Real Social Skills

Trick or treat ettiquite in the US

October 19, 2014June 21, 2021 Real Social Skills

In most areas in the US, it is traditional for children to go trick-or-treating on the evening of Halloween (October 31st). This means that they put on a costume and go door to door asking for candy.

If you put up Halloween decorations, or you have your porch light on, people will assume that you welcome trick-or-treaters and will be annoyed with you if you don’t give them candy. If you have no Halloween decorations and turn your porch light off, most people will leave you alone (but you will probably get a few obnoxious people trying to demand candy anyway, and possibly a few kids who don’t understand that rule).

When you give out candy at home on Halloween, it’s considered acceptable to wear either a costume or normal clothing. If you wear a costume while giving candy to trick or treaters, make sure that it is not sexually suggestive. (Suggestive costumes are ok at Halloween parties for adults, and are likely to be considered ok on the street, but they’re not ok to wear if you’re interacting with children.)

The expected candy to give out is miniature (“fun-sized”) candy bars or other small, individually-wrapped candly. You can get bags of appropriate Halloween candy at grocery stores, drug stores, and many other kinds of stores before Halloween. Candy you give out needs to be individually wrapped because most children are taught that it is dangerous to accept unwrapped candy. Most children are also taught that it is dangerous to accept homemade treats.

Do not invite trick or treaters inside. Children are taught that it is dangerous to go into a stranger’s house.

(A partial exception: In some communities it is considered acceptable to set up a haunted house in your home and invite trick or treaters to walk through it. Figuring out whether or not this is ok is complicated, and it is easy to get wrong and end up seeming really creepy. It’s the kind of thing that’s only likely to be ok if you’re in a neighborhood where people know each other, you are friends with the parents in the neighborhood, and kids already spend time in your house. Don’t do it if nobody knows you.)

The easiest way to distribute candy is to keep a bowl by your door and to drop a piece into each trick or treater’s treat bag. One piece of candy is enough; people will be pleased if you give more than one piece. Some people let kids pick their candy from a bowl with a variety of candies in it. If you do this, some kids will take more than one piece, and it’s best not to get too upset or confrontational about it. (If you can’t tolerate kids doing that, it’s better to just put the candy in their treat bag yourself, which is considered completely acceptable.)

It’s ok to compliment costumes. It’s considered rude to say anything critical about them. If you can’t tell what someone is dressed as, it can be ok to ask, but you have to be careful about tone. (“Who are you?” or “What are you dressed as?” is more likely to be ok; “What are you supposed to be?” is likely to be heard as insulting, especially if you sound annoyed.)

It’s probably better to err on the side of not calling a kid’s costume cute, because kids who are old enough to understand what cute means are often sensitive about not being perceived as little kids. If you want to compliment a costume, “cool”, “creative”, “pretty”, and “beautiful” are more likely to be appreciated. Or something specific, eg “Wow, I love superheroes!” or “That’s an awesome shade of blue.”

Be careful about assuming gender – some kids dressed as Batman might be girls, and some kids dressed as unicorns might be boys. (Eg “What a lovely Rainbow Dash costume!” is better than “What a lovely girl!”).

Trick or treaters are often accompanied by parents. It’s not considered necessary to give candy to parents. When teenagers take children trick or treating, it’s good to also give candy to the teenagers (especially if they are wearing a costume). It’s no fun to watch younger siblings get candy without getting any yourself.

Having good conversations on the internet even though it’s full of jerks

October 17, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

On the internet, there are a lot of people. There are massive numbers of jerks. There are also massive numbers of nice people.

If you focus on the jerks, you’ll never run out of jerks to talk to. If you engage with everyone who is mean to you, your life will be full of conversations with mean people.

This is true in reverse as well. If you seek out people who want to listen to you, you can have good conversations. If you reply primarily to people who respect you, then your life will be full of conversations with people who are treating you well.

Focusing on people who treat you well is a choice that you have to keep making, over and over again. It won’t happen automatically, and many people will try to push you into interacting with mean people. Some of them will be mean people who devote a lot of time honing their skills at demanding attention so they can hurt people. (Eg: 4chan trolls.) Some of them will be people who basically have good intentions but think that you have to reply to everyone. Some of them will be people who try to draw you into every fight they have.

Focusing on respectful interactions can be very difficult, but it’s worth it.

I think these are some basic principles for how to do that:

Talk to people who are listening.

