> without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that.
Not necessarily. There are social environments where things aren't said directly, but rather communicated through choice of words, body language and actions. People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without saying them directly, and some would expect you to understand even if they don't communicate it directly.
Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own abilities can benefit from understanding when people communicate heavily between the lines.
I think this is moving the goalposts. Yes, I agree that nonverbal communication matters. And I understand it's possible there is some code to communication, similar to how different cultures use words differently. But that's not what's being discussed.
"That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. You need to invent additional context to interpret this differently.
> But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone.
What I meant is that people don't only ever say you're stupid by super-directly saying "you're stupid". "That's stupid" is not a big leap. Yes, context is key to interpretation.
Not necessarily. There are social environments where things aren't said directly, but rather communicated through choice of words, body language and actions. People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without saying them directly, and some would expect you to understand even if they don't communicate it directly.
Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own abilities can benefit from understanding when people communicate heavily between the lines.