop talking to my most recent ex-boyfriend. The thing was that after our relationship ended many of my friends confided in me that he and I were of vastly different social statuses, and that our relationship had lowered their opinion of my status.
Then, some months later, he returned some of the things he had of mine, and during that meeting he was exceptionally creepy. I realized that talking to him further would only increase the creepiness, and so I stopped talking to him altogether. Most recently, he replied to a throwaway tweet of mine, and I intend not to respond to it because it’s still clear that he’s still seeking a relationship I’m no longer interested in.
This leaves me with more questions, but they are more specific, so yay!
So I can definitely understand not hanging out with or regularly talking to someone after a break-up, and I can understand that if people don’t like him, not wanting to just say that. (Though from the other side I would prefer to hear it)
On the other hand, if he seems creepy or has crossed motives, these seem like things that you could say explicitly. In your situation I wouldn’t offer this information unprompted, but if he asked would you proffer it?
It saddens me to think that the social groups of people I’m thinking of thought of me as low status, but I’ll update towards that for now.
Also none of this really gets to the heart of what I’m curious about, so let me try to improve my question:
Say your ex still had one of your old possessions, but something that you cared about having less than you cared about not seeing him. He offers to return it. What goes through your head as you formulate a reply?
On the other hand, if he seems creepy or has crossed motives, these seem like things that you could say explicitly. In your situation I wouldn’t offer this information unprompted, but if he asked would you proffer it?
At the time I made it pretty clear that the thing he did was creepy.
Say your ex still had one of your old possessions, but something that you cared about having less than you cared about not seeing him. He offers to return it. What goes through your head as you formulate a reply?
Mu. This is actually the case; he sent me an e-mail about four months ago in which among other things he offered to return about $20 worth of my stuff. I ignored it, because it wasn’t worth going through the trouble of seeing him again.
I’m concerned that you think your case mirrors mine when it probably doesn’t.
I don’t think that my case mirrors yours, and I can think of at least three tangible differences between the most recent situations I’ve been in that are even close.
But people often use the same habits for wide classes of situations. And I still feel like your reactions to things differ slightly from my hypothetical reactions, which is really what I’m curious about.
Like, when you ignored the e-mail, did you think, “I don’t care that much about that stuff, and I’d really rather not deal with all that.” then close it and never open it again? (Underlying assumption: do you usually have verbal thought processes? Or even explicit thought processes about these things?)
I don’t think that my case mirrors yours, and I can think of at least three tangible differences between the most recent situations I’ve been in that are even close.
Good. I was worried by the “It saddens me to think...” sentence that you were taking it to heart.
Like, when you ignored the e-mail, did you think, “I don’t care that much about that stuff, and I’d really rather not deal with all that.” then close it and never open it again? (Underlying assumption: do you usually have verbal thought processes? Or even explicit thought processes about these things?)
Yes, I have an inner monologue, and yes, I did have more or less that reaction.
Mu. This is actually the case; he sent me an e-mail about four months ago in which among other things he offered to return about $20 worth of my stuff. I ignored it, because it wasn’t worth going through the trouble of seeing him again.
Few people respond positively to being told something like that. At best, maybe you’d get a crestfallen “oh… okay.” Otherwise, they might try to talk you into changing your mind, or get angry, or act out to try to get your attention, or try to save face by discrediting you behind your back. Given those possibilities, why would you give an explanation?
Certainly this could be true in many cases; but I like to think that I have demonstrated in most cases that I will react in good faith to these sorts of things.
Is there a sort of person with whom you would give an explanation? Someone you knew would be much happier with even a short explanation and not bother you about it?
What sort of evidence would it take for someone to convince you they were that kind of person?
The reason I ask is that I have honestly never even once in my life been even the tiniest bit concerned about someone trying to discredit me behind my back, and though I could imagine circumstances that might move me into those circumstances, I imagine that you (as someone who came up with that possibility quickly) have lots of mental habits that I don’t and would like to understand.
Is there a sort of person with whom you would give an explanation? Someone you knew would be much happier with even a short explanation and not bother you about it?