If someone is making a serious attempt to understand what you are saying, they’re likely a good person to talk to
If they’re mocking it, twisting your words, or telling you that you’re a terrible person, they’re probably not a good person to talk to

Talk to people you want to listen to.

If you think that what someone has to say is worthwhile, they’re likely a good person for you to talk to
If you have active contempt for someone and their opinions, you’re probably better off talking to someone else

It is possible to have respectful conversations with people who you disagree with about important things:

In a respectful conversation, they listen to what you are actually saying and respond to it
In a respectful conversation, you respond to what they are actually saying
Neither side makes personal attacks
(Explaining why an idea is harmful is not a personal attack. Calling someone who disagrees with you human garbage is.)
Neither side engages in language dickery
(One or both of you might be angry, vehement, passionate, or heated. None of those are the same thing as contempt).

It’s ok to publicly explain why you don’t respect an idea, or have contempt for a particular person’s worldview:

It’s best not to do that as a conversation with that person, though
Conversations with someone you don’t respect tend to go poorly (especially if they don’t respect you either)
It’s much more effective and pleasant to discuss those ideas with people who want to listen to your perspective on them

Short version: The internet is a much more pleasant and productive place if you focus on interactions with people you respect and who treat you well. Conversations go better when both people in them are listening and responding to content. If someone has contempt for you or you have contempt for them, it’s probably time to find someone else to talk to.

Including people who get talked over

October 10, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

Often, in class conversations, some students will talk over other students and not let them get a word in edgewise. (This happens a lot between male and female students. It’s not always gendered that way but that’s a common dynamic.), eg:

Brenda: I thought the colors were too bright because they made the background more prominent than the…
Bob: Actually, the colors were too bright. They made the background more prominent than the foreground. That’s a problem because you have to be able to pay attention to the foreground.

When Bob is allowed to do this, it effectively cuts Brenda out of the conversation. Eg, this is one continuation I’ve seen a lot:

Bob: Actually, the colors were too bright. They made the background more prominent than the foreground. That’s a problem because you have to be able to pay attention to the foreground.
Teacher: Yes, distracting background colors detract from the most important parts of the scenes.

When the teacher says something like that, they’re responding to Bob and ignoring Brenda. If Brenda was making the same point, then she deserves to be acknowledged. If she was making a different point, then she deserves to be heard. It’s important to listen to all the students who participate sincerely, not just those who talk over others.

You don’t have to put up with this. You can turn your attention back to the student who was talking before they got interrupted. This is one way to do that:

You (ignoring Bob): Brenda, what do you mean about the background being more prominent? Can you say more?
This lets Brenda know that you value what she’s saying.
And it allows her to be heard even though Bob doesn’t value what she’s saying.
This also sends the message to other students that you will listen to them, take them seriously, and not allow them to be talked over.

This usually works better than directly addressing Bob in the moment. If you call Bob on it directly, that can lead to derailing the conversation into an argument about Bob, eg:

Teacher: Bob, please don’t talk over Brenda
Bob: I wasn’t talking over Brenda.
Teacher: She was saying something, and you interrupted her.

This can backfire because it keeps the focus on Bob rather than the person he was talking over. It’s also less powerful. You don’t need Bob’s permission to pay attention to the student he interrupted. You can just pay attention to her.

Another possibility:

Teacher: Bob, let Brenda finish then you can make your point. Brenda, what were you saying about the background colors?

This can work sometimes because it’s not directly accusing Bob of anything, and it immediately shifts the focus back to the person he interrupted.

Sometimes treating people with disabilities well means accepting that they are uncomfortable

October 7, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

A reader asked:

I run a club for transgender students at my university. One of the newer members disclosed to us that she has asperger’s. Her sensory threshold seems to be extremely low and she seems to get overwhelmed in meetings often. After a meeting, I tried to pull her aside to ask her if there’s any way I could accommodate her better, but she got flustered. I don’t think she knew quite how to phrase what she needed to say in the moment, but I want to make the club more accessible for her. I’ve already spoken with the faculty adviser so we could move to a bigger room with more space. I also want to make sure this member of our club is getting her needs met, but I don’t want to force her out of her shell or put her on the spot while I try to meet her halfway. I’m having a hard time. Do you have any advice for me?

realsocialskills said:

I think the most important thing is not to put pressure on her to talk to you about her disability or access needs.

Sometimes people with disabilities choose to do things that are hard for us. Sometimes being overloaded is the price we pay for participation. It can actually be harder when people get upset about this and see overload as a problem they need to solve. Sometimes that’s just the way things are. Sometimes there’s no immediate solution, and sometimes it’s not the problem we want to work on.

