My AS really showed itself today in class

Post Reply New Topic

In a legal class we had to write a paper regarding a women's rights issue and debate it in front of student "judges". Each student was given approximately 10 minutes to argue their point. The presenter was graded on the argument and the judges were graded based on their questions. One of the judges had an emotional connection with the issue and repeatedly got argumentative with all of us presenting today. At least 5 minutes of each presenter's time was spent in a constant dialogue with the one judge.

It may have been a single thing I said or a combination of the things I said but I feel like I pissed off 80% of the room including the professor. The judge would not let me go on with my presentation and I snapped at that judge pretty hard regarding the issue, not the judge personally.
My viewpoint came across as insensitive/offensive to most, but at least it was logical in my opinion. I now realize my emotional detachment was pretty obvious to everyone. After class the student "judge" approached the professor and had a conversation I couldn't hear but the last part, where they both looked at me and he said to the student "you were in the right". Whatever that means.....?

I am thinking about meeting with the professor to explain my diagnosis and how this particular assignment really brought out my symptoms. Then again I don't know if it would do much, any suggestions?

Do you mind sharing what you said?

After what happened I mind. Just assume it had truth, but was extremely insensitive. The point being my lack of empathy really put me in a bad spot.

I thought debates were supposed to be about facts and rationale, rather than emotion. Seems to me , getting emotional should cause you to lose points.

I completely identify with the situation. Often, if you stick to the logical issues in a discussion, people automatically assume you're defending a point of view, when you're just trying to keep the discussion honest, by sticking to point of fact, rather than just slinging hysterical barbs that prove nothing.

People with an agenda always have hot-button buzzwords to get the villagers riled up, but they rarely have the weight of legitimacy, they're just propaganda.

I'd like to know what you said. It sounds like you may have been arguing an unpopular opinion.

Unfortunately, people are being taught to think with their feelings, not their minds.

Also, you will find that many people who profess tolerance, really don't. They will attack any opinion that doesn't agree with theirs, but still claim to be tolerant of others views.

It sounds like she should have been a debater, not a judge.

Of course, all this is based on you having bad a logical, factual, but just unpopular argument.

Womens rights=fix my car.

I need a transmission.

I'm no good at that paticular subject either.

Everyone has their place.

Right where?

I can't say for certain without having been there but it sounds like the assignment was meant to foster discussion between you and the judges to show you have enough of an understanding of the topic to 'think on your toes'. The judges as a collective should have had about half of the minutes to ask questions and you as the presenter should have had a little bit more of the time to present and answer. It wouldn't have been written like that in the assignment because the time managment aspect is part of presenting.
The 'judges and presenter' comparison would be a reference to how there is a short opening statment in both and the questioning would be compared to providing different bits of evidence.
It was a different kind of presentation than you expected, is what I got from that. But please tell me if I'm wrong so I can try again. I might be over-identifying because it sounds so much like the sort of things I experianced in high-school.

Re: Talking with the professor (which I think was your original interest) -

If it a legal class within some other field of study, then probably no harm in talking to the professor and, if it seems right at the time, mentioning your condition.

If it a class in law school or otherwise leading to a career in legal services, I might think twice lest it have later career consequences.

Thanks everyone for the input, reading the comments really made me feel better about it.

After thinking about it, this is where I stand. I was expecting a legal debate. Instead I got emotional backlash from a female that was not asking questions within the boundaries of the assignment. I couldn't have prepared for that even if I wanted to.

In addition "thinking on my feet" isn't one of my strong points. I have a hard time stating clear concise responses on the spot like that. I just feel like my brain is working way faster than my mouth and before I can completely state one thought, I'm already talking about something else. I attribute this to AS, and I will continue to work on it to improve.

I came to two conclusions:

1) Before she walked into the room that day she decided she was not going to tolerate the opposing opinion, let alone hear the merit for it.
2) Once it became apparent she was emotionally charged to the point she was clearly being unreasonable, the professor should have shut her down.

