Why do people gotta be so technical?

Post Reply New Topic

It’s a logical progression of facts ....one build upon the other to create a clear understanding, but
Being laborious and tedious in the way a thing is explained... . Can cause one to lose listeners quickly .
This is how another Aspie had explained it to me .

I also prefer simple words over technical words.

Sometimes people focus on different aspects of the discussion and don't realize they are thinking about slightly different things. Then one person tries to clarify something that is related to their focus but unrelated to your focus.

It seems like your friend maybe didn't realize your point that most people would be uncomfortable using their real name in connection with a kink community specifically. Maybe your friend thought that you were talking about using a real name online at all. That's an example of what I mean by slightly different focus in conversation.

Autistic people: cos we're pedantic
Anxious people: cos we hate people hating us. We fear the whole world doing it. Serious every day fear.
NT healthy people: out of defence of their 'tribe'.

Personally, from my own perspectives of being on the spectrum, and only somewhat technically orientated, people who sound too technical (even when technical agendas are relevant) are often hard to understand.

Plesiosaurs were real life sea monsters that were contemporary with the dinosaurs. And pteradactyls were flying reptiles of sometimes huge size that were also contemporary with the dinosaurs. So when folks speak of them they will often call plesioaurs and pterodactyls "dinosaurs". But...strictly speaking...they were not actually dinosaurs. Today dinosaurs are thought of a taxonomic group (like the "dog family", or like "primates" - a group of related organisms, that were than just big reptiles that lived at the same time). It's socially acceptable to say "well...strictly speaking...X and Y were not actually dinosaurs". That lets your friends know that you know that you are being a bit of a pedant. But at the same time you get to expound upon a distinction that you find interesting.

But some folks are just spoilsports.

Some years ago it was suggested that US treasury should retire Andrew Jackson from the 20 dollar bill. It was suggested that he be replaced by Harriet Tubman: a Black woman famous for helping run the underground railroad that enabled slaves to escape, and she was an antislavery activist in the years just prior to the civil war.

There was a discussion thread about it on WP.

Someone quipped "A gun toting Republican on the 20? I got no problem with that!"

I laughed out loud, and said I would have given you a big thumbs up (except the site has no mechanism for giving actual thumbs ups)! She was an abolitionist. So in spirit she was a member of the Party founded to oppose slavery...the Party of Lincoln...the Republicans. And she IS often depicting holding a rifle. So...yes...you could describe Tubman as being a "gun toting Republican".

The quip got a laughs from leftwingers and rightwingers, and from middle of the roaders on WrongPlanet. And in my humble opinion the quip sparked a great Wrong Planet moment of unity and levity.

But then someone had to get technical. Had to point out that you cant really be a registered member of a political party unless you can legally vote. Tubman couldnt have voted in the south because she was Black, and she couldnt vote in the north OR the South because she was a woman in the 1850s. So being a nonvoter should she could not have officially been a member of any political party. So...technically...she couldnt have been a "Republican"...this person insisted. And...yes ...they were ...strictly speaking...correct! Oh well.