Ettiquette- how I got served (and rightly so)

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is an asperger's related topic, though I suppose it can apply to everyone. I just thought I would mention just how important the presentation of your words is crucial.

So me and my peers were discussing 'The Illusionist' (the animated one). I don't know about other animators, but every conversation about the illusionist among animation students (at least for me) always ends up with a giant argument. People either love it or hate it. I'm neutral towards the film, but I like to play devils advocate for both sides.

Anyway, the conversation turned into a discussion over the validity of opinion. I talked about why I think that you shouldn't dismiss the quality of a film just because you personally dislike it. For example, you may not like, say, Requiem for a Dream or Hamlet, but if you're going to dismiss it completely as a film or a play, you really need to construct a good argument for your case.

I didn't word it like that.

I said "If somebody says that requiem for a dream is a sh***y movie just because it has a sad ending, then I'd say "f**k you"".

This was when one of my peers expressed her point - "all opinions are valid. You should question people's opinions, not attack them because agressiveness get you nowhere".

I actually didn't see what I was saying as particularly agressive. I just assumed that people would know that I was exaggerating on purpose.
I guess I'm so used to hearing strong opinions without it bothering me (when I was at college, people did not hold back and we didn't give any thought about each others feelings*), but today I learned just how fallacious, aggressive and hypocritical I was. I suppose she was basically saying "don't use a fallacy to attack a fallacy".

Well, that and it's manners. I'm not close enough to these people to act the way I normally do, so of course they are going to perceive ,my behaviour as entitled and narcissistic.

I guess I wanted to bring this up because, as an aspie, I find that I do get very drawn to subjects and forget that in the social arena, you have to have self awareness and awareness of how you are communicating yourself. If people think you are attacking them from a personal level, they will not consider your viewpoint (even if you are justified). There is a certain level of detachment that is required in order to function socially. I'm also getting the impression that some of my peers see me as confrontational (it runs in the family, heheh) and often monopolise social occasions (that or I seem to blend in the background). Being in a new setting such as university has taught me how much I really am struggling. I'm a little insecure, I'll have to admit- I don't like having to be so hypervigilant all the time. However, this experience has taught me a bit more about why people find me difficult and how I can go about making myself more tolerable to work with.

So the moral of the story is people can't read your mind, so always be rational and polite until you are certain you know how to be with this person.

*Incidentally, me and the guys at college are still good friends and we still argue over movies (you should have seen us discussing 2001: A Space Odyssey).

I read your post attentively and if it were a story I would think okay, the main character has learned a lesson.

However, on the level of a person's life I really don't understand why someone would take such an effort to play those games. From my standpoint, what counts is exclusively your own opinion just for yourself and not what any people might think about the way you are expressing it. In a free country you have the right to state your opinion and there's no reason to walk on eggshells. But hey, I am the aloof subtype and basically not able to understand why you need to discuss at all.

This is off topic, more of a response to PTSmorrow. Please don't take this as some kind of attack. I find myself very dismissive of other peoples opinions as well, but I'm convinced there's someway to better understand the communication barrier between us and NT's and I'm determined to figure it out.

I used to think this way, however, my curiosity of psychology has led me to better understand human nature and led to the developing of new opinions. If we lived in a literal world this would suffice, but we don't. We live in an idealized world, take freedom for example.

Freedom is a wonderful concept, but also an artificial construct. It exists because we fight against those who would oppress the will of others. We create freedom because somewhere inside us we know that enslaving another person seems "wrong", but why? The universe doesn't care about human slavery or freedom insofar that it makes sentient creatures inherently compassionate. Evolution doesn't have some imperative that we all enjoy our existence. Freedom isn't some mystical entity in and of itself, it's the result of vigilance against the reality of human nature and the fact that willpower alone isn't enough. A man must be accountable for his actions as history has proven countless times that those who aren't become tyrants. You see it among the wealthy everyday. The upper class like to see themselves as being somehow inherently superior, whether by heritage or accomplishment, yet they completely disregard the fact that many people when greeted by similar opportunities can achieve just as much. Now it's not exactly homogeneous, you can't grow Albert Einsteins, but to use him as an example, he achieved success because opportunity met chance. Those not born into wealth are all but guaranteed to have less opportunities. Of course there are always exceptions, but in those cases where common folk elevate their status, they are assimilated into the upper class and then become part of the problem.

Not having spoken until age 4 we can only imagine had Einstein been born into a less hospitable environment what would've became of him. Sure we can't predict alternate reality scenarios, but psychological factors affect a persons view of themselves and the world around them. Hitler and Einstein, both very much geniuses, one twisted and sadistic, the other enlightened and benign, are two sides of the same coin. Their characters', like all people's, are more a product of their environment than the result of individual willpower. Why do you think we aren't taught psychology and theology in school, but rather ideology and propaganda? Those in power don't want us rabble to realize this, they don't want us to ever feel like we deserve more than their scraps and so they practice mass psycho-manipulation behind the guise of freedom of speech to broadcast their propaganda. As we accept the ideal of humanity they broadcast we complacently cooperate in our own oppression.

What I mean is that, sure, in a world where people don't evaluate each others worth via sociologically established criteria and solely on factual data, the presentation of your opinion doesn't matter, people would interpret it the same regardless of etiquette. That's not the world we live in though, but it seems like this phenomena is common among AS. I like to call it the "ego vacuum theory". In a vacuum, intent is all that matters as there is nothing in a vacuum that would affect it. Origination, traversal, and destination are all predisposed upon manifestation of said intent. Nothing can change any of those, unless ...we don't live in social vacuums. That would mean the responsibility of making sure that intent is properly constructed to arrive at the destination in a comprehensible manner lies with the originator and not the receiver. How you say it is just as, if not more, important than what you say. If people aren't receptive to your message than they will dismiss it, no matter its value or intent.

Sorry if that was a bit off topic, but it felt relevant. I'd say that if you want to associate with a group of people than it would be prudent to become familiar with their cultural etiquette. Sure, it's easier to stop caring about how you come off to others after you get jaded from years of negative experience, but if we ever hope to breakdown this communication barrier we mustn't give up. You seem like you're handling it pretty well, keep it up and good luck!

SpectrumWarrior, fascinating and insightful though that was, I am forced to invoke Goodwin's Law

Thank you for the explanation, SpectrumWarrior, it reminded me of what Eric Berne wrote on the ratio of (intended) information, aka the message, and the noise, which is not at all meant to be a source of information, but obviously offers some, at least for NT's. However, one can always question whether their assumptions are truly right.

Someone else wrote that Gandhi couldn't wear a BDU because it would contradict his peace ideology.

Well, that's nice, provided you're interested in it. I personally prefer written communication because that's a proper way to avoid all these unnecessary distractions. Unless someone is a politician or teacher, there is actually no need for talking. It causes nothing but problems and misunderstandings. Furthermore, it's a waste of time because you can write and post a message much faster and more efficiently.

Due to some explanations I have an about idea what the noise of a conversation is -- it's all about their oh--so--important feelings. Like being "nice" or something. To each their own, but fortunately we live in the computer age where emotional fuss doesn't matter.

If you boil it down to mere facts, information is one thing, feelings are another, and what's the point of mixing both up? Unless one uses abusive language in a conversation, as offending others is against the rules, it simply doesn't matter how he's getting his point across.