Points and Sides

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I'm developing some theories that I wish to share.. Pardon me if they don't totally come out right, that's why I'm sharing them.

When I was younger the term "point taken" was considered "my phrase." I say it to concede a point, at least partially, in that the other person has made a logical and decent argument, and I'll have to readjust my thoughts at least a bit. This is, apparently, something that most people don't do. I guess once they're sure of an opinion, it sticks, no matter how much logic says otherwise?

Is this an aspie thing to separate facts from the person with the facts, and be able to look at something logically, without attaching self-worth to the accuracy of current information? It seems like NTs can associate an attack on someone's point as an attack on the person, which, quite obviously, doesn't make any sense. But they'll then turn around and respond to an attack on a point that they made with an attack on the person that questioned their point. Does that mean that they consider the questioning of their point to be personal, and that they therefor have to totally dismiss the person who questioned it?

Continuing along that line of thought, one of the major symptoms of AS/autism is the trouble with change. Could it actually be the opposite? Could it be that when something changes, NTs don't change along with it, so they seem to be able to handle change better, while someone with AS will need time to process new information and change with it, being unable to simply dismiss new information in that way? So if presented with some kind of life-changing information, and NT will just go "no, that doesn't fit into my worldview, it must be wrong" and ignore any amount of logic that says otherwise? It makes sense not only in the interactions I've seen around here recently, but also from a historical point of view, where anyone who challenged the status-quo was ostracized without any consideration of the validity of what they were saying. And then usually long, long afterward everyone realizes that they were right. Think Galileo, Barbara McClintock.. really anyone who has revolutionized anything was completely ostracized as soon as they tried to point out inconsistencies in the general belief. So is it possible that the problems people with AS have with change are more to do with the fact that when things change, but the time, energy, and effort required to actually accept a change that an NT would pretty much just dismiss?

I'm trying to grasp this NT practice of claiming that anyone who as challenged your facts has attacked "you" and must be attacked and dismissed..

No it isn't. There are plenty of NTs who are capable of careful, organized critical though. Being logical and or precise is not the exclusive property of Aspies. Aspies may be inclined by their nature to be literal minded and pedantically precise, but precision and correctness is not theirs exclusively.

ruveyn

In a way yes, and in a way no.. I suppose it's probably not all, but the majority of those NTs that you're referring to are "geeks".. A term that seems to almost mean functional aspies who have never merited a diagnosis because they don't have problems in functioning that require psychiatric help. Most such people would be incredibly offended to be referred to with a label that included the word "typical."
Someone with an obsession with correct facts almost by definition is going to have problems socially, since most people don't appreciate being corrected.

I've noticed that. Sometimes I want to shake a person and tell them that I did not say "Stupid! You're wrong!", I said "That isn't so." Don't know if it's an NT thing or not... Sometimes I'll change my mind fully or partly if the logic is very compelling. As long as it's about the facts not just opinion, and not if it really is a personal attack. Usually I save face by saying "yeah I suppose so" and define which bit I'll accept and why.

Understood


I don't think it is an aspie trait, infact people with aspergers can be mistaken for people with narcissistic personality disorder to the general public. Aspies are just as prone to believing they are under attack because someone does not agree with their point of veiw.


Most NT's do change however, when the situation changes. I have highlighted the part in bold which i think applies the most. NT's are able to more easily see the "big picture" so they are more able to decide which details can be ignored. Someone with aspergers either cannot percieve the big-picture, or has trouble percieving it and hence does not know which bits of information can be ignored. This can cause someone to react slower, someone to experience overload, or someone to become confused.


Actually the actions regarding galileo were from a logical veiw-point. He was presenting an idea, that people (educated or otherwise) equated to saying the bible was flawed. So the church had to act against him.

And a finishing note, although people with aspergers are quoted as being very literal and logical, the words are being used to describe a thought process and opposed to actually being logical. Aspies are just as illogical as the rest of the world.

I would weigh in on the side that feels this is not an AS exclusive trait. What you're seeing here is really how far along this human is on the Path of Logic.

While AS people in general seem more inclined to be more logical and less emotional (and I'm giving a nod to the study that is saying "autistics are hyperemotional here"), this is NOT always the case as every manifestation of AS is different. Sometimes radically different.

To me, an intellectual discourse with someone is a compliment. By sharing facts and information, you're acknowledging that the other person is an intelligent person worth having an in-depth conversation with. If you thought they were a total idiot, what would be the point of the conversation? One person is just one person and doesn't know everything. To make it like someone is a failure for not having all the information everyone else may have is just silly. Of course I know things some other people don't know, and they know things that I don't know. If someone has knowledge that I don't, and shares it with me, then I'll have that knowledge too. I don't see any shame in that, knowledgeable people are always the ones who pick up information everywhere, and appreciate getting it. The people that I most respect are the ones that WANT to be corrected if they're wrong. Of course, they're less likely to be wrong, because they'll have encouraged people in the past to correct them as well, so when they get something wrong, they find out what is actually correct quite quickly. They're also not going to look down on you for not knowing something.. they're going to hope that when they tell you something you don't know, you'll ask more about it. Maybe even have questions that they won't have the answer to and will have to research to find out. Those are the fun people.

I think where things get really sticky and ugly is when debates aren't simply about facts and information, but rather about what to do with those facts and information. In other words, debates about policy. Even when two people have agreed on a set of facts, what policy should be dictated by those facts is still very much up in the air and is likely to lead to the heated exchanges you describe, especially if both the people feel very strongly.

Some topics likely to lead to fights and feelings of being attacked even if facts have been agreed upon:

gay marriage, welfare reform, abortion, miltary policy, vegetarianism, child-rearing practices

Logic can only take you so far. It's great for collecting data and analyzing data but things get less clear in debates on what to do with that data analysis once it has been made. In many cases, logic will not lead you towards a clear-cut right/wrong choice and that's when tempers flare.

That is true, but that wasn't really the point of my post.. I was referring to how NTs seem to have a tendency to get angry at being corrected on things that are pure fact. For the sake of this general thread, I wanted to leave things that are more than that out of it. I was more trying to figure out why, if someone has an objective no-opinion-involved fact wrong, they'd prefer for people to smile and pretend they didn't know that they were wrong and let them continue running around saying something that's outright objectively untrue. Anything subjective is a separate can of worms. My question is why NTs think it's more respectful let someone continue saying something that's untrue than to tell them what you know about something. Pure facts only.

This may not be an AS or NT trait per se, but I think it may be indicative of someone with AS talking to someone NT. I think people with AS are more likely to over-correct and nitpick out the details of the facts to every conceivable degree, and the NT person is more likely to interpret this as, "Jaysus, they have to find fault with everything I'm saying, yet they're missing the bigger point."

Ok, that makes sense... but won't using actual CORRECT information strengthen a good point?