Arguing with Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

I've never liked the whole 99% thing either, for a variety of reasons, with hypocrisy, given the reaction to some of the Tea Parties' sentiments, topping the list. To my mind, if a right wing group had come out with a slogan singling out one group and blaming all of societies ills on them, the Nazi comparisons and talk of "elimination rhetoric" would come out in force; in fact they already did in response to far milder rhetoric. I certainly saw enough people denouncing one and embracing the other, just here on WP, and that kind of blindness drives me slightly nuts.

But would you say that, generally, better decisions are made by an emotionally involved mind or a detached mind?

I almost always partake in discussions where all that ends up happening is me arguing with other Aspies over opinions on which video game is better.

I guess the difference for me is the anger directed at "the 1%" at least has some legitimacy, in that at least a small subset of that group bears significant responsibility for the mess we're in (IMO), and also has disproportionate sway over the government. I just can't equate that with racist sentiments which are IMO much more irrational and unprovoked.

I'd say a balance between the two is best. Being extremely emotionally detached can come off as being out-of-touch.

I'm not understanding. Persuasion tactics aren't about being correct. They are about manipulating your opponent into agreeing with you whether or not you are actually right. As a writer yourself, I'm sure you use deliberate persuasive techniques all the time.

As soon as I see someone baiting me or attacking me, yes, I do react "badly", just as most normal people would. I'm also pretty good at seeing whether someone is just interested in "winning" or if they really care about being correct. Even people who say they are all about objectivity usually are not.

I use persuasive techniques myself, but I will admit it usually if I am called out on it. I'm not here to deny anyone's reality.

Now to me, out of touch implies more of an ignorance of reality, or at least of another person's reality, than it does emotional detachment. I'd say that someone who thinks racism is an artifact of the past is out of touch, while a detached person would be more likely to acknowledge racism without responding to it emotionally, just to use one example. Cold is usually the term people use when describing detachment, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that label when it comes to my arguing and decision making styles.
In my own case, detachment is not only necessary for decision making but for basic functionality, if I'm not able to remain detached its all too easy for me to go into an empathetic rage/depression cycle simply from reading the newspaper or perusing the web, and can remain upset for days or longer if I let certain types of story get inside my head. It took me a long time to learn the skill and I'm still not perfect, I'm still much better off compared to the agony I went through in my late teens and early 20s when I was unable to get unwanted thoughts out of my head.
That I also found that my decision making became better when I was in the detached state is a side effect, if a welcome one. You can actually see it a bit in my postings here, as over time they became less outraged and more focused, less about "winning" and more about crafting something excellent for my own pleasure. Just to be clear, I didn't suppress my emotions or lose anything, I just got much, much better at controlling and redirecting them away from things that upset me, and channeling the remaining upset into positive outlets like machining, cooking or writing. It's amazing how therapeutic chopping things very finely, turning metal into something deadly, or crafting a really good zinger can be when I've got that impotent rage thing going on and need to redirect it. If all else fails, I literally have a punching bag hanging right behind my computer chair, though I try not to use it too much as the damned thing shakes the whole house when I really have a go out at it.

Apropos of nothing, another quirk I've noticed about my own critical writing is that I'm much, much better at presenting my own case when I've got an opposing argument to contrast it with than when I'm writing free form on my own. I do okay writing an OP and laying out my arguments and positions, but my real gift is defending those ideas and attacking those put forward by others, especially if they contain logical flaws or rhetorical tricks. I'm not sure why this is, it's slightly frustrating as I've long been tempted to try a blog or do some independent writing, but without a source post to prime my pump I find myself adrift trying to tie things together and feeling like a certain "spark" is missing. I also write much faster on the critique, the words just seem to fly from my fingers, while I hunt and peck and struggle to produce my own original posts and am often unsatisfied with hem.

I contrast this with a guy I argue with often in PPR who writes powerhouse OPs, but then falls apart as soon as anyone critiques them; my theory is that for him his OPs are like the monologues that so many Aspies are known for, and that any critique throws a monkey wrench into his thought process and causes a sort of mini-meltdown.

It's just interesting seeing the different styles and approaches that appear on an AS board and trying to figure out how different people arrive at their ideas and then explain and defend them; it just sort of reinforces my belief that if you've met one Aspie, you've met one Aspie.

I'm not sure it's about manipulating your opponent into agreeing with you. That's such a rare occurrence that I think that motive is negligible.

Yes, I addressed that in my OP and listed a number of different techniques of manipulation and how I react to them. IMHO the truth shouldn't need any tricks, but there are areas where no one can agree on the truth.