The "Autism Factor"
Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ]
06 Apr 2010, 12:05 am
I've actually run up against this "problem" since I started posting here, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone address it directly. What I'm talking about is how much, if any "slack" should be cut for someone in debate in light of this being a forum for autistic people? It's an especially tricky question because the autism spectrum is so wide and encompasses so many different levels of functionality that misunderstandings are inevitable, especially here in PPR where things tend to get heated. I certainly don't expect any slack, but then again I was 26 when I was diagnosed and had never thought of myself as autistic or impaired, I just thought I was odd and out of sync, but I certainly recognize that even here I can't count myself in any way typical.
For me the real problem is striking a balance where I feel that I'm neither clubbing baby seals nor acting condescending, plus of course weeding out universal human stubbornness and ignorance from AS related communication problems. I think I've gotten better at this over the years, but I still have the occasional "is this guy for real or is this an AS issue" moment. For this and other reasons, I've adopted a sort of mirroring tactic for setting the tone of my posts, if another poster wants to make things nasty I take that as their "informed consent" to similar treatment. To my way of thinking, a neurological condition is no excuse for being a jerk and don't feel compelled to show restraint once a certain "as*hole threshold" has been reached. I'm still far from perfect at sticking to this, but I think it's a relatively good simple solution to a complex problem.
Anyone else have similar issues and/or better systems for solving them?
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
06 Apr 2010, 12:39 am
Dox47 wrote:
I've actually run up against this "problem" since I started posting here, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone address it directly. What I'm talking about is how much, if any "slack" should be cut for someone in debate in light of this being a forum for autistic people? It's an especially tricky question because the autism spectrum is so wide and encompasses so many different levels of functionality that misunderstandings are inevitable, especially here in PPR where things tend to get heated. I certainly don't expect any slack, but then again I was 26 when I was diagnosed and had never thought of myself as autistic or impaired, I just thought I was odd and out of sync, but I certainly recognize that even here I can't count myself in any way typical.
For me the real problem is striking a balance where I feel that I'm neither clubbing baby seals nor acting condescending, plus of course weeding out universal human stubbornness and ignorance from AS related communication problems. I think I've gotten better at this over the years, but I still have the occasional "is this guy for real or is this an AS issue" moment. For this and other reasons, I've adopted a sort of mirroring tactic for setting the tone of my posts, if another poster wants to make things nasty I take that as their "informed consent" to similar treatment. To my way of thinking, a neurological condition is no excuse for being a jerk and don't feel compelled to show restraint once a certain "as*hole threshold" has been reached. I'm still far from perfect at sticking to this, but I think it's a relatively good simple solution to a complex problem.
Anyone else have similar issues and/or better systems for solving them?
For me the real problem is striking a balance where I feel that I'm neither clubbing baby seals nor acting condescending, plus of course weeding out universal human stubbornness and ignorance from AS related communication problems. I think I've gotten better at this over the years, but I still have the occasional "is this guy for real or is this an AS issue" moment. For this and other reasons, I've adopted a sort of mirroring tactic for setting the tone of my posts, if another poster wants to make things nasty I take that as their "informed consent" to similar treatment. To my way of thinking, a neurological condition is no excuse for being a jerk and don't feel compelled to show restraint once a certain "as*hole threshold" has been reached. I'm still far from perfect at sticking to this, but I think it's a relatively good simple solution to a complex problem.
Anyone else have similar issues and/or better systems for solving them?
It's a matter of tactics. Sometimes dealing with a jerk gets better results by calmly indicating a better approach. Of course, it doesn't always work.
06 Apr 2010, 12:54 am
Sand wrote:
It's a matter of tactics. Sometimes dealing with a jerk gets better results by calmly indicating a better approach. Of course, it doesn't always work.
Oh, well I wasn't talking about general debate tactics, that's a whole other thread, but more the specialized difficulties of arguing with people who may have varying levels of functional impairment without either insulting their intellect or using unnecessarily forceful verbiage. I view obnoxious postings as a sort of self authorizing language, once a poster has crossed that threshold they can't really call foul later that they were treated harshly out of turn.