Hypothetically, sure. But I don’t know why I’d want to completely cut off contact with someone I found so trustworthy.
What sort of evidence would it take for someone to convince you they were that kind of person?
Consistent signs of low neuroticism and a realistic, constructive attitude toward interpersonal conflicts.
I have honestly never even once in my life been even the tiniest bit concerned about someone trying to discredit me behind my back
Really? Have you ever felt pressured to “choose sides” in a conflict that you weren’t a party to?
Have you ever felt pressured to “choose sides” in a conflict that you weren’t a party to?
Yes, but never in a situation where there was any prior doubt about which side I was on. I’ve had people confirm that I was on their side, but I can’t recall anyone trying to persuade me to switch sides.
Has anyone here ever purposefully stopped talking to or responding to someone they know? Can you describe the the thought process behind it?
Not everyone finds it easy to say “No.” (See here, for instance.) If someone has been hinting at something long enough and the other person just doesn’t get it, silence may be the last recourse out of an unpleasant situation without actually coughing out some straightforward denials.
Also, the process of rejecting someone outright and in clear terms can be hurtful for both parties; if the rejecter doesn’t particularly hate the rejectee, they may well wish to avoid being the direct cause of that pain. That may be a case of washing their hands with some omission bias, but it’s not obviously-and-universally-true-in-all-cases that failing to respond is never any better than playing mute.
In short, the thought process may be as simple as wanting to spare someone pain. “I’m not interested in seeing you any more” is the painful directness that many want to steer clear of, while “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” is an example of a hint that other people may not get. Some people have no problem making the connection that “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” means “No”, but others do, and they’ll see it as essentially the same as “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy but how about tomorrow,” which is a fundamentally different response. I don’t remember when I realized the difference myself, but I think it was an “A-ha!” of a decent size.
I definitely understand “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” as a placeholder for “No,” and I would understand no further response after something dismissive like that.
I don’t understand not even a dismissive response.
Have you ruled out the possibility that the people who stopped talking to you were trying to feed you different kinds of placeholders? Not everyone resorts to the same clichés, and subtle hints can get too subtle easily.
Communication has become casual now. You need to think of it more like a suggestion, or like a tweet, where the person is under no obligation to reply. Communication is no longer a rare or difficult thing and social conventions have come to reflect its ease and ubiquity. Unfortunately, for some people, this is also true of dating.
Do you mean to say this is for every piece of communication? Because that seems extremely weird and alien to me in situations, for example, where there has already been some back and forth, or to a lesser extent when there is a specific question.
I would say there’s no longer an obligation to reply inherent in the communication but the subject matter might involve such an obligation. So if it’s a casual conversation it might simply end without comment, but if it involves work duties or some kind of definite situation that needs to be coordinated, then you’re right to be offended.
Say you make specific plans together, then do not show up.
I’m not particularly offended, I’m just mildly confused. This seems like an easy opportunity to say “sorry I’m busy” or some other casual disengagement.
I’d personally consider that extremely rude. I’ve met people who appear to think it’s not a big deal though. They’ll arrange something with you but will arrange five other things simultaneously and will choose which one to attend at the very last minute. Presumably they think you’re in the same position.
Well I do think it’s rude but I would also understand if they were busy or had some reason for not wanting to see me (i.e. started dating someone else and didn’t want to hang out any more) that I would understand if they had said <5 words to me, then I don’t feel like I should really get too much more offended than I would be if I pretended I’d heard the words.
Anyway I agree that that is a rude habit to be in, and that the illusion of transparency can make it destructively hurtful.
I have purposefully stopped talking to some people I know. One such situation is in failed romantic relationships. None of mine have been by mutual agreement—on some situations I have been the one to end it, and others I would have preferred to continue. Either way this sort of power imbalance leads to a situation where the best choice seems to be strict avoidance—whether the aim is to avoid lowering one’s status by appearing desperate in pursuit when the end has been made clear by the other party, or to avoid giving any possibility of signals that a continued relationship is still possible (similar to the point paper-machine already made).
