When Does Logic Prevail?

Post Reply New Topic

I grew up assuming that disagreements between people could be traced to either missing information or something like an arithmetic error in thinking about the data. Now, I'm trying to think of examples of discussions that didn't get sidetracked into avoiding logical conclusions. I marvel that things progress at all. I'd appreciate your stories of success and failure along those lines.

I watched a video recently which helped explain this point to me. The speaker was comparing argument styles. Basically, he said that autistic people focus on "WHAT" is right, but that neurotypical people focus on "WHO" is right.

I feel like paraphrasing it further would be sloppy of me. So, I'm linking to the part of the video where he specifically discusses this topic. (It's a long lecture which covers many topics, and is broken into 2 parts.) In the preview of my post, the video isn't starting at the moment it should, 42:59, and it's starting several seconds earlier. However, it does begin correctly when I paste the link into another window. I'm not sure why this is happening, but the 42:59 timestamp is what's intended.



I related to this part of the lecture a lot. He mentioned that in heated arguments, an autistic person will immediately stop arguing and concede the argument if an encyclopedia or Google search result conclusively proves that the other person's right. I've been in this situation. In person, people have either seemed confused when I suddenly stopped arguing, or they seemed to preen as if they personally felt good about themselves. Online, I've had people assume that my sudden agreement was sarcasm, and had to explain that, no, it wasn't me being sarcastic, and I was actually agreeing. For me, these reactions of confusion, preening, or disbelief feel uncomfortable.

I also have been bewildered when I make concise points and cite data sources, but have gotten chastised for doing so. When I was younger, I was often told that I was "like a lawyer," but in a bad way. It seemed as if treating an argument like a case to be judged objectively was seen as stupid by others. I still prefer giving sources and trying to be accurate, too.

I've found that logic only prevails if I can tie it in to a relatable analogy and/or an emotional concept. If the conclusion provides a benefit or an emotional relief/boon of some sort, then a logical argument is even more likely to be accepted.

For instance, when I was younger, one of my relatives would drive around looking for the cheapest gas station. I could tell that this was dumb, because looking at length for the penny-or-two cheaper option would waste more gas than it saved. When I tried to speak up, then I was told to shut up, because I'd said that this was dumb and why before, 'You're going to waste more gas looking.' I wondered if there was a better way to communicate the idea. This time, I asked if I could just ask a single question, and then I'd be quiet. I was given permission. I asked, 'Why is it that you drive for so long looking for a penny or two cheaper, with gas for the car, but you don't care if something is the same difference in price at one grocery store or another? You don't go back and forth trying to see if the bread is a penny cheaper.' This got a reaction of confusion and embarrassment. I shrugged and said, 'You're being too hard on yourself. You don't need to get this perfect. It will waste more gas to try to.' For the first time on the subject, I got a laugh, and told, "You're right."

I didn't realize what had happened right away, back then, but that single conversation eliminated the gas-searching behavior. It took me years and years to figure out what went right. But in retrospect, I can see why: use logic, relate to the person's experience, use experience to draw an analogy, soothe the ego-loss at being wrong, and show the benefit of switching to a new point of view. I think that this combination of factors is most likely to get a positive response in an argument, but that logic alone often fails.

Thanks! & Welcome!

I'm sure Bobby Tanantino would insist he prevails whenever he's on the track.

Chicka-chicka-Logic.





See, Logic prevails, even next to the greats.

That IS a great explanation. I'm going to have to reread, watch the video. Because my answer to the OP was going to be, 'damned if I know.' I can spend hours carefully researching a subject, complete with facts, cites and sources, only to be screamed at and told, 'you're wrong.' Ego and carefully protected illusions are hard to overcome, for me too.

Where I used to work we had a situation where a product was processed and passed on to the next team. Each product was different (within limits) and had different dimensions. Processing the dimensions was what our team did, plus keeping the stock right on the product remaining in store. Each product was accompanined by a ticket. Sometimes they got muddled up.

One day we had a barny between our team and then next but one team about a product that was the wrong dimension in both directions AND the wrong type of product. I was fairly sure that our team might do one thing wrong, but not three. I believed that the second or third team had muddled the tickets up and that there would be a similarly wrong product lurking in the work area.