Disability is personal. Coping mechanisms and disability-related choices are deeply personal. Some people with disabilities are fairly open about their specific issues and choices; for others, that’s a topic reserved for close friends. It’s ok if she doesn’t want to have that conversation with you even though she’s often physically uncomfortable or overloaded in the group. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re doing something wrong or that she’s doing something wrong. Sometimes it just means that some things are hard but worth doing anyway.

I’d say back off trying to get her to disclose more things about her needs, and follow her lead.

The one unilateral access thing I’d advise is that I think it’s important to make sure that she (and other group members) have the option of contacting you by email. If she’s getting too overwhelmed in the moment to tell you things she wants you to know, being able to email you might be really helpful. Don’t make a big deal about it, though, and don’t pressure her to email you about things. Just make email available as an option.

Good luck to both of you.

Short version: When you’re running a group and people with disabilities seem to be overwhelmed, don’t pressure them to talk about their disability or their access needs. Offer, but don’t pressure. Do make your email address available to group members. This makes it easier for them to tell you things that are hard to say in the moment.

Life is not made of compelling philosophy

October 4, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

You don’t always have to have a coherent philosophical explanation for everything you do and care about.

Life is not made of philosophy. Philosophy can be a good thing, but it’s not a prerequisite.

You don’t have to have a coherent explanation of how God works for it to be ok to practice a religion or identify with a community. You don’t have to have a compelling explanation of where the universe came from in order to be an atheist or decide not to practice a religion.

You don’t have to have a deep and compelling theory about the nature of gender to know what your gender is. You don’t have to have a deep and compelling theory on where sexual orientation comes from and what it means in order to know which words you use to describe yourself, and who you are or aren’t interested in dating.

You don’t have to have a rigorous philosophical understanding of the mind and neurology to understand that you are disabled and that your cognitive experiences are different from most other people’s.

Or anything else. Your life is yours, and you get to have your own ideas about who you are and what you want.

You don’t have to have a compelling philosophy that convinces other people in order for it to be ok to know who you are and how you see the world. You don’t even have to have a coherent philosophy that convinces *you*.

Many philosophical questions that might be relevant to your life are unanswered, and unlikely to be answered in your lifetime. It’s ok if you want to work on solving them, but it’s also ok if you don’t. It is not a prerequisite, even if other people who use big abstract ideas want you to change.

Life is bigger than theories, and having a compelling theory is not a prerequisite for living, choosing, or caring about things.

Perspective in the face of other people’s anger

October 3, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

This is a thing that happens with some people:

People get angry
They tell you off in mean ways that make you feel horrible
Or their anger scares you, even if they’re not actually being mean
You feel like the way you’re feeling is evidence that you’ve *done* something horrible
Or you’re afraid, and feel like you have to grovel for forgiveness in order to be safe

It’s really, really hard to tell whether you’ve actually done something wrong when someone is being mean to you. (Or when you’re terrified by anger or conflict.)

If you’re afraid or hurting, or especially both, it’s hard to have perspective. Especially if you feel like acknowledging that you’ve done a horrible thing might make that person stop hurting you. *Especially* if you’re really good at reading what someone wants to hear.

This is doubly true for people who have been abused. If you’ve been hurt by someone who demanded that you stop thinking in the face of every conflict, it’s hard to think when other people are angry with you.

There are countermeasures. It’s possible to learn to deal with anger and conflict without falling apart.

Countermeasure #1: recognizing feelings that indicate that your perspective is off, and creating distance

If you’re panicking and feeling inclined to make an abject apology, it’s probably time to step back
Even if it turns out that you were in the wrong, a panic apology is unlikely to make the situation better
Because when you’re panicking, you’re not really capable of apologizing sincerely anyway
It’s ok to need time to think
It’s ok to realize that you’re panicking and need to back away from the situation to be able to think
Someone who won’t let you do this is probably not someone you should trust

Countermeasure #2: considering reversal:

Think about what you did, and how the person who is angry at you is reacting
What do you think you’d do if the situation was reversed?
In light of that, do you think their reaction is reasonable?
And do you think you actually did something terribly wrong?
(The answer to this might be yes even if you think you would have reacted differently. But thinking about reversal can still make the situation easier to understand)

Countermeasure #3: Think in concrete terms:

What, specifically, does the person who is mad at you think you did?
Do you think you actually did that thing?
If not, do they have a reasonable basis for thinking that you did that thing?
Are they understanding correctly? Are they listening to your explanation of what you think you did? (eg: if they think you said a slur and you actually said a different word that they misheard, are they screaming at you and saying you are just making excuses?)
If you did do the thing, why are they angry about the thing?
Do you think it’s reasonable that they are offended?
Do you think it’s reasonable that they are *as* offended as they are?
(Think about this seriously, especially if they think you are being racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc towards them. Your initial reaction to this kind of thing is likely to be off base. But it is also possible to be wrong about these things, and ultimately, you have to think for yourself about whether you think you’re guilty of what you’re accused of.)

