Mansplaining vs ND Over-clarifying

Not really. When a dude pulls the “sorry, I’m neurodivergent and can talk way too much about this” or “I’m sorry I struggle with getting my thoughts clear to other people so I can overexplain” I’m a lot more sympathetic. I really think it’s best to think of mansplaining as gendered preemptive assumption of lack of knowledge

The key is to never take a clear pause; semicolons only; make them worried if you’re alright with a torrent of Skink facts.

Just NDOC NDOC some more

Also the need to include irrelevant context and to overly correct yourself on irrelevant details.

"So I learned this from a coworker who drove a blue car, or was it red? Either way it was definitely a 1993 Honda Civic. Or '94. Definitely from the early 90s. I could tell when they got to work because the brakes sounded like a duck that got hit by a rock, not that I've ever thrown a rock at a duck! I did chase a goose away from my dog with a stick once. That dog was fearless in every situation except against birds. I never found out what breed he was but probably a shepherd mix. I remember the day my parents brought him home..."

Yeah... Explaining things the other person doesn't care about...

My wife called me on that earlier today. "I know you need to ADHD info dump on me, but it's time to wrap it up."

In my experience, they usually lose interest partway through the clarification and then later ask three questions that were covered while they weren't paying attention.

And it would be so much better if that something was something others actually find interesting. Instead its something esoteric like energy storage solutions, or the difference between b550 and x570. I was once asked, "what's the difference between m-ATX and mini-ITX?" And I knew way to much about it to be socially healthy...

you will fucking love sociology and philosophy then.

the cycle goes something like this:

• You write a shitty book about philosophy.
• Someone else reads your shitty book. Decides they have a lot of thoughts on your shitty book, and then write their own shitty book about it.
• You then read that book, because now reading is the only thing you do in your time ever (on account of the philosophy) and now you have more thoughts on the topic, and so you write another shitty book.

And this is how we get shit like "incars" philosophy is truly incredible.

That sounds like you may too few people in your life to talk a lot and deeply to? Or you simply have a way higher urge to talk than the average person

Having received a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet, embedded into a Word document, I always go option 3.

I'm also old enough to have had to explain why a 27MB Publisher file could not fit on a floppy disk to be sent to the printers.

The older I get the more I kick myself for "knowing" I'm too stupid for a PhD or master's in anything.

I've always had an interest in science, I love watching something like PBS spacetime or fermilab videos (because I'm obviously a layman and won't understand anything actually detailed), but I've always held this belief that I'm "wayyyy too stupid to actually do the work." and then I hear story after story of "very smart people" simply not understanding the simplest of concepts.

Oh well lol

Yet more evidence that intelligence and wisdom are separate things.

I think if your friends are coming to you and asking for help, then you're in the clear. Part of being a know-it-all/mansplaining, is that nobody asked and they decided they needed to bestow that information onto others.

I get it from my father. He was one of the smartest people I've ever known, but if you asked him anything, you better have a lot of free time cause it is going back to first principles.

I know his reasoning was that he wanted me to learn how to understand and find the answer, not just be given it, and now I'm guilty of the same thing.

I don't do it at work, or at least I try not to, as they are paying me for the solution not a dissertation, but if friends or family ask for tech support, they are getting the whole explanation while I solve the problem.

I guess another part of it is that like me, he really didn't have anyone to talk tech to other than his family, and really just enjoyed the time being able to share things he was knowledgeable about.

I think it's a form of ADHD over-clarifying.

I'm an old millennial AuDHD and I have to resist the urge to use bold and italics everywhere for different kinds of emphasis. I'd use even more variations when available (text size, colors).

When I was younger, I used to do the same in analog form with multi colored pens when taking notes.

You can read the bold parts only and still understand the text

In theory yes, in practice some people use the term very broadly.

IMO, it's just being overly confident and stubborn in your explanation of something. specifically in relation to the two sexes (or genders, depending on the scenario)

Anything else just doesn't apply. But i also have a pretty strict definition of anything like this tbh.

I tend to assume people know little about esoteric subjects I'm talking about and try to explain things in a way the general layperson would understand. If they let on that they seem familiar with the subject then I adjust but I do often worry I'm coming off as being condescending :⁠-⁠\

I do the same thing. I feel like I suck at explaining things, because I am so deeply into a few things, and shallowly into a ton of things, I have no idea what the average layperson knows. When I'm explaining how I solve a Rubik's cube, do I use the word algorithm? Do people know what algorithm means?

How much does the average person know about space travel? I got into KSP at a relatively young age, so I have no idea if most people are aware that to get to orbit you have to go really fast sideways. I have no idea how many people think that astronauts could drop something off of the ISS onto the planet. Can I use the phrase ∆v? How deeply am I going to have to explain the concept of ∆v?

I think the most complex thing that I can reasonably explain is what a parsec is, but it still takes like 3 paragraphs, and that's assuming I don't have to explain the concept of using degrees to measure how far apart things appear to be in your field of vision. Which I genuinely don't know whether that's general knowledge or not.

I tend to just lean into the fact that I can't explain things well and get as vague as possible.

"Hey honey, how was work?"

"Not bad, did a thing that lead to another thing needing to be done and broke all of the things at the place."

i would classify this as manderstanding

You joke but I had an ex get mad at me for "mansplaining" in her words, because I would overexplain when I'd talk about some semi-niche shit like Settlers of Catan, or when she asked what I was doing and I had to explain what a gas block does. So, I just started assuming she knows everything all the time and would ask when clarification was needed. I wasn't even being an asshole about it, but she didn't want to do that either, seems she wanted me to somehow know what she does or doesn't know and only explain the bits she's missing. Can't win em all I guess lol.

Although if you do this to people who already know you, it seems to gather less sympathy and more "oh great, time for 10 minutes of vaguely related facts"

You can’t control how people react to you, unfortunately. This has been my mantra for about a year now and it’s incredible how much I’ve caught myself attempting the Sisyphean task of taking control over how people perceive me and react to that perception. There’s no point in wrestling people into communicating with you properly. It usually just results in anxiety or in you accidentally communicating extra information that you didn’t intend.

So, everyone suffers because you surround yourself with people that you think are beneath you?