But this is not the only circumstance I’ve stopped talking to people I know—I do the same thing for some extreme zealots, whether their cause is religious, political or (gasp) even “rational”. Here’s one (intentionally vague) example from my recent experience. one of my longtime friends has beome very interested in a particular movement, and now has nothing else to say on any other topic. He feels this topic is so important that everyone needs to know the details (and presumably act upon them in some way, although this point is never reached). Clearly it is a subject he feels passionate about, and he feels so well informed that he expects others to immediately update on the force of his arguments. And if they fail to do so he makes it clear that he has won the debate. Whether he is truly well informed or not, he is not being effective in producing attitude change in others, or appreciating what others are hoping to get out of a conversation. In other words, highly visible low status behaviour of failing to recognise one’s audience and not negotiating a conversation acceptable to all parties. When he came out and asked me why I was avoiding him, my answer was “Because you only talk about (topic) and I don’t think this is productive”. Unfortunately this led to another round of haranguing, and the same old arguments about why (topic) is the most important issue and I’m a fool if I don’t see it. Which didn’t exactly convince me I should continue talking with him in future, I felt it would be the same issue again and again. But it can be hard to come out and say “Your topic doesn’t interest me” to someone who considers that subject of ultimate importance—it can easily be construed as a personal attack rather than being directed at the topic itself.
I’ve rambled a while already but there are still other situations where I stop talking to someone, especially concerning calls/texts/IMs rather than face to face conversations. These are harder to define because they fall into the category of “falling out of contact”, for no clear reason. Perhaps I’m too busy when a message comes in, stick it in an ineffectively managed “to reply” box and forget about it. Or perhaps I have nothing to say at that moment, etc. If that person then comes out and asks me “why aren’t you replying to my messages”, my initial reaction may be embarrassment and apology. But other times the “why aren’t you talking to me” is presented as a challenge, as if I am intentionally doing so. I would likely respond more assertively in such cases (or avoid responding to avoid causing further unintentional offence, I am certainly imperfect in reading some social cues).
*I intentionally avoided saying what my friend’s obsessive focus was about, because I think it applies to many situations—but thought I should mention that in this case it was the old classic “Jesus died for your sins and you should accept him as your personal Saviour”. If this example gives you a serious UGH enough to discount my discussion above, please replace this quote with “911 was an international conspiracy”, “GM crops should be banned” or “everyone should be cryopreserved upon death”.
To be clear, if you explained yourself to your friend and they harangued you about it, I totally understand not replying to them. If you fall out of contact on accident, I also understand. It’s not replying at all when people ask why they haven’t heard from you that I don’t understand.
If I can’t think of an explanation I may just fail to respond. This happens to me a lot as I get busy and forget to pay sufficient attention to social things for too long. Then by the time I get back into a social mode, there may be a whole pile of messages from different people I should deal with, and a process of triage begins where I start by responding to the ones I consider most urgent at that moment. Unfortunately some messages will be low on the list, and “why aren’t you responding to me” would be especially low if I cannot come up with a good answer myself.
“I am an inconsistent communicator” doesn’t go down very well when deployed for the nth time!
fyi when thinking about this I am comparing my imagined p(responding) for “Why aren’t you replying to me” to p(responding) for other hypothetical messages also in my “should reply” box like “Are you interested in trying out a new restaurant”, “can you suggest good places for us to visit when we come to see you next month”, etc. Some of those latter messages may be sent with the same intent as the first, but they are more likely to elicit a response from me as they don’t require me to deal outright with the motivation behind my own social decisions.
For what it’s worth I’ve heard “I am an inconsistent communicator” a few times and it actually is kind of nice as an invitation to try to talk more often.
Some of these cases seem like they could be helped by phrasing or framing, for example, “I haven’t heard from you in a while, what’ve you been up to?” feels different to me (less confrontational, for example) than “why aren’t you replying to me?”
Sometimes I stop talking to people because I don’t think there is anything interesting to say.
Sometimes it’s because I have to say something that’s long/complicated, and I can’t find enough time to write/say it.
