Arguing with Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks... I think...

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

brain hurrrrrrts. make it stop...

interesting point, Dox47.

for myself, i often see a divide between the aspies who understand a topic in terms of facts and ideals, and those who understand a topic in terms of common knowledge and typical experiences. even if those two types seem to agree, they will tend to end up falling on opposite sides of an argument.

also, moved from Art, Writing, and Music to General Autism Discussion (it could have gone in several forums really)

in terms of PPR beefs, i'd say my pet peeve is people who turn arguments personal. they turn from discussing the topic to discussing the person, basically. it makes sense to have a discussion like that in other areas of the forum (i.e. love & dating, where a person needs actual feedback), but in PPR it seems silly to me.

I have a pretty good BS detector these days, but I hate to argue in any form or fashion. My gf disagrees with the last part though.

I try to stay away from arguments. But when I do, I use all facts, so they usually try to get to me through emotions or logical fallacies.

If the facts don't stand by themselves, you won't get me to budge.

I know exactly what you mean.
I just wrote like a 22 page paper on central banks and I couldn't help myself. My bibliography had several works in parenthasese. My reasoning was that they were POS theorists, and I was only citing them to criticize them. And ever time I said "John Maynard Keynes" in my presentation, I just cringed and shook like a madman.

What I really can't stand is when people who know nothing about any political theories try to get involved in politics and treat elections like football games where the only chance you are taking is 'betting on the losing team' and start repeating soundbytes from the media.

Somebody who called themself a fiscal conservative told me they had never heard of Freidrich Hayek. I snapped.

If I hear anyone saying anything bad about Goldwater, I just lose it.
My problem is not that I can't understand things. It's that I don't think anyone else thinks that this type of stuff is important, so I always go on a rampaging rant. And turn an in passing comment into a huge debate that wont stop until the other party admits that they are wrong. I think my points are still valid, just not received when I dominate what was a conversation and then wonder why everyone goes outside to has to leave at the same time....

To me, "losing it" has no place in a rational debate. There is nothing sacred - everything is up for criticism and analysis.

If I can't live up to those standards, I'll excuse myself.

LMAO spoken like a true aspie

Well, its typically something like: "look at how bad he lost!"(reminding me how people look at elections like football games--haha, you bet on the cubs! theyre never going to win- type of comment about important issues.

Or the "Goldwater!? Didn't he want to nuke American cities?!" (Alluding to the fact that if somebody sees any lame message in an ad, they will eat it up like a baconator).

Sure, you could pick apart AUH2Os beliefs if you can. But ad hominem attacks on important figures has no place in a rational argument. If I realize a rational argument won't take place, I start to act irrationally.

From my point of view, most of people lack of precission and suffer some kind of emotional blindness when it comes to polemical issues. Not to say problems to use a word according to its right meaning or to redefine it for the purposes of the discussion, to translate statements into numbers when needed, and quite a few more.

Arguing about polemical issues feels sometimes (for me) as a cat and mouse game, pursuing each opponent inaccuracy. So I only use to argue on internet. I never argue with friends, since I have discovered that it's the fastest method to screw up a friendship!

It seems to me that would be a valid area of exploration (if he did; if not, then its just a question that can be answered in the negative).



True, but a criticism of their position (even a dismissal of it, on solid grounds) isn't an ad hominem attack.

Whether they are "important" or not is entirely irrelevant to what criticism they are due.



If the whole thing turns into a monkeys flinging feces situation, I leave. If I myself behave irrationally, I leave, in shame and embarrassment. If it's not dominating the debate, though, irrational behaviour is simply something to be exploited ruthlessly. Unless you're dealing with a particularly sensitive individual, in which case, it's time to take the gauntlets off and put the kid gloves on.

People get an exaggerated idea of what they "lose" by conceding a point, in most cases I would say nothing and in many cases it's a net gain. Taking a step back and admitting a mistake, especially an obvious one, makes you look honest, credible and reasonable, all things that are usually hard won qualities to have associated with you on an internet forum, and often makes someone trying to hammer you on it look like a jerk.

Offensively speaking, it's interesting when you get someone who will hang themself repeatedly given enough rope, or who will stubbornly swallow a poison pill when backed into a logical corner. Arguing with these types of people is great, as you can make your point and walk away with complete confidence and minimal wasted effort.



Indeed, though I favor martial metaphors and a concealed stiletto personally. Tactics vs strategy is a distinction that not enough people understand, like conceding small points to lead someone down a set path to a logic trap or untenable position.



Exactly; play hard, play fair, nothing personal. I like the cut of your jib Edgewaters.

I don't think it's necessarily an NT vs AS thing, as I've seen plenty of AS people deploy emotional or heavily spun arguments. I subscribe heavily to the idea that if you've met one Aspie you've met one Aspie, so while I may be extremely wary of loaded arguments other Aspies don't even notice them, though as mentioned I try to tailor my own posts to avoid rhetorical tricks that would annoy me to have used on me. Ironically, my undiagnosed but partially symptomatic sibling is in fact a lawyer; I think the hyper-technical finickiness of the profession would actually work well for some of the more rule oriented Aspies, though probably not litigation.

I think of the same thing, but in strategic terms. To me that's allowing a salient to form by depleting the front in a particular zone, then executing a pincer maneuver to cut it off, then encirclement and mopping up.

Of course everything I've mentioned is the ideal I try to approach it by, I can't say I've never had my little fits and whatnot. But these are a source of shame when they happen.

You're too nice to be a knee-jerk partisan, Bill, that's why I try and challenge you on things where I think you're reacting reflexively rather than thinking things through or taking a look for yourself. You I'm constructively criticizing, I save my genuine venom for people who misuse authority, smug Europeans who think they know what's best for Americans, trolls and pseudo-intellectuals. Since I live near Seattle, the later are in large supply...

Oh yes, ideal circumstances vs reality are usually pretty divergent. I occasionally look back at my older posts, and there are some pretty cringe-worthy moments in there. If avoiding embarrassment really is important to you, the best advice I could give is never, ever try to be clever. Clever has a low success rate and doesn't improve with age in my experience... On the other hand, what fun would arguing be if you never got to be clever? I also had to learn about overkill, especially important on an AS board when not everyone is functioning on the same level; it's very hard to tell willful obstinance from genuine puzzlement over an internet forum and tailor your posts accordingly.

On the subject of detachment, I've occasionally been criticized for it, mostly because I can be pretty harsh when I think someone's letting their emotions cloud their judgment. Purely from a strategic standpoint, I find strong detachment to be a helpful position not only because it helps me to better reason things through, but because it makes people more likely to pay attention when I do put some emotion into something. I make an exception for humor though, you can say just about anything if you say it with a smile.