"Stop arguing with me"

Post Reply New Topic

There's a lot of context missing here, but yeah, I do get the sense that a lot of people don't care to discuss their core beliefs in depth unless they're the ones doing the most talking. It's uncomfortable for them.

Also, from the other side, I know someone who seems to enjoy arguing for its own sake, because he's always disagreeing with someone and rarely agreeing. I think the next time this guy argues with me, I'll ask him about it, "I get the impression that..." and see what he says, because right now, a few other people in the group think he's doing it on purpose to be difficult.

That's just typical normies for you. They live their entire lives guided by emotions, not facts, logic and reason.

It definitely is uncomfortable for them because most of them never think about what their core beliefs are or how they got them.

In my experience most of what NTs believe, they get from other people, not from investigation, analysis or contemplation.

This isn't a moral judgement. It is how their brains work.

This is why advertising is one of the largest industries in the world.

So, when we confront them on a belief it puts them in place they usually don't want to go.

This is how you will make enemies. Force them to examine their own actions, thoughts, and lives.

When I do well at work, it forces other people into comparison with me.

I think this would apply to many non-scientists and others who are not analytical or introspective, as well as to children who don't have these skills yet. I can't really imagine what this must be like though, because even if I got a belief from other people, I could still tell you why I maintain that belief. Lots of beliefs aren't original but people still have to accept or reject them as adults. It still amazes me how advertising works.



That makes sense. Also, if I were to argue with you, or any expert in their field, I would have to be very careful. If I argue outright as a non-expert, the expert might see me as difficult or arrogant, or take it as an insult. I think I'd have to confirm the facts with the expert first, or present facts from credible sources, before I could state an opinion and be received without hostility.

Even as a child I questioned everything. I asked why and was always told to be quiet. I examined my beliefs and decided that church was not for me and stopped going at 4. It was the Santa fairy tale for adults.


As for expert/non-expert: if someone has social power, then it doesn't matter if you are an expert.

Just look at the climate controversy. The experts say "do something now", and what are we as species doing? Watching the biosphere collapse on our 70" flat screen tvs while driving in our hummers across what used to be thriving ecosystems.

In my case it is a person who has been there since I was born, and has managed to get into a position for which they are not qualified and has surrounded themselves with mediocre specialists.

All I do show how little they know about their job. That is part of why I am leaving.

They have power, I have expertise. I will lose.

I can relate to what everyone has said in this thread. There seems to be a divergent thread here that spawned off of the OP's original question though.
He depicted a casual conversation that failed because he did what I typically do. The NT said I like X. You responded, I like Y and this is why I don't like X and this is why I like Y.
Now, I have an idea, but I am not an NT so maybe its not the right answer but I think it might work. An alternate conversation that would be more socially acceptable might goes like this...
The NT says I like X. You say something positive! Yes, X is a good writer. (you may have to substitute whatever you can muster if you hate X - like..X won some award or X sure is popular, just make sure it is a positive response!) This is how you acknowledge that the other person's opinion has value even if its not how you feel. Mention how you know about X but do not say anything negative, like I read this title that X wrote. Then wait for the NT to say something further. The objective is to talk about the subject that the NT brought up, NOT to change over to some subject that you find more worthy - like Y, who may be clearly superior and even though you may have a valid argument. After you have validated the other person's opinion you can bring up your choice Y. You could even say, I like how Y does his thing, I appreciate how succinct he is as X is sometimes too verbose for me. Now, you have already complimented X and now the NT will not be so threatened by your disagreement but may even agree with you or he may say how he loves how verbose X is. It sounds like a difference in style now and not a personal attack.

The other issue that stems from the same kind of exchange with an NT sounds different to me that what the OP posted though. It sounds like a hierarchy issue but still has to do with respect. If your superior is wrong, the polite thing to do is not confront them so bluntly and blatantly. Instead, you can be thoughtfully confused, and gently explain your confusion. This gives the other person a chance to "save face". If they persist in being wrong, then that is ok. Let them be wrong, as long as no lives hang in the balance. Even then you may have to let your supervisor or teacher or whoever has the superior position have their way. Everyone makes mistakes and your job is to figure out a way to keep the world safe and correct without stepping on other people's feelings to do it.
Hope I didn't totally miss the point here because that something I do often also!

I don't think this is an autistic-neurotypical thing — or, at least, not entirely and autistic-NT thing.

I think it's also a cultural thing.

Some cultures consider a good argument — and I mean an argument as in a debate or a vigorous exchange of views and ideas, not a quarrel or a fight — as an enjoyable way of interacting and passing the time. They find it invigorating with no hard feelings afterwards. Others don't.

One of my friends growing up was Jewish (he was training to become a rabbi) and he and his family all enjoyed a good argument. Same with another friend, only his family was Irish Catholic. This was in stark contrast to almost everyone else I knew, generally English Protestants or Anglicans, who only seemed interested in discussions where everyone agreed. At the first sign of any sort of disagreement, they would simply change the subject and avoid that topic thereafter.

I'd also point to the Symposium by Plato. This is a dialogue in which a bunch of people, including Socrates, get together for a dinner party and, once the wine is served, are casting around for a topic of discussion and decide to argue about the nature of love. Each participant presents and defends a different view on the subject — some pretty far fetched and rather funny. Though there's much disagreement, everyone involved seems to enjoy it and there are no hard feelings. So, I'd suggest that the Classical Greeks also had a pro-argument culture. The same may also be true of modern Greeks — I lack the experience to say one way or the other.