And sometimes it’s because I see no use for talking to the other person, so I just ignore them. (But I don’t do this if they are expecting me to reply.)
If you have something long/complicated to say, would you eventually attempt to get around to saying it?
I may have occasionally had long heart-to-hearts with people I had been out of contact with for a long time, but to the extent that I am remembering this correctly I suspect that it is a way in which I am atypical.
Yes, unless I feel that the utility I would get out of saying it is less than the utility lost by spending the time to do so. (I value my time pretty highly, sometimes a bit irrationally, so this could happen often.)
It is frequently advantageous to stop communicating with someone, whether as social punishment, avoidance of feelings of awkwardness, or to dissociate yourself from low-status friends. People want these social advantages, but many people prefer not to undergo a “breaking-up” conversation, even when in a non-romantic context. (For obvious reasons: it’s likely to be a conflict-ridden conversation, and their motivations often do not sound noble when explicitly stated.)
Dropping that person like a hot potato is a way to get the social win without the corresponding awkwardness.
So my actual question is:
Many times I’ve known people and they have simply stopped talking to me and returning my calls/texts/IMs. I am given to understand that this means they don’t want to talk to me, and that this is a generally effective strategy.
However I have never been in a position (a) where I didn’t want to talk to someone ever again, or (b) in which I wouldn’t just tell them that I wasn’t really interested in talking at the time for [Reason].
Whenever I think about this overmuch I feel like I should ask these people why they aren’t responding to me at all… but they only ever respond by (a) not talking to me or (b) getting very upset, so I have stopped asking.
Has anyone here ever purposefully stopped talking to or responding to someone they know? Can you describe the the thought process behind it?
EDIT: In particular I’m interested in why one would stop talking to a person without some kind of explanation or at least statement. For example (Warning fuzzy details) I once went on a date with someone, and we made plans for another date (there was back and forth), then never heard from the person again, even after a few prompts. While I understand what this means, I don’t understand why one wouldn’t say “I’m not interested in seeing you any more.” Or at least some common stand-in like “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy.” My leading hypothesis is that I have an abnormal desire for closure.
I have frequently stopped responding to people because I failed to respond immediately, and then forgot that the conversation existed. I have no idea how common this is.
I do the same thing. With the added effect that if I do notice the conversation after a while, I still fail to respond. The reason is that at that point, if I were to reply I would have to start with an apology like “Sorry it took so long to respond, I forgot / I don’t think this conversation is that important / I am a lazy bastard”. I don’t want to do that, so it’s best not to respond at all.
Yes, I know this is a stupid bias. Maybe I should try to fix myself. Any suggestions?
What if you just responded, but without any apology for the delay? That might be easier to write, and it’s probably better than not responding.
Not a bias, just a desire to avoid projecting low status.
duckduckMOO’s suggestions amount to spinning the situation in a status neutral way. I find that I can spin almost anything I do as status neutral if I think for a little bit.
reply starting with, “I just read your message...”? or “zoned out. I see your message now” or something?
I’ve done this before, but usually they try again, and I make sure to respond the second time. I have trouble imagining friends braking contact because of one forgotten message.
It’s been my experience that people who want a reason for disengagement primarily want that reason so they can argue it is incorrect or can be overcome.
What would convince that wasn’t the case sufficiently for you to proffer a reason for disengagement?
Nothing I can think of. All assurances to the contrary have ended up trojan horses. Social interactions are complicated. Full and unilateral disengagement is extremely low cost and high success rate.
To answer this more generally, instead of in example form people often have anxiety around social interactions particularly those they anticipate to be uncomfortable, conflict-ridden or dramatic. In a dating context (which is usually when this sort of thing happens, in my experience, but maybe you have something different in mind) it is usually a way to cease dating or flirting with someone without having to explain to them that you aren’t interested. It avoids the tension involved in waiting for the person to react, the drama of any fallout and the awkwardness of spending any time interacting with them after you’ve dumped them.
