Board index › Coping in life › Social Skills and Making Friends

People Who Know They Are Right When They Are Wrong.

Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

hyperbolic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,869

07 Feb 2007, 8:49 pm

Juggernaut wrote:
It bugs me when in conversation I mention something I know as fact, and people inform me that I am mistaken,
or
someone makes some claim that is either an old wives tale or just factually incorrect, and when I correct them they tell me I am wrong. And then when I counter them, they hold their ground, not matter how wrong it is, and then some other people will come to their defense, and then I look like the uneducated one.

Recent example: someone told me dogs have natural antibiotics in their saliva, and I told them, no, the reason dogs lick their wounds is it keeps the wound clean, not because the saliva has healing properties. This guy said, no, you are wrong, I know for a fact they have antibiotics in their saliva (utter nonsense, he probably doesn't even know what antibiotics means). I told him I know for a fact that he is wrong, (respectfully) and several people jumped in to inform me that I was wrong. I wanted to inform them about how smart I am so I would know, but I didn't want to sound arrogant, so they ended up "winning" the argument.

It is not that people say incorrect things, as everyone, including me, is incorrect on a great many things. Its when they say incorrect things and then COMPLETELY turn it around to where I am the uneducated one. And despite basing their knowledge on no authority, refuse to be open enough to realize they don't know and that I do.


True, social interaction is not about facts sometimes, it's about power, especially when politics come into play.

But sometimes you have look at yourself and determine whether it is yourself who is wrong.

To state a fact: I did hear on the evening news, which had some doctors talking about it, that dogs have natural antibiotics in their saliva.



9CatMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,403

07 Feb 2007, 9:37 pm

I like that expression "Show Me." We call our one indoor female cat, "The Show Me Cat," because she needs to be shown things before she will accept them. I guess I'm very much like a cat that way.



laughterkillsme
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

08 Feb 2007, 3:56 am

I totally get bothered by this stuff too. I've noticed that if you say it the right way ... you can turn it into a friendly conversation rather than a BS argument.


I'm terrible at that though, anyone have any tips? (Today, I was working in a group on an in class physics assignment .. and somebody started saying stupid s**t .. and I didn't respond because I didn't want to offend him)



laughterkillsme
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

08 Feb 2007, 4:01 am

Juggernaught, how old are you? (I don't mean to be intrusive or stalkerish .. heh) This used to happen allot to me when I was younger (Jr. High), eventually I found out that most the people arguing with me were doing it to tease me rather than to make a point.



krex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Age: 61
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 4,471
Location: Minnesota

08 Feb 2007, 7:01 am

For 35 years I have believed that dogs had natural healing properties in their saliva....AS a generializer,I probably assumed all animals did and if stranded in the forest would have let the wolves that adopted me lick my wounds to heal them...I cant say I am glad to have this myth shattered....I like weird facts and anything promoting the positive of animals.I can deal with my long held beliefs being dispelled(after all,I used to be a Christian,lol)with out it shattering my whole identity....but please dont tell me George Bush is not in legue with the devil....thats to much shattering in one day.


_________________
Just because one plane is flying out of formation, doesn't mean the formation is on course....R.D.Lang

Visit my wool sculpture blog
http://eyesoftime.blogspot.com/


Zhaozhou
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Italy

08 Feb 2007, 7:13 am

Juggernaut wrote:
Recent example: someone told me dogs have natural antibiotics in their saliva, and I told them, no, the reason dogs lick their wounds is it keeps the wound clean, not because the saliva has healing properties.

AFAIK there are scientific proofs for everything and the opposite of everything.

For example, there is a widespred belief that women have larger corpus callosum. A further research proved men indeed have bigger corpus callosum notwithstanding adjustments for larger brain size. Finally another research said men have larger genu (the front part of corpus callosum) and women larger splenum (the rear part).

Stick around enough and a new research will prove everything you want to be proved.



Jake_Barnes
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12

08 Feb 2007, 11:19 am

puerco_loco wrote:
I've learned over the years that casual NT conversation is rarely about the subject matter itself. It's more about their need for social interaction and bonding. Agreeing with their assertions is a form of bonding. They find it reassuring - a way to keep their relationships intact.

They often see attempts to correct misinformation as a challenge to their status within the group. They take it quite personally and will defend their position, however irrational, because their status is all they really care about, not the facts of the matter.

In other words, there is a lot going on beneath the surface that the participants may not even be aware of.


Great post!



Juggernaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 624

09 Feb 2007, 10:50 am

laughterkillsme wrote:
Juggernaught, how old are you? (I don't mean to be intrusive or stalkerish .. heh) This used to happen allot to me when I was younger (Jr. High), eventually I found out that most the people arguing with me were doing it to tease me rather than to make a point.



I'm 21 and am relatively decent at reading social behavior. I know what you are talking about, one time some people told me that the plural of moose was meese, and I got really passionate about how wrong they were and then they told me they had been joking.

But my main point is in fact not about whether dogs have antibiotics in their saliva, because if someone told me based on some authority I would have no problem accepting it. Its when people all agree that something is gospel truth and they are basing it on nothing other than something they heard somewhere and show clearly they don't even understand the meaning of half their words. I could be wrong about dog saliva, but with the intelligence level I have, I would be more likely right than these other people.