Other cultures seem to regard arguments as disruptive to social harmony and so avoid them whenever possible — and only engage in them reluctantly when it's not.

One of the things I've noticed is that those who enjoy arguing recognize certain implicit rules. No personal attacks. An opinion has to be supported with either reason and/or evidence or it's just ignored. A particularly good or clever bit of reasoning is admired even if it's in support of a position you disagree with. While Appeals to emotion are allowed, they don't carry any special weight. Just because someone argues for a position doesn't mean they believe it; playing Devil's Advocate is perfectly acceptable, and even admired when it's done well. And so on.

By contrast, those who don't enjoy arguing don't recognize such rules — probably due to a lack of practice — so when they do argue, anything goes. Emotions especially are often used as a club to delegitimatize other points of view.

Now, autistics may be naturally inclined to enjoy arguing — I know that's when I feel most connected to other people and I find it a great bonding exercise — but I don't think it's a trait that's unique to those on the spectrum.

I think that it's just as likely that the original poster is interacting with people whose worldview is shaped by non-arguing cultural assumptions and that's the cause of the difficulty, as it is a difference between autistics and NTs.

While I questioned all the time, I was also prone to faith, magical thinking and some black-and-white reasoning, not a good combination for unbiased analysis LOL.




The climate controversy is about so much more than facts, and it's also a good example of a non-expert questioning an expert and not being taken seriously. They don't respect, or don't understand, the evidence, or they feel it's a threat. In power though, the politician who scoffs the experts is sometimes respected.

As for your work example, that is potentially dysfunctional and does show how non-experts achieve power.



True. I wasn't thinking of casual conversation.



Oh yeah, it's possible that the original poster came across as not validating the other person's opinion. I like this strategy to relate and later state a different opinion.



I agree. The battle with a superior is often not worth the trouble.



Your cultural examples and the examples of the implicit rules of a productive argument are good. I hadn't thought about it from a cultural perspective before.

I have gotten this all throughout my life, but I've noticed that it highly depends on the person. For some people, my ability to excitedly rant about my opinions seems charming whereas for other people, they automatically retreat into the "why are you upset with me?" space. I'm still not really sure why NTs operate like this, and why do they think I'm upset with them when I'm discussing about something that has nothing to do with them; the only conclusion that I've reached is that, with some people, it's better to just not go into specifics and keep the discussion superficial (to the best of our ability).

Look sometimes people just like to state their opinion and not waste energy on a debate, it doesn't mean that those people are idiots it just means that they do not want to be bothered. And sometimes people do not like being corrected in general, if someone constantly disproves and refutes what the other person is saying it can make him/her feel foolish or an idiot and that it is not a nice feeling for anyone "Saying I don't want to argue" in that instance can be to prevent that feeling and is not a bad thing. Sometimes I guess as well as that people like to feel as though they are right on something, it can make people feel intelligent and proud. When we argue with someone we risk taking that away and we should understand that people don't enjoy that feeling.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in discussions and in people having divergent opinions. It's inevitable, in fact, for people to not agree with you 100% of the time. We have to live with that fact, and move on from there.

I, absolutely, do not believe in insulting the person; I think that's a no-no whenever one is discussing something--even if the insulting is a rhetorical device, and is not truly meant.

I also don't believe in censorship, for the most part, on forums. I believe people should have their say. If somebody expresses an asinine, a**hole opinion, such as those which Neo-Nazis espouse, they should be ignored.

I didn't grow up in an "argument-oriented" family even though my mother is Jewish and my father Catholic. Anything controversial was something that was inappropriate to discuss at the dinner table. It would have been nice if I had a family who discussed things in a civil manner.

Wow, a lot of good stuff here. (see how well this works)

There are exceptions to everything. I know that when I have a migraine, I can be very argumentative.

And there are lots of bad ways to disagree.

As for my work situation. I go out of my way to avoid being confrontational.

But, I forget to act like they do. I get excited about new projects about learning new things.

I forget and I start asking questions because I want know everything there is to know.

Usually what happens is that they try to act like they know what they are talking about, but after about 4-5 questions it is obvious that they don't and by asking them, I have exposed their ignorance.


When it comes to casual conversation, my problem is that I am exchanging data while they are exchanging meaning and expecting me to accept their meaning.

I had a friend tell me the same thing four times in about 3 hours. I felt like telling "yes, I received that data 3 hours ago, is there some other thing you are trying to tell me?", but I did not.

I am also faceblind, so I don't get the emotional content of the non-verbal communication.

What I do is privately bring up my ideas to people in charge and let them decide what to do with it, at their convenience. Guess what, meetings are usually optional for me. Though they really wanted me to come to the last one I went to, because they were really stuck and needed my help.

I have tried that as well, but if someone is in denial about the situation, anything that forces awareness is bad.

I go to meetings, but I tend to sit there and calculate the Fibonacci sequence or draw patterns on graph paper.
It raised a few questions in the beginning, but now they realize that is how I occupy my mind enough to be able to pay attention to them.

Having a special interest can be very useful.