While I understand that this is an effective strategy, I don’t understand what makes people choose not to respond at all rather than just saying “I’m not interested.”
A possibility I’m considering is that I have an abnormally large desire for explicit closure. This also fits with my enjoyment of (or at least lack of being bothered by) anvilicious political points and technical digressions in science fiction.
Regarding your desire for explicit closure: I don’t personally feel that explicit closure is actually possible in most cases. I will give you my personal “case studies” to help illustrate my thought process, since I seem to be the kind of person you don’t understand.
I had a friend who was flakey and unreliable. I stopped contacting and responding to him after we agreed to meet somewhere and he never showed up, and gave no explanation. My thought process, insofar as I explicitly reasoned it out, was: The emotional cost (and “status” cost) of further incidences like this is greater than any conceivable value this friendship may have had. I do not want to repair the friendship, so there is no point in telling this person what they did wrong. I have no realistic hope that they will amend their pattern of behavior. So, I will terminate all contact without explanation.
I’ve had at least a couple of friends with whom interactions became increasingly argumentative and critical and decreasingly positive and fun who I just stopped responding to because I could think of no affirmative reason to respond.
I had a friend who I discovered had been very deceptive towards me. In this case I told her why I was terminating contact and then terminated contact. Frankly the only reason I told her the reason was because I was angry and wanted to hurt her feelings. My normal impulse would have been to just “disappear.”
It is interesting that both you (magfrump) and I seem to both be committing Typical Mind fallacies in how we expect other people to react to our actions. I see ceasing contact without explanation as the default course of action, and you see providing an explanation as the default course of action, and we misunderstand other people who have different default responses. I see now that my policy in the past has not been rational. Whether I am capable of meaningfully updating on this is a different question.
This is kind of the point of the whole thread :P
And while I, personally, am annoyed by lack of closure, there have been numerous practical reasons not to explain oneself which are both understandable to me and quite rational. Though if you know the person will take your response in good faith, I would (acausally via symmetry with similar agents) appreciate that.
There are some people I don’t engage with because I don’t expect my engagement to leave either of us better off than my non-engagement.
There are many people I don’t engage with because I don’t expect their response to my engagement to leave me better off than their response to my non-engagement and I don’t much care about how it leaves them.
The sets of circumstances that leads me to those expectations and those values are many and varied, and I don’t know how I could begin to summarize the general case.
What set of circumstances (or can you think of a set of circumstances that) would cause you TO respond?
There are some people I engage with regularly, either because I expect doing so to leave us better off (for example, because I ordinarily enjoy interacting with them, or we can learn something from one another, or etc.) or because I’ve gotten into the habit and have not yet really noticed that our interactions are no longer providing value, or because I fear the costs of breaking contact are more than I want to pay in the short term despite probably leaving me better off in the long term.
Again, the set of circumstances that can lead me to those expectations are many and varied.
I don’t mean “to respond regularly” I mean “to make some statement about ceasing interaction.”
Ah, right. Sorry, I lost sight of your original context.
Hm.
There are people I’ve disengaged with, to whom I’ve never announced disengagement, because I expect the costs of that announcement to be high. For example, I expect them to respond by demanding further explanations for my decision, and then respond to that by explaining why my reasons for disengaging aren’t actually justified, and so on and so forth.
There are people I’ve disengaged with, to whom I’ve never announced disengagement, because it has seemed rude. That is, quietly ending an interaction is one thing, but saying “I’m not going to interact with you any more” has felt (in those contexts) like adding insult to injury.
So, turning those around… I guess the thing that would cause me to respond in this sense is being asked for such an explanation, in a context that makes me confident that the explanation will be accepted. (E.g., “Do you want to continue this conversation? It’s fine if you don’t, I’m just trying to establish whether we’re having a very slow conversation or not having a conversation at all.”)
I think some of it is a fear that the other person will take being told “I don’t want contact with you” as evidence that the person is still on speaking terms with them.
I guess I’m volunteering to answer these things, heh. Well, other people need to answer these things too, right?
