Arguing with Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

As a guy who likes to write and avidly follows politics, I do a fair bit of arguing for and against various things and so see quite a variety of attempts at persuasive writing, and people's reactions to them. One thing that I've noticed, both in myself and among other Aspies, mostly in PPR, is that we react very poorly to certain rhetorical techniques that are commonly used in arguments, notably hyperbole or any type of exaggeration, spin or euphemisms, and rhetorical framing, more so than the general public. I suspect that the reaction, in my case a sensitivity and automatic negative response, is related to the common AS trait of black and white thinking; a lie is a lie, even if it's just a little lie to hammer home a point. I find that this is actually a very useful, if irritating to others, trait, a sort of built in BS detector that shapes both how I write and how I read and listen to other people.

Some examples:

If someone starts their argument with an outrageous or heartbreaking story, my guard is immediately up. I'm not thinking about the story, but about why the guy is trying to get my emotions to overpower my logical brain before he makes his case. There's a budding internet meme for this one among legal nerds, "No good ever came from a law named after a dead person", as you can generally count on there being some nasty authoritarianism buried in anything named "X's law", especially if "X" was a child.

Hyperbole instantly sets me off, no matter the context. If my wife says I haven't taken the garbage out in a week and I know for a fact it's only been 4 days, I'm immediately angry about the exaggeration because my brain processes it as a lie. Internally, I'm wired for "just the facts", and feel that if you have to exaggerate to fortify your position, than perhaps it was never very strong in the first case.

Framework I find more amusing than anything, but I like to point it out when I see it, lampshade it to use the technical term. A great example is that you'll never see someone call themselves pro-abortion or anti-choice; neither side will engage the others framework. It does tend to make me suspicious when I see it used extensively, as it often hides some internal contradiction or another.

I could go on, but I didn't set out to make a list of my personal peeves in persuasive writing. I put this in the art and writing section because what I wanted to talk about is how this sensitivity has influenced my own writing over the years, especially when interacting with an Aspie audience.
The simple answer is that it's made me very direct and very light of touch, as I have to assume that my audience is as perceptive as I am to manipulation. I don't like slogans, so I try not to use them. I use the hardest facts I can find, don't embellish them, and if possible try to argue positions completely on a logical basis without getting into whack-a-source wars with other posters. I try to keep most if not all of my emotions out of my arguments, avoid moral judgments as my morals are not universal, and immediately admit faults when they are found.

On the offense, I immediately home in on any rhetorical manipulations, logical contradictions, moral presumptions or just plain bad facts. I've found brevity to be the best policy here, as people's reaction to being critiqued is often to hit back, and the less of a target you give them the more they often have to contort themselves, opening new targets. The trick is not to take things personal and not to get bogged down; it's only writing on the internet after all.

It sounds kind of austere, but as a writer it really is fun, and that's the key to internet arguing in general. You have to look at it like casino gambling, you're not there to make money but because you enjoy the game, where in arguing you have to go in knowing you're not likely to persuade anyone of anything, but you're going to enjoy trying to. Our own PPR is a great resource for this type of writing because it's just moderated enough that you don't have a hoard of trolls clogging things up, the audience is pretty knowledgeable and completely merciless, and being Aspies tend to pick up on all sort of odd things you'd never have noticed. I got corrected one time because I misspoke about the water solubility of Sarin vs VX nerve gas, and that's hardly the oddest correction I've seen in there.

Anyway, does anyone else enjoy persuasive writing, and if so do you think your AS has an impact on how you read and write it?

i have exactly zero skills in persuasion.

Changed the thread title to better reflect what I was thinking.

To be honest, I don't like debates at all, especially when they revolve around issues I care deeply about. I either get riled up or fear that my arguments will be refuted. It doesn't help that most debate opponents rarely concede to my side even when I do win in my experience.

That said, I do enjoy persuasive writing, and when doing that I also take an austere, direct approach. I don't know if that's symptomatic of my Asperger's Syndrome or instead because I want my arguments to be as clear and concise as possible.

I am very naive, but I can always see through blatant fact distortions such as what they do on most major news networks.

I have a very simple tactic. I only make claims about issues in society that I can back up with one easy link or reference, as I've encountered people who, lacking any other form of argumentation, questioned everything I said. Generally, they'd remain quiet and let me continue my tirades against others after I provided them with everything they asked for. Part of that tactic is to never give in, regardless of the amount of people trying to argue with me. On any day, both online and in real life, I argue with several people about several subjects. Often, I don't agree with the things I'm saying, but I'm using the internet to practice being a lawyer, and it's surprising how emotionally people can react to that.

One thing I don't generally do is derailing a conversation by going into rhetoric. It's something I consider to be very rude, and my ultimate goal is to get my point across.

I can't say I've been around here long enough to say that I've argued with lots of aspies online, but in person the arguments can be fun because usually the debate does not boil down to a factual disagreement (as most arguments tend to, and such arguments are dumb) but rather a long theoretical debate enjoyed by all parties. Of course there are some that can't be argued with simply because they don't bother remembering more than one sentence in the past and simply give a value judgment on whatever you say, necessitating a bunch of questions to keep the conversation alive.

I don't like to get into heated debates about politics or other serious issues with other aspies!

for example: I'm working class and a staunch socialist, but one of my best friends is upper middle class and somewhat conservative- apart from that, we actually have a lot in common (including Aspergers) we made an agreement not to talk about politics too much!

I try to concede to a good opponent before resorting to what I regard as "cheating". I am never sure why this is not more common. I watch people get bludgeoned to death (verbally speaking) trying to defend an indefensible position they cannot possibly hold, or simply running away. This seems far more embarrassing to me than conceding. The real trick to it is, conceding at that point your own position must be abandoned, but before they've been able to exploit that to strengthen their own. Then, you're only forced back to the drawing board, which is not so bad (it's actually kind of good). I find it useful to apply military principles to debate, and tactical retreat is of course an important strategy.

To me it's a sport and good sportsmanship applies - respect your opponent, congratulate him/her on a hard-won victory if deserved (ie they didn't cheat) etc

Its probably because NT's always include some sort of emotional appeal which does not even get processed by AS. I was thinking defense Lawyers must hate having AS people on juries. If the evidence supports the crime then prosecution would love AS jury members and vice-versa.

As for laws with children's names.. Megan's law seems to be pretty good one. Amber alert though don't know if its a law.