Militant, much?

Post Reply New Topic

IMO: Logic is a system of sequential thought; substitute another basis or rationale, and you have someone who has strong beliefs who feels they are supported by the processes they use. Sometimes, those on the spectrum use logic, sometimes they do not. To me, logic is one way of analyzing and utilizing content within a form, not necessarily the form itself. It's the action, not the container.


M.

Totally.

This part here doesn't make sense to me. What is "a form"? Otherwise you appear to be describing what I consider to be the form. People can arrive at contrary conclusions from sensible reasoning if and only if they make different assumptions.

A form, a construct of patterned thought that allows one to come to a conclusion. With changes to the form, the connections made are different and different conclusions are reached.


M.

But then if form is that vague, then I'm not sure how the term "systemic thinker" is meaningful. Could you give an example of reasoning that is not sensible under any form?

Emotional reasoning is illogical and a symptom of a neurotic mind.

An example would be I am right because I am the most angry.

I am not an emotional person so I am not prone to reasoning such as this.

Logic is merely the form an argument takes, it is usually systematic and one step usually relies upon a previous step.

Formal logic is mathematics, informal logic is spoken and unspoken rational argument.

If you assume that the most angry person is right, and find that you are the most angry, then the conclusion follows.

*turns on flameguard*

Take the conversation in another forum here about one member's "theory" on human development. His argument is that there is a race-based component to intelligence/mind... from what I know, have read and experience, such a claim is completely unfounded in fact, but continues to exist and be based on superficial examination of characteristics. It isn't logical, but the individual's system of thought is geared around a different set of criteria. There is a process, and that process produces a different result. Individuals who utilize systemic thought are doing so instead of impulsive or instinctual; there is a construct to be completed that determines reaction.


M.

The logic is correct but the idea that emotions have a value in an argument is the fallacy here. If you really believe that anger is a prerequisite for correctness, then such a person would be emotionally disturbed in some way. My feelings do not change objective facts, however strong those feelings may be.

Some people give emotions a greater weight than they should and as a result have developed disturbed thought patterns. The psychotic has become so disturbed that their thoughts distort their perception of reality. Some religious people have similar delusions.

While emotional reasoning is illogical, to call it symptomatic is a stretch... would only agree if the behavior was repetitive/exclusive. People use emotional justifications all the time, at least in my experience. I do agree with your examples of different logics, though... illuminating.

Hector, you are getting the gist of what I am saying - their system of thought dictates that answer.


M.

In my experience the most disturbed people I know have frequently injected emotional reasoning into arguments where emotions are irrelevant. Maybe this is just a "human thing" rather than a neurotic thing. I personally find emotional reasoning and statements about beliefs to be repulsive as they are not open to rational argument. I consider openness to rational argument to be a prerequisite for sanity.

All this is very interesting but completely off-topic.

If I held the same requirements, I don't know that I would have ever met a sane man. Agree fully that emotional rationalization is not open to rational discourse... but it happens frequently. As a teacher, I've seen some stoic parents become some very dramatic and irrational people. I find it better to recognize and identify it in myself and others, to avoid it outside of expressing my own motivations for doing things, and to allow for it in others. Also, we're not completely off-topic, as it relates to the formation of the some the beliefs listed in the OP.


M.

Aspies are the incarnation of the Gods. When we finally ascend all who mocked us will pay, for we will be the judge of all souls. The reason we know this is because we are clearly superior to the NT hordes, for we are logical, moral, and everything good, including puppies. Yes, secretly inside of every AS person is a puppy. NTs are evil for they hate puppies(proven because AS people are all good things, including puppies) and consider genocide against us.

Eventually we will rise up with our Godly powers and smite the wicked NTs and bring them into the hells where they will suffer for all eternity due to their inferior emotions.

That was sarcasm, right? Yeah. That was sarcasm.

Emotional reasoning has actually got quite an advantage over logic in terms of speed and intuitive reasoning, and it's better when you deal with people because intuitive reasoning is very involved with interpretation of social cues. Logic takes longer and doesn't take into account anything you know only subconsciously, but it's more rigorous and tends to be correct more often when you deal with anything other than people (things, ideas, etc). There's a lot of talk about it in men-vs-women neurology research, because men lean a little more towards logic and women towards emotions.

makuranososhi, to clarify, I find it ridiculous to claim that ASD's are generally superior, yes some have extraordinary mental abilities, many do not, the same is true for NT, in other words ASD is not a pre-requisite for genius. Of course pride and arrogance are not the same thing, although one has to be carefull not to meld the two together. And no I have not given up, I have been searching for this DX since I was kid. My DX is not an excuse to say ah well thats just me I cant modify my behaviour, the exact opposite is true, I now have a great resource to understand my behaviour and where possible ammend it. Because of my DX I am the happiest I have been all my life, no more confusion I know whats going on.

In a general sense, for any group to claim superiority is a false or passing pretense - I think we can agree there. Within the spectrum, there are certain traits that tend to be more expressed; we can say then, only in broad generalization, that there are strengths and weaknesses within that spectrum in relation to the expressed 'norm'. ASDs are neither synonymous or requisite for genius, I believe we agree here as well. Can we venture the possibility that, within a group whose social understanding and expression is affected and/or impaired, that pride could easily be misread as arrogance or superiority? Not begging an excuse - far from it - but asking whether this is a reasonable consideration given the scenario. In seeking my diagnosis, I have many similar thoughts... because finally I have understanding, not an excuse and not a brick wall to slam into time and time again. There are things that I excel at; some of these seem to affected by some aspects that are affected by AS. Does that make me superior? No, but I have found how to use those quirks to my advantage. We are not so far apart, just different in our outward reactions, it seems to me.


M.