The trouble was they could always fine tune a slightly larger product to be the correct finished size, but not if it was too small. So chances are the other one had been made up in the wrong product type and was gone out of the production line.

Trying to convince the managers what had happened was really hard and in the end we had to go and effectively do a stock take on both products to prove that we had done nothing wrong.

Thinking back now, it is as has been pointed out above - the managers were trying to find out WHO was wrong* so they could tell them off, whereas I was more concerned about the products and WHAT was wrong with them. The fact that I knew we were right and they were wrong was a side issue.

* but of course this isn't quite true either because the managers had already decided who was wrong - US, and wouldn't accept the logical explaination that it was unlikely that we had done THREE things wrong when it was more likely that the other team(s) had done ONE thing wrong.

Eventually I think we did convince them that we hadn't made an error and that there would be another wrong product in the line. We knew what the product was as we had the "wrong" product to tell us. Would they go and try and find it....... er, no. So of course a week or so later there would be a return from a customer who had got their item made in the wrong product...... and who would get the blame........ Yes, US.

There are objective competitions in which most people eventually fall into the camp of the consistent winner.

But, I've also found that people are more likely to be swayed if the margin of victory is small.

I find it easy to win a contest where rational thought can produce a winning machine, but this record does me no good when I make suggestions about new designs. It seems that all ideas have to be "sold" to NTs through emotional manipulation.

I started this thread in a fit of despair when I noticed that I'd been getting stonewalled for 15 straight years by everyone in a particular group of hypocrites, and was loosing sleep over yet another discussion. However, I've had similar success at sending in suggestions for technical improvements. Now I'm wondering if I should start a website for helping entrepreneurs and aspies connect. I'm retired, so I can afford to dump lots of product ideas in for free. However, it might get more attention if a price made it look valuable. Discussion?

Thanks to this thread, I recall that for several decades, all my beliefs were tentative, waiting for any new evidence.
I also have a strong expectation that simply being willing and ready to offer a mathematical proof should settle an argument, and I feel abused when it does not. How upset do you get, and how do you handle it?

How do you feel about the ethics of using rhetorical tricks to win an argument instead of just the facts?

When shopping for a car or other tech stuff, do you head for the specifications early on?

One day, I noticed that a local author had endorsed an air-powered car. It only took high school physics and math on the back of an envelope to prove their brochure was just wishful thinking, so I warned the author. He replied that so many other people could not be wrong. Two years later, he came back and told me that someone had finally gotten a chance to test the car, and verified my claims. The car company then moved to Brazil, and started again.

I'm wondering if I was misunderstood when I mentioned alternative wording and emotional approaches. I don't think that these are manipulative or rhetorical "tricks," but I'm not sure if you're referencing my response or not.

To summarize my thought-process in my earlier example, in my prior post:
I searched my mind for a relevant and tangential example: were there any other situations where a thorough cost+benefit analysis by this person did follow logic, and not result in this strange, narrow obsession with finding the lowest price?
Yes, there was: spending income on other monthly expenses showed a contradiction in regard to groceries. The person is capable of making the right decision, but their own logic is malfunctioning in this instance.
Run a query: why is the person agreeing with me in the other case, but not in this case? The person notices the contradiction, and this is good, but there is no answer to the query. They do not seem to know why they chose something illogical, as they seem embarrassed.
Run an internal query: what could cause this illogical behavior? Why would I be illogical? Perhaps a drive for perfection which is misguided.
Attempt empathy. Submit guess, empathize, and restate logical course as it is the most beneficial, and should thus relieve embarrassment as well.

I do not see anything there as manipulative or tricky. I see it as how emotional arguments can often be built on "just the facts" without tricks or manipulation.

When a choice seems obviously logical then, to me, tying in emotions seems like it should be unnecessary. Yet, I've come to terms with needing to do so in my communication. I view it as both a compromise and helpful. It greatly helps convey my meanings. I also think that tying my ideas to emotions is beneficial to me overall, because looking at things from all angles naturally does enhance perception.

