Being "Right"

Post Reply New Topic

At 43, I discovered that I have AS. Leading up to that I divorced by wife of 19 years, and then my son (age 10) was diagnosed. Reading about him, I learned about myself.

So now, I am engaged to get married and I find myself having a lot of the same difficulties I had with my first wife. Being right.

The women i have been with have a tendency to ignore "facts" in favor of some emotional position based on some preconception or feeling of the day. They reject the stated fact and argue un-defensible positions and it drives me nuts! When they do this I feel:

misunderstood
unappreciated
disrespected
and ultimately
unloved

When these things happen, I simply cannot let it go. Even if I choose to stop fighting about it, it is still there. My perfectionism then causes me to have serious doubts about my connection to my partner and I withdraw emotionally.

I am beginning to doubt whether I am worthy of partnership. Perhaps such relationships are beyond me.

As a counterpoint, my current partner is a fairly reactive person. Things just get her upset. That's HER problem and she doesn't blame me for that, nor does she lash out at me all the time. (Big No No)

Her reactive nature, the wild emotions, have a profound effect on me. I have learned through my first wife to ignore such flights, but truthfully I don't want all this emotional mayhem.

So, my GF and I are trying to learn how to get along with each other's "specialties". I don't want to be alone. I do love her. I just don't know how to deal with someone when they put emotions before logic. It makes them look dishonest or deluded.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to start.

Well for one thing, it is important to not make your partner feel like you are invalidating them which means saying that their feelings are wrong and therefore of no consideration. I understand your perspective, that you want to try to logically explain to your partner why her emotions are unfounded but realistically this can very well end up with her feeling invalidated.

Its hard to find where to draw the line, I am guilty of this myself.. but you have learn how to acknowledge her feelings and let her know you understand even though the feelings may not be logical. Often I know what I feel is not logical but that doesn't make the feelings go away and I can get offended if someone tells me they are "wrong." Once your emotional partner feels that she is understood, perhaps it may be possible to explain things from your side.... allthough this has to be done carefully as well.

Anyway I know the pitfalls but am not sure exactly how to tell you to navigate them. I have not figured it out myself. But hopefully this will give you some things to think about.

Here, try reading this article:
How to Agree to Disagree
It may give you some things to think about or try.

I don't know much about your situation, other than what you stated, but when you say you don't want to be alone, it makes me think that you are just with her for that reason, and not because you are compatible, or get along all that well with each other.

If two people are compatible, they shouldn't have to "learn" to get along with each other.

^ I disagree with that. I think everyone has to learn how to get along with any given person, especially one as closequarters as a mate. Every person is different and you have to learn all their quirks and what sets them off and etc.

Conversely, there may be something wrong with your behavior (I adress each individual not you specifically) that you may need to work out or you won't be able to get along with anyone.

One thing you need to understand is that there is a logic to (stereotypically NT) "emotional reasoning", it's just that it operates under different premises than the logic you're used to dealing with. Emotional reasoning operates under the fundamental law that the welfare of the human being is paramount, and trumps nature itself. Getting along with other people is extremely important, especially because interacting with people and supporting each other energize them.

When people resort to emotional reasoning in fights, it's a sign that fundamentally their emotional needs are not being met. This is equivalent to an NT meltdown: they're at their wits' end with no energy and no clear way of getting back that energy. For AS folks, we get energy by taking a break from people and retreating to our interests. For NTs -- you can see what I wrote above, if you withdraw emotionally and leave them alone, it makes things a lot worse for them. What they need to recover is interaction with people, and they want to be emotionally supported. This is why when your ex-wife or your girlfriend got emotionally upset, they don't want to hear your logical reasoning. Logical reasoning is like utter nonsense in the realm of emotional reasoning. They want a hug, they want you to tell them or show them how much you love them. They draw energy and strength from that mutual support. Cold hard logic just won't cut it.

You may think of NT emotional reasoning as potentially delusional and dishonest, but really you can think of it as almost like another kind of life philosophy that emphasizes the importance of things other than the ones your more "nature-based" philosophy emphasizes. Without NT emotional reasoning, we would think nothing about the welfare of other humans, not even accepting that we ourselves are human too, and would easily discard other people like some other animal or thing to be used and thrown away.

Would you rather be Right, or at Peace?

^ People used to quote that at me all the time but I had no idea what it meant because I didn't know how to make peace except for to just keep my mouth shut any time my ex did any stupid crap and silently allowing injustices happen just to make peace did not seem to make me any happier.

So, I apologize to you, but I really hate that phrase.

Of course there is something "wrong" with my behavior, at least as compared to "normal". That's why I am here.

What I have a problem is, when they argue from a dishonest perspective because of some emotional connection. When they refuse to listen because they think they know what you really mean.

I rather be at peace than going with the delusion of believing to be "right" most of the time, I can understand that it gets annoying, but that depends on each though.

It would be really really difficult to answer that question.

But here is my point. You are accusing her and other persons of plainly ignore facts, without considering that the accused ones are moving through in another way and using an other kind of "language (?)"
I mean, maybe people out of the spectrum are taking other facts (non verbal and very important ones) for significant in their considerations and actions.

So I don't think accusing others is any kind of solution. Maybe it could come from considering that people have different ways to communicate and that it is really difficult to known others' intentions (among "AS" as well as among "NT")

That's the counterpoint I can give you

It' a f***ed up phrase, no doubt. Partially because I tend to take people too literally, and partially because I tend to do things to the extreme. I too tried to practce this crazy principle with my Ex, and she would go crying to the therapist with "he keeps giving me the silent treatment". However, if I / when I would attempt to open her plans up for discussion, I found that they were already set in stone and optional opinions were not welcomed.

