Using 'Asperger's' as a Shield

Post Reply New Topic

My boyfriend often does this and admits to it, lol. Even if he isn't decided on a matter, he will still do it to see whether or not he could possibly change my mind, or to test the boundaries as to how far I will take my opinion.

It bugs the heck out of me because generally, I'm pretty stubborn, as any one else (usually) when it comes to my opinions in an area, but for me, at times it's kind of fun... until I get frustrated and yell at him to knock it off when he finally says "Look, I don't actually believe what I'm saying, I'm just playing devil's advocate to get you to see it from the other side." -usually the frustration is just from him saying "I don't actually believe what I'm saying". (my thoughts: then why even bother saying it?)

While I understand the other side's opinion, or arguments that may come up in debate from the other's side, I generally don't fold until I start looking up things.... then after he's gotten me frustrated or angry, he winds up getting a spam of links of information supporting my side of whatever we were talking about. >:) I'll have him reading forever if he's annoyed me enough by it.

Though, I still don't really get the idea of playing devil's advocate if you don't really believe one way or another. If I don't believe one way or another, I just remain neutral and become a robot kind of, zoning out/tuning out any extreme argument made. I understand offering other ideas/options/opinions, but not pushing them really if I don't think they'd work or make a lot of sense anyway, because I'm just not that dedicated/motivated if I don't truly believe it myself.

I sincerely hope she was just gently teasing. You were obviously working hard at what you were doing.

Ehhh... you can often find a way to work around stuff like that. If your brain's not built to work one way, there could easily be another way it is built for... multitasking can often be boiled down into a sort of flowchart, with decision points that shift you to one thing or the other; it's the same thing, only predictable, same way every time. Don't know if that would work for you; helps me, though. Still better if I don't have to try to multitask, but there are probably ways to fake it well enough when you really need it.

I am very glad the moderator decided to step in on this. The issue of this section is very contentious, and perhaps that is why I was drawn to it by curiosity. I think everything started getting out of hand with all the quoting going on. I, by nature tend to want to stand up to things that I believe are unfair.

As for the playing of devil’s advocate, I think there are better ways to do the same thing, for instance, putting both sides of an argument, or couching it in hypothetical terms. Often you will see people playing devil’s advocate, and they won’t come out with the fact that they are doing so. That is what I dislike, and it can be a cheap way of trying to win an argument. Perhaps I have had a different experience of people doing this, and that is why I have an aversion to it, and would never do it myself.

After all, nothing is black and white, and there are always two sides to things.

The point of "playing Devil's advocate," if done honestly, is to explore and test a side of the argument you don't necessarily disagree with. Maybe hearing it rephrased by someone will bring out a facet of it that you hadn't considered, or in which you may now see a logical flaw.

It's a healthy and useful exercise if taken as such by all involved.

I think the reason I don't really get the idea of it, is I'm just not motivated enough to really do so if I don't have a way of thinking one way or another in an argument, lol. Does that mean I'm just lazy? I think I just kind of take it automatically as they truly believe what they are saying, and that they are making points to prove their own point.... but it gets confusing because it's not to prove their own point, but just to give other insights.

I would much rather someone say "well, another person could think of it this way" and then go on, rather than getting into a heated debate and saying later "oh, by the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate."

It's hard for me to grasp that someone could really be that dedicated to other ideas while doing so, if they don't fully believe them anyway, especially when they are able to continue on easily and nonchalantly after it is obviously getting very heated and debate starts turning into fighting/arguing.

I think it's better for all concerned to not see an argument as a competition where the object of the game is to make the other person lose face, or "win" the argument.

My wife saw my quest for diagnosis as an attempt to excuse my misbehavior. I think she stills to prefer to see my autistic traits as character flaws. She did not take the official diagnosis well. I had trouble explaining that I was trying to understand myself and improve my interactions with the rest of the world. In intend to work on those deficits that I can I and professionals can identify and which can be alleviated. My lack of empathy will never change. That is something she has to adjust to, however reluctantly. If she wants something from me emotionally, she has to ask for it rather than expect me to simply do it. I won't refuse a reasonable request.

I think we should take it as given that this sort of analysis would probably only be undertaken by someone with an intense interest in the subject at hand. Of course, we don't know anyone with a propensity to taking intense interests....

But like I said, that's the good case. It's probably as often as not the person in question just likes being contrary.

Neither ASword nor AShield topic

A Dx of AS, cancer, mental difference, OCD or the like need not be a barrier. A Dx is a learning tool. But it is a choice. You may learn, or choose not to. Your call.

Many deny or refuse whatever has been given/labeled to them. But then there can be no discussion, as we are no longer on the same page.