Countermeasure #4: Considering the perspective of someone you respect:

Think of someone who you know well and respect as someone who treats people well
If you’d done the thing to them, how do you think they’d react?
Does that match how the person who is angry at you now is reacting?
If you’d hurt the person you respect in a similar way by accident and they were upset with you, how do you think you’d be reacting?
Does it match how you’re reacting here? (Eg: are you more afraid? more inclined to panic-apologize? more defensive?)
In light of all of that, what do you think about what’s happening now?
Do you think that you did the thing you’re being accused of?
Do you think it was wrong?
Do you think that the way they are reacting to you is unjustified or otherwise objectionable?
Do you think you should apologize?
Do you think they should apologize?
(These are all real questions. Considering the hypothetical perspective of someone you know doesn’t give you automatic answers, but it can be helping as a way of getting unstuck when you’re afraid and inclined to panic about something you’ve been accused of. You might find that, even after you’ve stopped panicking, you still think that you have done something wrong and that you should apologize for it.)

Countermeasure #5: Outside perspective:

It can help to discuss the situation with people who know you well (especially if they’re not parties to the conflict)
Particularly if they are people who you can trust to tell you when they think you actually *have* done something wrong
Some friends are mutual check in people for one another.
Some people get outside perspective from therapists.
When you’re panicking, it can be hard to tell from the outside that you’re panicking. Panic in response to conflict can feel like you’re just accurately recognizing that you are terrible or something.
It’s much easier to tell from the outside when that is happening
So, if you have people you trust to help you check your perspective, it is tremendously helpful in staying oriented and figuring out what’s actually going on

Short version: Some people find other people’s anger terrifying. If you experience that, it can be really hard not to automatically try to fix things by conceding that you are terrible and did a terrible thing. There are countermeasures that can help. It helps to work on noticing how you are feeling so that you can get distance when you need it. It helps to think about what you’d do if the roles were reversed. It helps to think as concretely as possible about the specifics of the situation. It helps to think about what you think someone you know well and respect would do (and what you would be doing if the conflict was with that person). It helps to get outside perspective from people you trust about what’s going on.

Using your experiences to support someone else

October 2, 2014June 21, 2021 Real Social Skills

A reader asked:

People often say that when you’re comforting someone else, you shouldn’t mention your own similar experiences. I understand that making the conversation entirely about you is rude and imappropriate, but isn’t it ok to at least briefly say, “yeah I can relate” and then continue with “that sucks a lot” etc?

realsocialskills said:

Bringing in your own experiences can actually sometimes be a good thing. There’s a specific way of doing it that’s bad, but you are entirely correct that showing ways you can relate can sometimes be good.

I wrote a post a while back about listening to someone who is facing a bad situation that talks about good and bad ways to relate your own experiences.

And I want to add to that: You’re probably seeing a lot of people vent on the internet about thoughtless or otherwise bad things people said to them. That could make comforting someone who is struggling seem very intimidating; it could make it seem like you have to be sure you’re going to say the right thing before it’s ok to talk to them.

And it doesn’t work that way. You don’t have to be perfect to comfort someone. Sometimes, you’ll say the wrong thing. That’s ok. Everybody does, sometimes. It’s good to work on knowing what to say and how to say it, but be careful about worrying too much about that. You can really only get good at this through practice, and you can’t get practice by waiting until you’re absolutely sure you know the right thing to say before you offer anyone support.

Suffering can be very isolating, because people are often afraid of seeing people suffer in ways they can’t fix. Sometimes things aren’t ok, and aren’t likely to be ok any time soon, if ever. And if someone’s in that situation, chances are they’re surrounded by people who are trying to get them to feel better.

If you’re not trying to make them feel a different way, you’re willing to acknowledge that things are hard, you’re listening to them, and you’re treating them with respect, you’re probably doing fairly well. Even if you sometimes say the wrong thing.