Do Aspies argue?

Post Reply New Topic

That might be true. But then, instead of saying refusing to argue, it is more logical to listen to what they said, and then point out everything else that they have missed.



Again, may be the proper response would be to continue an argument, and show them how it is possible that two points of view are equally valid.



If they don't know everything, the more logical response would be to continue argument, and point out everything they don't know.

I am sorry you have to face this. I know how it feels.

In my case, by the time they start doing it, they DO want to hurt me. But what is confusing is that they are nice people in general, and they don't hurt anyone except me. Besides, even with me, they were overly nice for quite a long time until OOOPS and they turn into real mean. So clearly whatever got them from real nice to real mean has to be something I have done without even noticing. But they won't ever tell me what it was.



Yes I also have been told that I was "proving their point" by arguing. In my case what happens is that people tell me that the main thing they dislike about me is that I argue too much, and here I am again doing exactly that. I then tell them three things:

A. When I argued before, I was unaware they didn't like it, since they were in good terms with me back then

B. Right now, yes I am aware they dislike it, but I don't have any other choice

C. So if they were to "undo" the current situation, thus getting me out of B, I would not be doing anything in A, since now I have learned the hard way not to

But their only response to that is "here you go again, arguing". But I can't help it. Obviusly, I need more than few sentenses to explain the above three steps so how can I get this piece of info across without comming across as "arguing"?



I understand exactly what you are saying. I have been in exact the same role, in very similar arguments.

Can you perhaps find another apportunity to tell this to him, perhaps when he is in a better mood? If he interrupts you in a middle, can you send it to him in writing, and ask him to read everything over before responding?



Yes I know the feeling.



Since he was genuenely confused, can you perhaps find some motivation for him to listen to it? Like find a context in which he would WANT to clarify his confusion?

Can you simply tell him that FIVE MINUTES of talking is wroth it if it resolves the MONTHS of confusion?



Yes I understand exactly what you were saying. To me, I would rather to be accused of something VERY serious and be allowed to defend myself, then to be accused of something not so serious and be shut down. If I can defend myself, the situation can always change. But if I am shut down it can't. I might become a saint, and their opinion of me would still be low since they won't pay attention to me to see that I became a saint.

Now can't you see why people would consider you to be a pain in the ass? You can't even accept that someone may have a life or something else more important to do or think about than argue with you. You want to argue that they should keep arguing until they accept your point of view. Can't you see why this would be irritating, annoying & off putting to nearly everyone?

I dislike losing an argument but I'll do it if it keeps the peace so I can slip away sooner. Though fat headed jerks (mainly my family) still make me argue unnecessarily...

granatelli you are doing one of the things that really annoys many aspies from this thread - you're not sticking to tthe facts. You just invented that he thinks people should keep arguing until they accept his point of view, likely becuase it makes your arguent sound better.

You said you think aspies often get 1 or 2 parts correct and ignore the rest. He said in that case people should point out the other parts or try to explain the big picture and it's effects. He made a fair point.

You also said you think aspies may need to simply realise someone else has an equally valid or correct point of view. He said he (as many of us have said) is willing to listen and be pursuaded by that point of view, in fact that is exactly what he wants to happen, but instead people get emotional or as you have done, attack you and bring in non-facts (in this case made up/exagerated statements).

You also stated it is popular opinion that aspies know everything. I dispute your claim that it's popular opinion and suggest you made this quote purely as a means to paint the picture that helps you (pushing aspies to the extreme so you can look like the middle ground voice of reason).

For the avoidance of doubt, i don't know if you have AS or not and don't consider it relevent to my replies as your posts seperated you from aspies as a general term and i simply carried that on.

What is the title of this thread?

Read the posts.

I rest my case.

^ FYI Quoting the prior comments does little to prove your point.

You rest "your case" ... of what? Trying to prove we like to argue? Most of us already admitted that. Trying to show why people find us a pain in the ass? I don't believe that was ever the topic of this thread.
>.> <.<
I fail to see your logic, sir.


@Roman - Excellent! I loved the breakdown of logical responses to granatelli's protestations. I completely agree 110%

That would apply to arguing about little things that don't matter. But how about big things.

Let me give you an example. I was nearly expelled from graduate school because I didn't know the rules of the game, which lead me to first neglect my research in favor of coursework, and later pick a research topic that I was not good at. However, I finally realized exactly what I did wrong, and I was telling everyone that if only I can now pick a research topic other than string theory and/or supersymmetry, I will do great, since I won't have philosophical issues with it and also I learned the hard way that graduate school is about research and not courses, so I won't neglect it either.