Enough disclaimer, what I have learned is that I don't have to always be right, and when I do jump into a situation with my opinion, it helps to think about why I'm gonna say whatever that may be. As a result, my purpose for speaking up is blended in with the actual topic at hand. I tend to assume people know why I am speaking, but they usually just give me an odd look. When I think about what to say and why, then it seems a little bit more clear to them.

Being right all the time to me means arguing a particular point till the other person gives in or gives up, the final goal being to get the last word in. It's a lonely attitude to have, and the original point is usually lost in the turmoil of obsession.

Being at peace, means affording the other person the "right to be wrong".
However, this peace can be broken with my attitude of "I told you so".

I definitely have to agree with Trwn, pointing the fingers is not going to solve anything.

You claim that she argues from a factually "dishonest" perspective, but she can also claim that you are arguing from an emotionally dishonest perspective, because to her, if you actually loved her as you claim, you wouldn't be saying the stuff you were saying in the first place. Yes, they do think they know what you really mean: they think what you mean is that you don't love them. The question they are posing to you is kinda like DaWalker's question, "Would you rather be right, or at peace?" but perhaps more like "Would you give up the pursuit of truth, for love?" If the answer is no, then she's gonna have a problem with it.

It's not that one side is right and the other is wrong, it's not that one is normal and the other is abnormal. They're just two opposing viewpoints, and in reality it's not all that common for people to use 100% logical reasoning or 100% emotional reasoning. You'll have to learn how to balance the two ways of reasoning, because each one has its own distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Can you view it in terms of learning a second language? At age 46, I may never become completely proficient at, say, Hindu, but I bet if I steadily worked at it in a casual, offhand manner, I could become pretty good.

Now, casual and offhand doesn't mean you don't care about the other person. One, you're giving them space when they need space, without judging whether they "should" need space. Two, you're both stretching and respecting yourself. You're stretching somewhat outside your comfort zone, but still respecting your life experience as a human being.

Sure, both people have to put in the work and effort to make a relationship last, no matter how compatible they are, but they shouldn't have to put in excess amounts of it. It should be an open, and natural relationship, with each person free to be themselves, and they shouldn't feel like they are "walking on eggshells" around the other person.

Yes, sometimes people need to fix themselves, before ever start dating. For example, if one person is self-absorbed, stubborn, arrogant, etc, then they will need to change their ways, if they ever want to have a good, healthy, and loving relationship.

I think the main issue here is that the OP doesn't understand NT behavior, and she don't understand AS behavior. They bascially don't get each other.

Thanks for all the replies. In answer to some of you, I am open to her emotions and respect them.

Here's an example of a recent conflict.


She has been meeting with Jehova's Witnesses for "bible study" for well over a year. The read the bible and refer to a JW book titled "What the bible really teaches". There are Watchtowers all over the house as well. She has been pointing out positive aspects of the JW lifestyle as well as dismissing other's perceptions of the JWs.

I asked her, "Are you considering becoming a JW?". Her answer, "I haven't decided...".

I respond that reading, meeting and deciding are part of considering JW, she says "No, it isn't". I say, "Well, you're not considering Islam". "No" "So, JW is at least being considered more than Islam, and in that way is being considered...".

From there we have to argue what the word "consider" means.

I am very clear at this point that I would respect her faith. If she is finding that she agrees with their view and it is the faith for her, I would never disrespect that. I may have concerns and would hope that a new belief system wouldn't change things between us. Even if it did, it is not my place in this world to get between someone and their faith.

She says that she is not considering the JW religion, but like to do bible study.

I ask if she realizes that the JW book: "What The Bible Really Means" is not an objective bible study guide, but is a guide to the JWs beliefs according to their interpretation of their version of the bible. I state that there is nothing wrong with that. I book entitled "What The Bible Really Means" by any religion would contain their slant.

She then hits me with:

The JW book: What The Bible Really Means contains no slant. It is bible stories that are universally accepted by all religions.
That there is only one bible. There are no differences between the JW bible or any other.
There is only one way to interpret the bible, and the JWs interpret it the same way the other religions do.
That I am full of it, and that if I had ever read "What the bible..." I would know it.

These are all loaded statements, none of which are true. We argue these points for a long time. Eventually she loses her temper and rips the "What the bible really means" book in half at the spine, and throws it down.

I look at the page she rips it to and it states that "Jesus was crowned King of Heaven in 1974".

This proves all of my points. To which she responds, I hadn't got that far in the book.


I feel that for whatever reason, she refused to see the logic of my points.
For whatever reason, she refused to accept that I would respect her chosen religion, if she would just tell me that she believes all of this as a matter of faith.
For whatever reason, she just wanted to "win".
For whatever reason, she was threatened by my initial question, "Are you considering..."


For me, this conflict is not about religion. It is about the fact that she does not trust me enough to her honest appraisal and uses argument and obfuscation to try to get around me. Defense for the sake of defense seems very childish and is not a trait I want in my mate.

As an example, were she to ask me, "Are you considering having an affair?", the answer, "I haven't decided", is not acceptable. Likewise, after over a year of watching her interest in JWs grow, the answer is either "Yes" or "No".

And if she didn't want to discuss it, all she had to do was say so and not take me down all these paths regarding differences between bible interpretations among different religions.

But there aren't opposing viewpoints as in I love Kevin Smith movies and she thinks they are childish. I understand that we can't argue opinion. If I know that a book is red, then it is not an opinion.