I actually agree that keeping one's cool in the face of an abusive poster is usually the better and more persuasive approach, I'm just talking about the propriety of aggressive argument with someone who may be less capable.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
06 Apr 2010, 12:58 am
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
It's a matter of tactics. Sometimes dealing with a jerk gets better results by calmly indicating a better approach. Of course, it doesn't always work.
Oh, well I wasn't talking about general debate tactics, that's a whole other thread, but more the specialized difficulties of arguing with people who may have varying levels of functional impairment without either insulting their intellect or using unnecessarily forceful verbiage. I view obnoxious postings as a sort of self authorizing language, once a poster has crossed that threshold they can't really call foul later that they were treated harshly out of turn.
I actually agree that keeping one's cool in the face of an abusive poster is usually the better and more persuasive approach, I'm just talking about the propriety of aggressive argument with someone who may be less capable.
Indulging in insult because a precedent has been offered may make a lively interchange but it might be more incisive and instructive to ignore the insult and examine the issues more closely.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
06 Apr 2010, 1:46 am
Sand wrote:
Indulging in insult because a precedent has been offered may make a lively interchange but it might be more incisive and instructive to ignore the insult and examine the issues more closely.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
Don't take this the wrong way Sand, but you're kinda proving my point here. See, I don't know if you're missing my point on purpose in order to argue with me, or if you're genuinely missing my point because of a cognitive difference, and this is far from the first time that I've had this dilemma with you.
I'll try to be more clear, I'm not talking about the effectiveness of insulting the other poster when debating, I agree with you that it's not an effective means of persuasion.
All I want to know is how other people approach a political argument knowing that not all of the participants are necessarily on a level playing field.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
06 Apr 2010, 3:26 am
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Indulging in insult because a precedent has been offered may make a lively interchange but it might be more incisive and instructive to ignore the insult and examine the issues more closely.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
Don't take this the wrong way Sand, but you're kinda proving my point here. See, I don't know if you're missing my point on purpose in order to argue with me, or if you're genuinely missing my point because of a cognitive difference, and this is far from the first time that I've had this dilemma with you.
I'll try to be more clear, I'm not talking about the effectiveness of insulting the other poster when debating, I agree with you that it's not an effective means of persuasion.
All I want to know is how other people approach a political argument knowing that not all of the participants are necessarily on a level playing field.
Believing in a level playing field is on a par with believing in God. I don't believe in either one.
06 Apr 2010, 6:15 am
I suppose it could have some influence, I often assume people already know minor things which are less fact and more opinion, which can create confusion. It's hard to tell really, I struggle with questions related to things due to lack of knowledge on the subject more than lack of understanding of the question, though I may be interpreting it wrongly and then assuming I have it correct.
In truth, I find this question difficult to answer.
happymusic
Veteran
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,165
Location: still in ninja land
06 Apr 2010, 10:25 am
I tend to let things go very quickly - like insults and things like that - because I assume the person just didn't get my point. If I have the impression the person is lower functioning (or that I am! - all things being relative), I'll just let it go. It makes me feel awful to argue with people anyway - well, arguing that involves personal attacks, especially. And usually, I don't care enough to thoroughly read and respond to someone else's critical post about what I said.
07 Apr 2010, 2:35 pm
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
It's a matter of tactics. Sometimes dealing with a jerk gets better results by calmly indicating a better approach. Of course, it doesn't always work.
Oh, well I wasn't talking about general debate tactics, that's a whole other thread, but more the specialized difficulties of arguing with people who may have varying levels of functional impairment without either insulting their intellect or using unnecessarily forceful verbiage. I view obnoxious postings as a sort of self authorizing language, once a poster has crossed that threshold they can't really call foul later that they were treated harshly out of turn.
I actually agree that keeping one's cool in the face of an abusive poster is usually the better and more persuasive approach, I'm just talking about the propriety of aggressive argument with someone who may be less capable.