Emotion is a brain process like any other, a way of thinking/perceiving. NTs taking emotion too far can be understood, considered, and often mitigated. Yet, the way they think is just different, and it's not always wrong. Recognition of these differences doesn't need to be manipulative/scheming.

This is why I particularly why I like Temple Grandin stating that the world needs "different brains" and, especially with kids, to "build on the area of strength."

I believe that the key for improving NT-autistic styles of communication is likely compromise, and that combining emotional and logical wording is an important metaphorical bridge.

A parallel example:
An autistic person not wanting to be hugged by a relative in a very friendly, social setting is strange to NTs. This could be seen as illogical behavior, as bonding chemicals are generally released when engaging in physical contact. NTs understanding that the autistic brain is different, and showing respect for that, is logical but not manipulative. A handshake being offered instead, or a friendly wave, would be social compromises. Due to brain differences, the compromise is also the truly logical choice, as it furthers the goal of socialization by making the autistic individual more comfortable, and thus more likely to socialize.

I see including emotion into my arguments, in a logical way, as such a social compromise. Only, in my case, it would be coming from the other direction: the autistic individual recognizing NT neurology and compromising, instead of them recognizing my own neurology and compromising for me.

In other words, I see emotional consideration for NTs, in logical arguments, as very similar to other human considerations. I think it's necessary to remember that they're not fighting over "WHAT" is right, but "WHO" is right. It's important to remember, because it follows that arguing is painful/stressful for NTs, because it is a personal fight for them, not an objective debate for truth. Thus, they are overwhelmed in an ego sense. I see this as an NT parallel for autistic, physical sensory overload. In both cases, a human brain is producing chemicals that are overwhelming. The external stimuli are drastically different, but the concept of being overloaded by one's neurology is the same.

Even in this thread, I mentioned an example where I was told to "shut up," Persephone29 mentioned being screamed at, and harry12345 mentioned managers wanting to "tell them off." The NTs interacted with were only being faced with logic, but it seems clear that the NTs did not chemically feel it in that way. Instead, such NT reactions remind me of when autistic people cover their ears, and/or yell, because the stimuli of external noise was too loud. There is, in both cases, a sense of fight/flight/freeze. I don't think that autistic or NT individuals consciously want to react/feel that way, but that it just happens easily due to how they're wired.

Thus, I also try to see soothing ego loss in a conversation/argument as a sort of softening of intensity. If my words are reducing harm for an NT, then my including emotional words is vital to communicate. It is true that using this consideration poorly can be manipulative. However, if my words are true, then I am only facilitating genuine interaction, and considering their viewpoints. Motive and integrity matter. Awareness of brain differences is important to maintain dialogue. Different brains require uncomfortable compromise to communicate.

In the case of the local author, my guess is that he probably couldn't understand your logic. Your logic was right, obviously. However, it doesn't do much good to be right if people can't or won't understand/listen, and that is what I'm trying to convey. My guess is that there may have been a chance to get him to listen, because he was not arrogant later on, remembered you, and admitted to you personally that he was wrong. To me, that indicates that he was open to your words, but his own brain needed more than pure logic to agree. He might not have even been emotionally roused, as you didn't say he was. However, he leaned on others' minds, committing a logical fallacy, which does show that his own logic capabilities weren't as focused as yours.

I hadn't been thinking of you, Aconeperson, just asking the list generally if they felt qualms about tricking people into doing what seems best for them instead of letting them make their own mistakes.

In your gas station example, I think that tricks did happen. Driving around looking at posted prices is far more fun than parking and walking in, and then often leaving with no purchase. Also, suggesting that they were being hard on themselves, rather than playing an enjoyable game was pretty sneaky. One could also make a case that oil companies deserve our money less than other companies. You seem to have challenged them to take on far more bookkeeping than they cared to do, so they gave up the bit they were doing badly. They may well have saved money on repairs if the car was delicate at all.

I'll try to get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

In my gas station example, your interpretation of the situation is definitely not what was going on. I am also extremely confused by your interpretation.

I never implied or stated that this gas-searching behavior was any sort of game. I'm extremely confused as to why you came to that conclusion, assumed it was a game, and assumed that I was sneakily tricking someone out of their entertainment.

