Frustrated Difficulty in Conveying Opinions

Post Reply New Topic

So This is a post that is *sorta* about politics, but really has nothing to do with it. I hope I am not posting in the wrong place here.

First I should note that I am...well, overly descriptive and articulate. It is one of my quirks that I tend to be really explanatory, sometimes to my own detriment. I also tend to be really categorical: I organize things in discussion so I can address them one at a time, and this tends to make most of the things I say or write very long winded. I am not sure if this is an Aspie thing, but I suspect it can be.

Anyway, recently I got into a conversation with somebody via social media about a recent political event. In discussion I contested a term they used to describe a group we were both being critical of, because the term was inaccurate and incorrect. This...devolved the conversation into a situation where I was basically saying, "I agree with what you are saying, and yes this one group has many things to be critical of, but it isn't correct, or even helpful, to call them X because it doesn't actually describe what they are, and it doesn't give me (or anyone else) the correct reason to be critical of them." The response was "You didn't do any research (Which I did, and was pretty plainly obvious about the fact that I did and didn't find any evidence of what they were talking about), and so you don't know what you're talking about, and because two former members of said group said X about the group I am inclined to believe them (This after they posted two relevant links about what the two "former members said," neither of which actually discussed the actions that lead to the terms usage). You also do not get to police my language, because you didn't research, so goodbye!"

...

I am left a bit baffled by this, and don't understand why this happens *All* *The* *Time* to me, where even when I am in actual agreement with something, a minor issue like this (My disagreement over incorrect usage of a term) becomes a major issue that deteriorates into...well, this.

I am wondering if others have similar experiences, or if this is just a me thing. It doesn't seem to matter how articulate I try to be on the matter, something just seems to not click in conversation, and while I recognize WHY it happened (the issue was disagreement on that one word), I do not really get why it HAD to happen (Exactly how was that matter really the issue that lead to a breakdown in communication?).

Note: I tried to scrub out any parts that pertained to political, religious, or other views that may be subjective, because my question isn't about that stuff anyway.

It's about politics. Your are expecting logic where there is none. All emotional.

I also get over florid with my wordage! I think it's fun for me and frustrating for others. I offer get odd looks.

I think some topics are more prone to people getting upset with one another, like social-political issues ("isms") and of course religion. I can be a bit long winded and talk around in circles before I get to the point. Sometimes that's fine, other times people start looking at their watches. I take that as hint that they have better things that to listen to me monologue and it's time to wrap it up.

Communication has various elements. One is articulation, another is the capability of the audience. You can run afoul if you give a great explanation to an audience with a short attention span. The speaker has the responsibility to gauge the audience and make whatever adaptations are necessary to insure effective communication.

One communication pitfall lies in the definition of terms. If one party insists on a precision of definition that another does not, it can result in feelings of attack. I had a friend once chide me for calling someone a communist. His correction was that they should be called a socialist. My response was that true a Communist would not allow the ownership of private property, but a socialist (who might let me own property) would not let me use it without his approval. As a result I did not see a dimes worth of difference between the two.

If no allowance can be made for variability in definition, almost every conversation risks becoming a dispute over the precision of definitions. It is not always easy for an Aspie to function in an environment of imprecision. I have found it useful to inquire during a conversation as to how someone intends a word to be used. This I find can allow me to assign his definition in my mind so that I can translate his use of the word into a meaning that I can work with.

I often provide examples (evidence) instead of summary of my opinion. I want people to see the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion. They don't want to or can't, or if they do, they're not what I consider reasonable. I am going to try to more concisely and briefly to share my opinions.

Recently I provided feedback to an acquaintance recently: "perhaps relate more to your audience, less rhetoric" and she said "this is not rhetoric, it is fact based" and I said "rhetoric" can befacts, irrelevant facts. She didn't respond. Just as well in her case. She is quite opinionated and obstinate, so it's "fun" to practice being opinionated myself. I have nothing to lose with her.

you're like Al Capone who once said "I'm NOT one of them radical pinko commies! I run my rackets on strictly AMERICAN lines! And they going to STAY that way!".

Sometimes it's just hard to get through to folks.

I think the generic problem here is that you are putting facts first, while others consider their feelings paramount.

That is what my therapist says. You think there is a problem to solve. There are actually two problems to solve: firstly, the other person's ego, then the problem you see.

It isn't just their ego; they lack a basic awareness of their mental processes, and mistake rationalization for rationality. The biggest problems are not about what we don't know, they are about what we "know" that is not true.

I do not think you are wrong. I just am baffled by why this happens so frequently. I know the reason. But knowing the reason and having it actually make sense are two different things. I am consistently frustrated by the fact that this is a norm that seems to have no benefit.

Even our best thinkers are often confused. Average thinkers would disagree even more, and neither group has enough time to apply logic to everything. It can take years to notice a key factor at work. So, human society works best with most people only expert at following the herd. The problem is keeping the bad shepherds from sidelining all the public-spirited ones.