Indulging in insult because a precedent has been offered may make a lively interchange but it might be more incisive and instructive to ignore the insult and examine the issues more closely.
Since you're a gun enthusiast let me put it in those terms.If someone takes a shot at you (and misses) is it always a good policy to shoot back or perhaps it might be more effective and better for both parties to back off and talk a bit.
i can sympathize. it's a difficult game to play if you intend to play fair. a lot of forum posters "play for the win" even on wrongplanet, as far as i've seen. i think the "autism factor" figures into it quite prominently, here. we tend to fixate on specific subjects and trains of thought and this gives us the feeling of authority on the subject. this leads to some people being seen as arrogant because they speak matter-of-factly about subjects the rest of us haven't spent years thinking about.
it does, indeed, make things difficult. i do wonder how much of that is actually the "autism factor" and how much is just stupid human games.
take the analogy proposed by sand. many people with interests in logical fallacies will see it and cry "straw man!" without ever considering that it may be appropriate to consider the idea from that perspective. i think if it were appropriate to consider not returning fire in the case of someone shooting at you, it would be appropriate to consider a pot shot taken at you in a forum as a misunderstanding. i wonder how many cars have been shot on the street my sister lives on in east LA because they backfired and someone mistook the sound for a gunshot and returned fire.
alas, because the comment was made by sand and was on a topic that you have argued from opposing sides, it is easy to take it as bait for a continuation of that argument.
some of this may have to do with our ASD. being a long-time resident of teh introwebz and a relative newcomer to the autistic community, i don't automatically attribute such misunderstandings to ASD. perhaps it is much more pervasive than i had previously understood.
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
07 Apr 2010, 5:25 pm
Dox47 wrote:
All I want to know is how other people approach a [potentially controversial discussion or debate] knowing that not all of the participants are necessarily on a level playing field.
I hope you do not mind my insertion there.
I try to learn from those who know more than I, and I try to help others come on up to speed if I can.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
08 Apr 2010, 8:26 pm
leejosepho wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
All I want to know is how other people approach a [potentially controversial discussion or debate] knowing that not all of the participants are necessarily on a level playing field.
I hope you do not mind my insertion there.
I try to learn from those who know more than I, and I try to help others come on up to speed if I can.
Not at all, that's a more accurate way of putting it, I just spend the majority of my time in this forum and was trying to keep it relevant to PPR, otherwise it might have seemed like a topic more suited to General Autism Discussion.
I try to take a similar approach to discussion, it can just get difficult when you can't tell if another poster is genuinely misunderstanding what you're saying or if a more calculated motive is involved.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
09 Apr 2010, 10:17 am
Dox47 wrote:
I'll try to be more clear, I'm not talking about the effectiveness of insulting the other poster when debating, I agree with you that it's not an effective means of persuasion.
All I want to know is how other people approach a political argument knowing that not all of the participants are necessarily on a level playing field.
In the domain of politics, rational argument is just about as useful as it is in the domain of religious beliefs. As to a level playing field, there never was such a playing field and their never will be. As long as there are different degrees of ability and ambition, things will never be level or even on the level. The strong will abuse the weak and the more intelligent will bamboozle the dull wits.
ruveyn
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
09 Apr 2010, 5:51 pm
ruveyn wrote:
In the domain of politics, rational argument is just about as useful as it is in the domain of religious beliefs.
Sure, so let us be rid of all politics and religion and just be ourselves together, eh?!
ruveyn wrote:
As long as there are different degrees of ability and ambition ...
The strong will abuse the weak and the more intelligent will bamboozle the dull wits.
The strong will abuse the weak and the more intelligent will bamboozle the dull wits.
So they wish! But no, not for just as long as at least some of the remainder of us continue speaking up.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Autism |
13 Mar 2024, 7:44 am |
| Different types of autism? |
06 Apr 2024, 10:22 am |
| Autism and lying |
01 Apr 2024, 6:20 am |
| Autism and therapy |
04 Apr 2024, 6:32 pm |
