Looking me in the eyes (as someone that makes high-eye contact (&) stares right through your skull to the blank wall behind you - with selective hearing in spite of in most casual chats), it doesn't make sense really, but I do wish to be acknowledged/engaged by the 'eyes' - and also during the times of our conversation exchange, not [cutting] me off during conversation stimulus suffices -- (other than that) - continuing where I (leave off), (e.g., questions - but more so commentary). I haven't much care whether they agree / are convinced / like/dislike or absord what I say outside of formal contexts, most days informally I am merely thinking aloud and/or practicing something, but usually holding strong attention of the humanoid(s) I engage with offline, which perhaps means, getting someone "out of text" and in face interaction so I feel even more in the path of their attentiveness (e.g., almost impossible to ignore), in some degree, heh, in spite negative connotations that come with it - there are certainly some times I do like being the "center of attention," afterall.
In online localities (and some offline), I intuitively do not engage the humanoid at all, especially those with demonstrably more touch-sensitive buttons to distinct data that trigger sub-optimal responsiveness, or withhold particular types & parts of content completely -- [sometimes I may succumb to get an idea if the capacities are ambiguous] -- but generally, if I have calculated via patternized-online posting histories that engaging in (X)-specimen is unnecessary; and it certainly makes no immediate sense to directly expose a humanoid to content, (or via observed behaviors/engaging on distinct topics within the locality) the specimen at hand will not utilize / read / instinctively has some depositioned interest in, or lacks the basic foundations of knowledge to constructively engage to a degree in which I would feel my (time is well spent) in the proximate moment, it does not imply the specimen is "completely," useless as far as a knowledge-outlet, but rather a switch/adaptiveness of content is necessary, and I may naïvely in some degree, trust that the humanoid has enough general intellectual capacity to seek what knowledge they will as I have if they so choose to educate themselves or grasp the basis of the information if left at their disposal at the primarly level (i.e., reading a new book), & such tasks of upper level to be completed are specs of their own responsibilities (i.e., re-reading the book to study it's content) -- "what about exposure for those that require an 'extra' spark for (X)-curiosities?", I consider rather coincidental than a goal/personal interest for myself, unless I see a pre-interest or receptiveness to new / (X)-content beforehand, and indeed, I usually only engage (certain) specimen(s) in different types of content, or level(s) I perceive them to be - rather than freely talking about coital escapades to the religious-minded; or speaking Français in the science domain, if I am less careless in wanting (X)-content to be considered/acknowledged in a particular way.
I reckon some humanoids find this arrogant/offensive (e.g., I never discuss (X) with you, because you are not into (X) enough to engage in a constructive manner - not merely being present), to perceive a humanoid as lacking the necessary capacities to engage proactively, however, it is nothing of that matter, and if the humanoid wishes to engage at their own discretion - then I accommodate like so, so they are not feeling excluded [and attempt to do so in the least condenscending way] -- (leaving casual dimensions/opening) for input of the other humanoid, which usually is a temporal appeal to emotion; rather than continuing to punch with rationality; and of course, the "intellects," are opposed to such an approach (re: no, that specimen just needs to learn more "logical-thinking" (or what have it is commonly used)), fair enough (&) indeed, true for the recipient if they wish to engage distinct humanoids, however, I have found, that most humanoid(s) that do not have such skill-sets respond best to emotionally-open coaxing not 'gushy' stuff - rather demonstrable humility and/or a smile or two, with light-handed "logic/rationality" jabs, and vice versa for the humanoids who are more skilled in such a domain. I think repetitive exposure to both thinking-approaches in critiqued/gradual degrees - rather than psychological flooding, strengthens where they struggle/reject, so I do not necessarily dumb my thoughts so far down it looses it's potency - nor make it so complex only %2 of the populace that 'share similar thoughts' to myself will be able to appreciate in full. There is perhaps a demonstrable appealing to not only fixating on oneself - but building the confidence within the individual / audience around recieving (X)-data.
In mass group(s) of humanoids; I tend to keep my thought(s) at general level, which welcomes those of lower capacities to strike curiosity/questions -- and also engage those humanoids of higher levels of knowlede than myself to freely supply input, as a demonstrates I am (open to error/critique -- the intellectuals carrot on a stick, even if I internally feel otherwise.
In addition to the openinig sentences - I reflexively feel my content is 'acknowledged' when I feel I have engaged the (humanoid) best to my abilities from my own end - even if I have analyzed this is demonstrably not actually the case; and I then, there are those "temporal emotions" of disappointment when one realizes the humanoid doesn't quite get what I confidently thought was relatively clear in the [first place], and there are [obvious] times where I wish to be heard by others - and then wish to just hear myself speak while other(s) are present, I reckon most humanoids with healthy egos have conflicts with both.