Here is the part that I left out. I got him to finally say,

"well, they don't actually have 'antibiotics', but they have enzymes, and its pretty much the same thing so its alot easier just to say dogs have antibiotics in their saliva"

this was really what annoyed me, not the first part. Because it proved that he didn't know what he was talking about. Wow, dogs have enzymes in their saliva, I had no idea. Its like duh. you obviously don't even know what an enzyme is. Especially if you think its the same as antibiotics. I didnt say this, but I was thinking it.



Zhaozhou
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Italy

13 Feb 2007, 6:46 am

Juggernaut wrote:
But my main point is in fact not about whether dogs have antibiotics in their saliva, because if someone told me based on some authority I would have no problem accepting it. Its when people all agree that something is gospel truth and they are basing it on nothing other than something they heard somewhere and show clearly they don't even understand the meaning of half their words.

In propaganda the key is to lie first, because people will believe the first thing they hear and will need something like 7 or 8 counter-arguments to change their beliefs afterwards. For istance, I see that O.J. Simpson is still being considered guilty even if he was acquitted (because the main evidence, a glove, was too tight for his hand).

I also recommend you reading the laws of power:
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/ ... _power.htm

Law 9
Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
Quote:
I could be wrong about dog saliva, but with the intelligence level I have, I would be more likely right than these other people.

I think I found your error: the people who aren't intelligent don't actually know what being intelligent is about, so they can't recognize the signs of intelligence. I kind of believe that to them being intelligent is just being able to get better votes at school, so that they get an academic title and ultimately manage to appear in television. Do that and people may start believing you. Or just make them your friends first.



likedcalico

13 Feb 2007, 11:40 am

I've gotten into arguements about when I'm right and someone else thinks he is right too. I just prove myself right to them by posting them a link of something. In real life I have to go online and show it or pull out a book but if I can't prove myself right, then I have to drop it and move on and wait to prove that person wrong.

I got in an arguement last night about when Bush was put into office and when the elections took place between Gore and him and when Clinton was put into office. He thought he was put into office in 92 and I said no it was 1993. It's in the almanics and textbooks and its all there. He thought the elections took place in 99 not 2000 and I told him the first year starts when you are put into office and Bush was put into office in January 2001. We argued because we both thought they were right. Now I see it was pointless when I could have waited till we both got home and I would have went looking for my three almanics but I wasn't sure if I brought them or not when I moved and I never thought about using the internet and he said he didn't give a damn what the textbooks said so I thought I wouldn't be able to prove him wrong if he won't believe the facts that are right in front of him. So he went on the internet and looked it up and said I was right.



EDIT: I just realized when you're first put into office, it doesn't start from year one because Clinton was president till 2001 and Bush Sr was president till 1993, and Reagon was president till 1989. You can be elected twice but when eight years comes in January, your term is up and someone else takes over. So bush be in office till 2009? I was told till 2008 and we be having elections this Novemeber 2007 for a new president to that's what got me off and then I thought oh it starts from year one the day you take office and when 2002 came Bush had been president for 2 years then. But no it been a year then and now it's been 6 years since he's took office.



lara_h
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 10
Location: San Clemente, CA

22 Feb 2007, 3:08 am

I'm taking an online class in psychology and we are required to post on a discussion board about given topics. One of these topics was about how you would conduct a certain research study which happened to involve how much and how fast alcoholics imbibe their chosen poison. I posted that I would do a lab study...while EVERYONE else in the class decided that they would "hide-out" in bars and do an "under cover" study of alcoholics. I mean, there are SO many problems with this approach. And I posted these problems, respectfully, in response to some of these people asking how they would overcome some of the inaccuracies in their methods (How would they know someone was an alcoholic? How could they possibly know what a person was drinking? Was is ginger ale or scotch or o'douls on tap? How could they be sure they had kept track of a person and how many drinks they had imbibed accurately? Not to mention the ethics involved in watching suspected alcoholics drink themselves silly and then leave to do damage on society/themselves/loved ones whatever)

And so one of them responds back to my idea of how to study alcoholics (in a controlled lab environment) and they say they have no problems with my set up, and that it would greatly reduce inaccuracies...but how could I ETHICALLY GIVE alcohol to an alcoholic. (Notice they didn't respond to my questions of how they would solve the inaccuracies in their own studies)

I said fine, legitimate question. I questioned their methods, they questioned mine. SO I went to the National Advisory on Alcohol Research in Psychology or whatever...the "governing authority" so to speak on this issue and DIRECTLY quoted from the guidelines that under strict rules, IT IS NOT UNETHICAL and in many instances MUCH BETTER to study alcoholics reactions to alcohol in a controlled environment.

What's her response?

"I still think it's unethical and you're wrong."

And THEN a bunch of other people from the class jumped in ON HER SIDE.

ARRRRRGGHHHHH!! !!

I was FUMING and seriously about to lose it (IE. post inappropriately and probably get myself banned from the class or something) when my NT husband calmed me down. He explained that in the NT world they DON'T CARE if they're wrong or right, they just want to look important. Their debate skills often boil down to "I know you are, but what am I?"...it's not about furthering other's knowledge and having a productive conversation about an important issue....because they're probably not smart enough for that.....it's about staying on top of the heap and getting your grade and flitting off to screw up society in some major way by eventually settling in as middle management somewhere and undermining any legimate efforts to get ANYTHING done....



This happens to me so often you'd think I'd be used to it.......