Argument of The Lowest Common Denominator

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that Neurotypicals always use the argument of the lowest common denominator in order to shut up any opposition to whatever ideas they may hold?

Example:

"You should be glad you live in this country. It's far worse somewhere else..."

It's like you're not allowed to criticise the current living conditions, because it could be worse?!?!?

Whether it's worse or even far worse somewhere else is not a valid argument.

It's like NTs like to use the lowest common denominator to measure everything.
Instead we should strive to achieve the HIGHEST results.

Aspies aren't as hyper rational as you think. Being here on WP some of the dumbest most illogical people I've ever argued with in my life are Aspies on this forum. Even Aspies who think they're smart aren't any smarter than your average high schooler when challenged on their beliefs.

It's not because Aspies are dumb or that NTs are dumb

It's that humans are wired to be illogical and irrational. The research is out there in the scholarly papers of Psychologists such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, as well as Nassim Taleb's seminal masterpiece "The Black Swan" which substantiates how humans, including and especially even Aspie experts, are prone to the type of generalizations and heuristics and irrational thinking that plagues lay men

Why can’t one appreciate the good things your country has that other countries do not have and still understand there is a lot of room for improvement?

The US, for example, happens to be a great country with a lot of problems.

Much needs to be changed....but radical change would probably ruin the country.

I'm not sure about the validity of relative arguments. True, simply pointing to something worse than x doesn't make x any better as such, but it can put it into a useful context. For example, if somebody tells me I'm not working hard enough, then I feel it's valid (to a degree) for me to point to others in the same situation who are doing less work than I am, if they're not being challenged about it in proportion to how little they're doing.

Maybe the USA living conditions example is different because the people concerned live there and (at least conceptually) might have some chance of getting the situation improved. My answer to such a response might be that I agreed it was even worse in some places, and that I wasn't happy about that either, as a matter of fact, and then to lead them back to the true point that USA living conditions aren't very good for a lot of people.

It's a trick marketers use sometimes. They'll mention a product that's lousy value for money, then they'll show you one that's bad, but not as bad as the lousy one. Apparently some customers then think they've just been offered something good, and they buy it. A variant of it is to mention that they were selling a product for £100 yesterday but today you can have it for £50. Of course yesterday's price is irrelevent, and they only mention it to cloud your judgement.

It became a popular ironic comment in my workplace if something was being criticised as unjust or corrupt, to repeat Tony Blair's attempt to misdirect his critics about his conduct in the invasion of Iraq - "yes, but at least we got rid of Saddam Hussein."