Well, so I did stop talking to my most recent ex-boyfriend. The thing was that after our relationship ended many of my friends confided in me that he and I were of vastly different social statuses, and that our relationship had lowered their opinion of my status.
Then, some months later, he returned some of the things he had of mine, and during that meeting he was exceptionally creepy. I realized that talking to him further would only increase the creepiness, and so I stopped talking to him altogether. Most recently, he replied to a throwaway tweet of mine, and I intend not to respond to it because it’s still clear that he’s still seeking a relationship I’m no longer interested in.
This leaves me with more questions, but they are more specific, so yay!
So I can definitely understand not hanging out with or regularly talking to someone after a break-up, and I can understand that if people don’t like him, not wanting to just say that. (Though from the other side I would prefer to hear it)
On the other hand, if he seems creepy or has crossed motives, these seem like things that you could say explicitly. In your situation I wouldn’t offer this information unprompted, but if he asked would you proffer it?
It saddens me to think that the social groups of people I’m thinking of thought of me as low status, but I’ll update towards that for now.
Also none of this really gets to the heart of what I’m curious about, so let me try to improve my question: Say your ex still had one of your old possessions, but something that you cared about having less than you cared about not seeing him. He offers to return it. What goes through your head as you formulate a reply?
At the time I made it pretty clear that the thing he did was creepy.
Mu. This is actually the case; he sent me an e-mail about four months ago in which among other things he offered to return about $20 worth of my stuff. I ignored it, because it wasn’t worth going through the trouble of seeing him again.
I’m concerned that you think your case mirrors mine when it probably doesn’t.
I don’t think that my case mirrors yours, and I can think of at least three tangible differences between the most recent situations I’ve been in that are even close.
But people often use the same habits for wide classes of situations. And I still feel like your reactions to things differ slightly from my hypothetical reactions, which is really what I’m curious about.
Like, when you ignored the e-mail, did you think, “I don’t care that much about that stuff, and I’d really rather not deal with all that.” then close it and never open it again? (Underlying assumption: do you usually have verbal thought processes? Or even explicit thought processes about these things?)
By the way thank you for continuing to respond.
Good. I was worried by the “It saddens me to think...” sentence that you were taking it to heart.
Yes, I have an inner monologue, and yes, I did have more or less that reaction.
Ok, thanks!
I feel compelled to link to a song.
The Hardest Part Of Breaking Up (Is Getting Back Your Stuff)
Few people respond positively to being told something like that. At best, maybe you’d get a crestfallen “oh… okay.” Otherwise, they might try to talk you into changing your mind, or get angry, or act out to try to get your attention, or try to save face by discrediting you behind your back. Given those possibilities, why would you give an explanation?
Certainly this could be true in many cases; but I like to think that I have demonstrated in most cases that I will react in good faith to these sorts of things.
Is there a sort of person with whom you would give an explanation? Someone you knew would be much happier with even a short explanation and not bother you about it?
What sort of evidence would it take for someone to convince you they were that kind of person?
The reason I ask is that I have honestly never even once in my life been even the tiniest bit concerned about someone trying to discredit me behind my back, and though I could imagine circumstances that might move me into those circumstances, I imagine that you (as someone who came up with that possibility quickly) have lots of mental habits that I don’t and would like to understand.
Hypothetically, sure. But I don’t know why I’d want to completely cut off contact with someone I found so trustworthy.
Consistent signs of low neuroticism and a realistic, constructive attitude toward interpersonal conflicts.
Really? Have you ever felt pressured to “choose sides” in a conflict that you weren’t a party to?
Yes, but never in a situation where there was any prior doubt about which side I was on. I’ve had people confirm that I was on their side, but I can’t recall anyone trying to persuade me to switch sides.
Not everyone finds it easy to say “No.” (See here, for instance.) If someone has been hinting at something long enough and the other person just doesn’t get it, silence may be the last recourse out of an unpleasant situation without actually coughing out some straightforward denials.