I am especially confused, because I even outlined my thought processes. Even in my thoughts, there was absolutely no indication what-so-ever that my intention was deceit, or that my relative was ever having any sort of fun.

As I said, my relative was only looking for the cheapest price of gas, and was being obsessive about it.

This was not about fun. If it was game, then I would have said so. This is why I also said, in my follow-up post, that I thought it was a "strange, narrow obsession with finding the lowest price." That is what it was. It was about my relative obsessively wanting to find the cheapest price, and only about that.

Additionally, much screaming and ranting was involved on the part of my relative. It was not me misinterpreting behavior. It was, as I called it, "malfunctioning." If I thought that the situation was at all ambiguous, healthy, or playful, then I would not have described it as: "dumb," "a strange, narrow obsession", "a contradiction," "their own logic is malfunctioning," "they do not seem to know why they chose something illogical," "perhaps a drive for perfection which is misguided." I thought that these terms made it clear. Why was I so badly misunderstood, what led you to believe such descriptions were referring to "fun" had in "playing an enjoyable game," which I sneakily wanted to stop?



Needing more gas, and paying more money, would only give the oil companies more money. I pointed this out in my first post: how I was told to shut-up when I said, "looking at length for the penny-or-two cheaper option would waste more gas than it saved." I'm not sure why you thought I was wanting oil companies to get more money by saying this to my relative. It makes no sense to me. A small car holding about 12 gallons of gas, with a penny-or-two of price difference, would only result in a savings of potentially 12 to 24 cents. Driving at length would not recover that small of a price difference, and give the oil companies less money. It would give the oil companies more money.



I also don't understand why people would go to gas stations, and then leave with no purchase, when looking to buy gas? I also don't understand why you assume that, for everyone, driving around is more fun than ending the task of filling up gas. My relative did not like to drive. I have also met others who hate driving, and only do it out of necessity.



This was not about bookkeeping. I don't know why you assumed that they kept a concise budget, and that I was challenging them to keep better records. No records were kept, and that is why I never mentioned any. I mentioned that I noticed a lack of consistent behavior in my own observations, and asked a question based on that.



Similarly, I do not understand why you thought that this might have helped an issue of a delicate car. I never mentioned that the car had mechanical issues, or needed gas in any unusual way. It was operating well.

The "game" is my name for focussing on that one price to beat. I imagine it being felt as a challenge, or perhaps something that gave bragging rights among friends.
I have sometimes been that typical man who does not want to ask for directions. Being lost and having to figure it out is a great game, which is ruined by acquiring data. Men who enjoyed developing this skill got home to their families more often than those who did not, and so, like the appendix, we still have the urge to exercise it in our lives.
I have a lot of other stuff going on in my life these days, and don't expect to be able to fully engage in this post-mortem. Sorry.

Like you mentioned in one of your posts on your thread, it comes down to emotional manipulation.

I realized at a certain point that people were getting offended and combative by my method of delivery. To me, I was just reciting facts and good reasoning, but they always wanted to fight and would oftentimes take it so personally that you get the whole "you think you're smarter/better than everyone else, don't you?"

It's that sentiment which must be carefully avoided, even though it is a misinterpretation on their part. I figured out that if I state the exact same information but tailored my language in "open and agreeable tone and inflection" along with phrases used in language to prevent the perception of conflict, they would respond much more favorably.

They have this distinction between debating and conversing that is not so clear for me. These two things can be the same when I engage with others, but unfortunately they judge the quality of your statements based upon their emotions regarding you as an individual.

Also people HATE to be demonstrated to be incorrect or to be intellectually "one upped" by someone. I think it makes them feel inferior which elicits a cognitive defense mechanism to preserve their ego.

I've seen whole businesses where the prevailing culture is to avoid upsetting the Dunning-Kruger cases, because they are in charge and attract others easily. Stupid people just assume that puberty makes their opinions valid, because they can never tell who is making sense.
A boss is frequently advised to deliver any criticism in a "praise sandwich." Find two things to like, and mention them first and last in the conversation.