ivetastedflight wrote:
Programmer wrote:
Emotional arguments would basically disappear and be replaced by logical arguments.
Uh, have you been to the politics section in WP yet?
My experience has been that the more emotional NTs use emotional arguments almost exclusively. First we decide what the conclusion is and then we try to justify it. Their usual response to facts contravening their argument is to get mad. The better NTs may try mocking or attacking the source.
Example <Happenned to me in the car two days ago>:
NT: I am impressed that a Grand Master Chess player beat a computer.
Aspie: Have you read about the big blue project? Most Grand Masters can beat a computer easily.
NT: Complains you are insulting their intelligence by pointing out they are wrong.
Aspie thinks: WTF? They are wrong. Don't they care?
Or the better one someone said to me:
NT: I don't like talking to you because I can find no problem with your arguments but I know you are wrong.
Aspie: ?
Or another:
NT: All people against global warming are paid for by oil interests.
Aspie: Did you know Al Gore gets paid $125,000 for each presentation of it is an inconvenient truth. He has a vested interest in mis portraying the facts as well.
NT: You are stupid.
Aspie thinks: No just less biast and still undecided.
Or another:
Aspie: Did you know CO2 is almost a trace element?
NT: What right wing conspiracy web site did you get that from?
Aspie: The IPCC report lists concentrations at 381 ppm.
NT: They are a some conspiracy site.
Aspie: IPCC stands for the International Panel on Climate Change.
NT: Gets mad.