Also, the process of rejecting someone outright and in clear terms can be hurtful for both parties; if the rejecter doesn’t particularly hate the rejectee, they may well wish to avoid being the direct cause of that pain. That may be a case of washing their hands with some omission bias, but it’s not obviously-and-universally-true-in-all-cases that failing to respond is never any better than playing mute.
In short, the thought process may be as simple as wanting to spare someone pain. “I’m not interested in seeing you any more” is the painful directness that many want to steer clear of, while “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” is an example of a hint that other people may not get. Some people have no problem making the connection that “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” means “No”, but others do, and they’ll see it as essentially the same as “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy but how about tomorrow,” which is a fundamentally different response. I don’t remember when I realized the difference myself, but I think it was an “A-ha!” of a decent size.
I definitely understand “Sorry I can’t make it I’m busy” as a placeholder for “No,” and I would understand no further response after something dismissive like that.
I don’t understand not even a dismissive response.
Have you ruled out the possibility that the people who stopped talking to you were trying to feed you different kinds of placeholders? Not everyone resorts to the same clichés, and subtle hints can get too subtle easily.
Unless you think “:) see you tomorrow” is a subtle hint, yes, I have ruled that out in many cases.
Communication has become casual now. You need to think of it more like a suggestion, or like a tweet, where the person is under no obligation to reply. Communication is no longer a rare or difficult thing and social conventions have come to reflect its ease and ubiquity. Unfortunately, for some people, this is also true of dating.
Do you mean to say this is for every piece of communication? Because that seems extremely weird and alien to me in situations, for example, where there has already been some back and forth, or to a lesser extent when there is a specific question.
I would say there’s no longer an obligation to reply inherent in the communication but the subject matter might involve such an obligation. So if it’s a casual conversation it might simply end without comment, but if it involves work duties or some kind of definite situation that needs to be coordinated, then you’re right to be offended.
Say you make specific plans together, then do not show up.
I’m not particularly offended, I’m just mildly confused. This seems like an easy opportunity to say “sorry I’m busy” or some other casual disengagement.
I’d personally consider that extremely rude. I’ve met people who appear to think it’s not a big deal though. They’ll arrange something with you but will arrange five other things simultaneously and will choose which one to attend at the very last minute. Presumably they think you’re in the same position.
Well I do think it’s rude but I would also understand if they were busy or had some reason for not wanting to see me (i.e. started dating someone else and didn’t want to hang out any more) that I would understand if they had said <5 words to me, then I don’t feel like I should really get too much more offended than I would be if I pretended I’d heard the words.
Anyway I agree that that is a rude habit to be in, and that the illusion of transparency can make it destructively hurtful.
I have purposefully stopped talking to some people I know. One such situation is in failed romantic relationships. None of mine have been by mutual agreement—on some situations I have been the one to end it, and others I would have preferred to continue. Either way this sort of power imbalance leads to a situation where the best choice seems to be strict avoidance—whether the aim is to avoid lowering one’s status by appearing desperate in pursuit when the end has been made clear by the other party, or to avoid giving any possibility of signals that a continued relationship is still possible (similar to the point paper-machine already made).
But this is not the only circumstance I’ve stopped talking to people I know—I do the same thing for some extreme zealots, whether their cause is religious, political or (gasp) even “rational”. Here’s one (intentionally vague) example from my recent experience. one of my longtime friends has beome very interested in a particular movement, and now has nothing else to say on any other topic. He feels this topic is so important that everyone needs to know the details (and presumably act upon them in some way, although this point is never reached). Clearly it is a subject he feels passionate about, and he feels so well informed that he expects others to immediately update on the force of his arguments. And if they fail to do so he makes it clear that he has won the debate. Whether he is truly well informed or not, he is not being effective in producing attitude change in others, or appreciating what others are hoping to get out of a conversation. In other words, highly visible low status behaviour of failing to recognise one’s audience and not negotiating a conversation acceptable to all parties. When he came out and asked me why I was avoiding him, my answer was “Because you only talk about (topic) and I don’t think this is productive”. Unfortunately this led to another round of haranguing, and the same old arguments about why (topic) is the most important issue and I’m a fool if I don’t see it. Which didn’t exactly convince me I should continue talking with him in future, I felt it would be the same issue again and again. But it can be hard to come out and say “Your topic doesn’t interest me” to someone who considers that subject of ultimate importance—it can easily be construed as a personal attack rather than being directed at the topic itself.