Well, I was lucky and finally one retired professor gave me that chance. I was right. I did well, and I got my ph.d. half a year ago. But the thing is that if it wasn't for that ONE person, I would have been expelled from graduate school. In fact, I had a deadline of June 1, 2006 to find an advisor, and this person literally took me two days before that deadline. All the months prior to that, no one wanted to take me.

Now here is a point. Why were I nearly expelled? Because people didn't want to argue! If they were willing to argue I would have been able to explain to them why I think I would do better if they were to give me a chance. But they avoided arguing at all costs and left me in that desperate situation.



I did not say "until they see my point of view". I said "until either one of us sees a point of view of the other person". That is different. Sometimes I even feel desperate to see THEIR point of view because I can't stop thinking just why do they do what they do. And, of course, I am equally desperate that they see mine. So it goes both ways for me.

It wasn't the original topic, but it became a topic in the last few replies, and it is rather important topic since NT-s really hurt aspies in that way.



Thank you

Sometimes it is good to let a thread simmer down for a bit.
Play nice, now. . .

@Roman,

Thank you so much for reading my post so carefully and giving so much thought to the problems I descibed in it.

I'm very glad that you carried on arguing with your college authorities and that you got to do your PhD in the end.

The issue with my partner thinking I am defensive / don't like to be proved wrong is something that I have discussed with him on a few occasions, so my post may have been misleading as I mentioned that one paricularly difficult one. I haven't gone back over that particular conversation with him but we have since discussed the general issue in a much more reasonable way. He says that the way I act is a way that very much comes across as being defensive, etc., and it is extremely hard for him to imagine that my motivation is otherwise. I wish I could show him what it is like inside my head, but since that is ultimately impossible, I can't expect him to deny the evidence of his senses. And his senses tell him that I am defensive and so on. I think he does try to understand it as much as he can though.

People often tell me that my motivation for doing something is X when I know it is Y. I think that might be an example of what people mean by "different wiring". On their circuit board, LED number 72 flashes when they are bullishly defending their opinion simply because it is theirs and they want to be right. On mine, the same LED flashes when I am asking for clarification of their point of view so that I can consider it properly, or when I am adding some more ideas to the mix so as to have a more informed discussion. I suppose I can't blame them for seeing LED number 72 flashing and reading it the usual way.

@Jingo8 - what you said a few posts back. Absolutely.

When I am at my most logical and systematic, the other person accuses me of being rhetorical and defensive.
When I am most keen on seeking knowledge together, the other person thinks I am trying to score points and "be right".
A phrase comes to mind: "Either I'm crazy or you're crazy..."

All of this defense and arguing whether a point is right or wrong is based on the assumption that there can only be one right answer. Sometimes that is the case. Sometimes it is not.

IMO the main problem as I see it is the AS tendancy to treat every situation as if there could only possibly be one correct answer. The classic black/white/right/wrong thinking patterns. And the world, our societies and our social interactions are all filled with grays, shades and nueances depending on the specific situation. This is what gives NT's (me included) fits.

JMHO. Disagree if you like.

Not sure how to put this . . . my "debates" are hard to describe. If someone has wrong information, i like to correct them, but with proof in order to avoid arguing (case like this in High School during a geometry problem). If there is proff to support what theyre saying is true over what i recall, i'll give in and commit the info to memory. THe REAL arguments i did have involved a pre-adolescent me and my brothers where 2 to one vote always wins . . . but the loser didnt always want to accept this.

I often get into arguments about things that to NT's seem not very important or are important to me. I think I can be a bit stubbon sometimes which is why A. Arguments proberly start and B. carry on for a long time I always feel like I need to change there view and get them to think like me I know that's terribly narrow minded but I often spend alot of time reflecting on things. Its possible that thes arguments start because I odnt think the over person understands me. Some times I can argue about something for days 0.o Like arguing with a Christian about god (not my smartest move ever) I think I tend to have 1 argument about these types of thing about a 1 argument per 1-3 basis. A figure im not proud of. The argument usually end with them walking off or other people moaning and groaning .

Im not really proud of being argumentative but I seem to get into them easily.

Can you explain why you would assume "all of this defense and arguing whether a point is right or wrong" is predominately linked to situations where there is more than one right answer? After all if it happens just as much (or more) when there actually really is only one right answer, your explanation is fatally flawed.

So please do tell us how you came to conclude that the behaviour described is predominately in situations where there is more than one right answer?

I argue a lot, but whether that is AS or too much hormones I don't know! Trouble is I havent got the verbal skills to argue well so I usually end up screaming and smashing things. Not great. If I tell someone a fact and they tell me it is wrong (I don't like to admit I am wrong!) I get really freaked out and cry because they are calling me 'stupid' even though I know damn well that they aren't! LOL!! ! The other people with ASD in my house argue too! Drives us all nuts!