I'm still on the fence about whether to speak to him or not, seeing as I place some of the blame on him. He is a pretty reasonable guy otherwise. Also, I'm still considering the possibility that I'm just over-reacting.

There is no advantage. I would not speak of it. Move on.

If you think he's reasonable and trust-worthy it might be a good idea to disclose your diagnosis as it could help him to recognise what you need in situations like that. I'd find a way to bring up the topic of autism casually to 'test the waters' on how someone feels about the capabilities of people on the spectrum as a lot of people have trouble understanding high IQ disabilities in general. Talking 'one on one' is much less stressful and limits your vulnerability to prejudiced people, as well.
If you have an effective way to explain your diagnosis to people it can really help people understand where you're coming from and it can make people be more accepting of your differences to know you have an honest reason for having difficulties. You just have to be careful about who you tell and how you tell them. Some people can be very unwilling to listen.
Once they know, you might have to keep helping them to understand what Autism really means. There's a lot of misinformation out there and having a few reliable sources handy in case they ask for some can be useful.
Either way it's not something you should rush into. Take the time you need to feel confident about your choice.

I wouldn't. It is a debate. Debates don't descriminate. It may give you an edge. People don't need to know anymore than all of the sociopaths running around. They don't tell anyone either. Keep them in the dark. Most people don't understand anyways. The purpose of a debate is to see every possible perspective, right or wrong, but I don't have to tell you that. If anyone has a problem with you because of it, then they do not belong in the position of a debate, unless they have the ability to change your mind. If people have a problem with you because of what you said, then I would not be able to understand what they are teaching.

In my experience, I have found that most, but not all, professors are reasonable if you approach them under the right circumstances (for example, after class if they are not in a rush to get somewhere or during there office hours). If you think the professor would listen, that you should tell him about your condition. Be ready to explain not only what it is but how it effects you directly when being placed in situations such as the debate you just had so much trouble with.

Then, on top of that, you should ask him what you could do to better conduct yourself in a debate situation. This will show that you are taking the class seriously and are concerned about how other people reacted to you. Clearly it is a point to bring up if you have this conversation if you managed to anger so many people during your discussion. As has been mentioned here, this was supposed to be an exercise of rationale, not emotion. Most of your classmates know this, yet whatever you said still managed to invoke an extremely negative emotional response from the majority of them. You might want to understand exactly what you did to avoid it in the future (if not for general situations, the at least in that class so your grade isn't impacted).

I would suggest you only talk about the judge if the professor brings her up but if he does, express your opinion in a polite manner.

Thanks everyone for the advice. I decided just not to approach him about it, after getting my grade and feedback. I got positive feedback on the argument and a decent grade. He didn't address the judge, but a friend of a friend told me the hostile judge didn't get such a hot grade for being "unprofessional". I thought that was fair. With graduation near, I decided my reputation there really doesn't matter anymore. If I had to spend more time there I would be more concerned about it. All I can do now is study for the final.

Just out of curiosity, what was the topic and what was the girl's stance?

As someone with a degree in law myself, I can only say that your emotional detachment might give you an edge in your presentations of legal matters if you know how to make good use of it. It can be a handicap when you are expected to give a statement about ethical, moral or yes, even emotional implications of a court ruling or a new legal act, but for the most part, you have the image of blind goddess Justicia behind your back, that judges based on fact, not on oppinion. I did studies in feministic law and jurisprudence, church law and islamic law, and I can tell you this much: nothing blinds judgement more than ideology and bias towards a certain group, be it non-christians, non-muslims, women or men, because the argument is not going to be about how the person thinks a certain matter should be based on their conceptions of facts, but on their preconception about what they think the facts are. When you get to a point where someone pursues a personal agenda behind an argument, it will almost always turn ad hominem, simply because the person has personal investment in the matter and takes every point taken against their point of view as ad hominem themselves, even if it is neither intended nor the case. Just don't think about it anymore, you did well.