I think I may be the same type as this guy

[Park]

he seems to lack all intuition... it's just pure logic and practicality or something.

and i thought the outback stakehouse example was bad in that of course if you know someone is a vegetarian you'll be interested in choosing somewhere to eat where you can both eat, but if it's a matter of one person being an atheist and one person being say a christian... should the christian have to censor everything they say just because they know the atheist won't appreciate it? i mean if i knew someone didn't like it if i said "i'll pray for you" (which i never really say that anyway), then i'd try to not say that at least out of consideration, but i can't and won't censor everything i say around people. although in real life i do tend to rather automatically not say things that i know will upset and offend other people i know when i know how they feel about it and how that isn't going to change, so it's more of an acknowledging how they feel about it... which is what this would probably come under to me. and that was probably more the point of what he was saying anyway.

The point was, I think, that people should listen to what is being said to them, to learn and process that information, so that they can respond appropriately, instead of banging their head against the wall by saying (& doing) things that demonstrate their ignorance and/or stupidity. A big part of the point was that the concern that people show for other people's well-being is very often fake, upfront fake and lame to the point of getting annoying to process continually. He was saying that, if people wanted to demonstrate their concern and empathy, they should do it by showing that they care, instead of just wasting time with reflexive cliches that don't mean, nor accomplish anything.