Why are ASD people seen as arrogant?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi TheOther,
I do believe you have answered your own question.
I would have said the same as your four points.

Malthus made an observation, one which seemed reasonable. He then offered an opinion on how to fix his proposed problem. His observation and the follow-up solution to said observation were two different things. Plus, he was somewhat incorrect. He seemed to think a prosperous society would only increase the amount of growth and, hence, human suffering. Today, all developed countries have declining birthrates, and its developing third-world nations that spit out babies en masse. And his basic solution was human restraint in reproducing, I don't think he ever advocated sending death squads around to cull the population.

This has nothing to do with being correct. Malthus had a theory, and people can form opinions around it. You said earlier "But there many times when the seemingly "correct" answer actually is incorrect for the situation. I've had to learn this over many years of making many glaring mistakes in this area."

Do you have any real-life situations where a correct answer was wrong for the situation? I don't see how remeasuring Pluto has much to do with it.

Thread topic answer, FWIW: because some of us are arrogant? Like me?

About Malthus: didn't he advocate celibacy, I thought? He's an interesting figure historically.

I have a question:

Those of you who say you are arrogant, is this a default that you can't change?

If you come across to others as arrogant but your intention is not feeling superior or condescending, then I don't consider that arrogance, just your personal mode of expression.

you're all overthinking things.
I reckon the perceived arrogance just comes from a different conversational style.

Aspie style goes like this:
when someone gives an opinion, the response is to state our opinion and explain why we think it is more correct

Neurotypical style goes like this:
when someone gives an opinion, the response varies depending on their intentions:
- if their opinion is emotionally charged, the response is to express sympathy
- if their opinion is misguided but unimportant, the response is to divert them with gentle teasing or a joke
- if their opinion is wrong and important, the response is to acknowledge that their opinion is valid, and then to ask whether they've considered (insert reasons for own opinion)

So it's a combination of the OPs points 1 and 4, because we're bad at conversation and we're not showing understanding of emotional subtext.

I will come up with real-life examples as they arise.

Obviously, this is a valid request....and when I am able, I shall comply.

My memory is too linear to come up with those of the past right now.

But many things, in my experience, might seem correct on the surface....but when thought about, turn out to be incorrect.

Resolutions arrived at via syllogisms which seem eminently logical, could very well prove to be a fallacy, all things considered. There exists the potential for people to be stymied by a slavish reliance on logic over common sense.

A refusal to rely on logic at all is even more foolish, however.

It’s ideal when one is flexible enough to look at all aspects of a particular situation.

Well, I don't feel arrogant for a variety of reasons. I always assume that someone else might know something I don't, I am open to being wrong (and often times would prefer to be wrong), and I always come from a place where I know that it is extremely likely that I am missing something that would change the way I see a situation.

As a recent example, I was talking to a very nice Christian man on a hike. He asked me about my religious views, and I told him that I am irreligious. The conversation turned to epistemology, and how we can determine whether something we believe is a belief, versus something that we truly know. I take an unconventional stance that, since our senses often are unreliable, our memories are often unreliable, and since there are bizarre possibilities (possible in the sense that we cannot definitively prove that these things are not the case) like that we might be in the Matrix, that the only thing we can really, truly know with 100% certainty is that we exist. This is Descartes famous 'Cogito ergo Sum' argument, which is a pretty amazing bit of logic.

The man spent a long time trying to ask me questions about why I believed this to be true, and levied several criticisms of the belief. I was just responding to these criticisms, as I have thought way too much about this topic and have responses to most of the criticisms to the argument readily available. Towards the end, the guy was noticeably frustrated (although he was extremely polite the whole time, and I was really impressed by the compassionate place I know it all was coming from). He ended by stating that my beliefs were extremely arrogant, and that he feels like people who are so skeptical shouldn't engage with other people seriously, because we will never be 'sure' about someones feelings towards us and we will always be hedging our bets against the potential that the relationship fails, causing us to not commit/engage properly.

I see the latter argument, although to me these are more mental exercises and I realize that in practical reality I need to accept the assumptions that my senses are accurate, that people are generally telling the truth, etc in order to live a good life.

I wouldn't have thought about this incident so much, but my girlfriend took his side and says that I am arrogant too. My question, though, is how am I the arrogant one?

I was only answering questions I was specifically asked. I never inserted my opinion anywhere uninvited.
I engaged in the conversation specifically under the assumption that I might be wrong and that this guy might know something I don't that could change my mind.
The belief in question is that there are a lot of things that I can't known, which strikes me as more humble than anything else.

On the other hand,

He assumed that he was right from the get go, and there was never any possibility (in terms of his open-mindedness) that he would change any of his opinions at all.
He was the one pushing the conversation forward. A few times I tried to open up the conversation to the possibility of something lighter, or merely just enjoying the nice weather, etc.

It seems like the arrogant label comes 100% from the tone of the conversation as opposed to the views/open-mindedness of the individual.

I do admit that I have thought about this topic a lot, and will only change my mind if I am presented with an argument or information which invalidates the logic behind it. Is this arrogant, or just having an opinion?

I've been accused of being arrogant merely for broaching subjects that most people don't broach. I understand that I must consider the "situation."

It's not appropriate to discuss Nietzsche at a wedding reception, for example.

But....to be "banned" from broaching subjects at all because they are "beyond the pale" for most is most ridiculous, in my view.

I suppose it would help to have a proper definition of arrogance.

Merraim-Webster: "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

The first part the "attitude of superiority" part is not really changeable. If one believes oneself superior, one does not simply change that belief. One would have to have a total change of world view to change that belief.

The "overbearing manner" or "presumptuous claims and assumptions" can be worked on, but this is where autism makes things difficult.

There is always someone who is superior to you in some way.....and always someone who is inferior to you in some way.

In-arguably true, but not particularly helpful. No one can be the best at everything or the worst at everything. Muhammad ali could never have beaten Michael Jordan in a basketball game, but Michael Jordan never could have beaten Ali in a boxing match.

When I don't follow social hierarchies (I often have trouble even noticing them), some people interpret my behavior as placing myself above everyone.

Refusing to submit to a self-appointed authority (or a bully) is also seen as arrogance.

I don't care if I'm perceived as being "arrogant" for standing up to a bully.

Quote: In-arguably true, but not particularly helpful. No one can be the best at everything or the worst at everything. Muhammad ali could never have beaten Michael Jordan in a basketball game, but Michael Jordan never could have beaten Ali in a boxing match. Quote:

I find it helpful for me when I think I'm becoming "too big for my britches."

Yes.....very simplistic....but very true.

I don't care if I'm seen as arrogant for telling the truth. If someone refuses to accept the truth, or if they simply cannot 'handle' it, then it is all on them, not me.