I’ve rambled a while already but there are still other situations where I stop talking to someone, especially concerning calls/texts/IMs rather than face to face conversations. These are harder to define because they fall into the category of “falling out of contact”, for no clear reason. Perhaps I’m too busy when a message comes in, stick it in an ineffectively managed “to reply” box and forget about it. Or perhaps I have nothing to say at that moment, etc. If that person then comes out and asks me “why aren’t you replying to my messages”, my initial reaction may be embarrassment and apology. But other times the “why aren’t you talking to me” is presented as a challenge, as if I am intentionally doing so. I would likely respond more assertively in such cases (or avoid responding to avoid causing further unintentional offence, I am certainly imperfect in reading some social cues).
*I intentionally avoided saying what my friend’s obsessive focus was about, because I think it applies to many situations—but thought I should mention that in this case it was the old classic “Jesus died for your sins and you should accept him as your personal Saviour”. If this example gives you a serious UGH enough to discount my discussion above, please replace this quote with “911 was an international conspiracy”, “GM crops should be banned” or “everyone should be cryopreserved upon death”.
Thanks for your reply!
To be clear, if you explained yourself to your friend and they harangued you about it, I totally understand not replying to them. If you fall out of contact on accident, I also understand. It’s not replying at all when people ask why they haven’t heard from you that I don’t understand.
If I can’t think of an explanation I may just fail to respond. This happens to me a lot as I get busy and forget to pay sufficient attention to social things for too long. Then by the time I get back into a social mode, there may be a whole pile of messages from different people I should deal with, and a process of triage begins where I start by responding to the ones I consider most urgent at that moment. Unfortunately some messages will be low on the list, and “why aren’t you responding to me” would be especially low if I cannot come up with a good answer myself. “I am an inconsistent communicator” doesn’t go down very well when deployed for the nth time!
fyi when thinking about this I am comparing my imagined p(responding) for “Why aren’t you replying to me” to p(responding) for other hypothetical messages also in my “should reply” box like “Are you interested in trying out a new restaurant”, “can you suggest good places for us to visit when we come to see you next month”, etc. Some of those latter messages may be sent with the same intent as the first, but they are more likely to elicit a response from me as they don’t require me to deal outright with the motivation behind my own social decisions.
For what it’s worth I’ve heard “I am an inconsistent communicator” a few times and it actually is kind of nice as an invitation to try to talk more often.
Some of these cases seem like they could be helped by phrasing or framing, for example, “I haven’t heard from you in a while, what’ve you been up to?” feels different to me (less confrontational, for example) than “why aren’t you replying to me?”
Sometimes I stop talking to people because I don’t think there is anything interesting to say.
Sometimes it’s because I have to say something that’s long/complicated, and I can’t find enough time to write/say it.
And sometimes it’s because I see no use for talking to the other person, so I just ignore them. (But I don’t do this if they are expecting me to reply.)
If you have something long/complicated to say, would you eventually attempt to get around to saying it?
I may have occasionally had long heart-to-hearts with people I had been out of contact with for a long time, but to the extent that I am remembering this correctly I suspect that it is a way in which I am atypical.
Yes, unless I feel that the utility I would get out of saying it is less than the utility lost by spending the time to do so. (I value my time pretty highly, sometimes a bit irrationally, so this could happen often.)
It is frequently advantageous to stop communicating with someone, whether as social punishment, avoidance of feelings of awkwardness, or to dissociate yourself from low-status friends. People want these social advantages, but many people prefer not to undergo a “breaking-up” conversation, even when in a non-romantic context. (For obvious reasons: it’s likely to be a conflict-ridden conversation, and their motivations often do not sound noble when explicitly stated.)
Dropping that person like a hot potato is a way to get the social win without the corresponding awkwardness.
[deleted]