People are angry at me because I contradict them?

Post Reply New Topic

Now that I've gotten this criticism from two different sources, I can't help but think there's got to be something to it.

Namely, I apparently annoy people by being too contradictory, by correcting them, or by arguing too much.

Example conversation:
Them: "So, like, you'll be able to tell if people are stupid if they think that [finding bacterial life of non-earth origin] doesn't matter, because it's just bacteria and not little green men or anything."
Me: "Well, they might only be stupid about astronomy."

At which point the person I was talking to got angry at me because I "always play the devil's advocate". (Note they have gotten angry with me about this before, so it wasn't just this particular conversation that irked them but a record of similar things.)

I'm trying to figure out just what I'm doing and how in the world I'm supposed to have a conversation without doing it. It really doesn't help that most of the people I interact with are pretty nerdy and will heavily resist being told they are wrong about anything, ever. I personally don't mind it because if I'm wrong about something I want to learn it the right way, and will generally go home and research it if informed of my mistake.

But apparently this is some kind of social taboo I'm not aware of. I can't even explain it very well, but maybe somebody will know what I'm talking about.

What's with this? How can I fix it?

The only thing i can think of is that everything everyone says can be corrected somehow.
To have a fast conversation people have to cut corners and say things they know not be the best way to say it, but they do because its faster and takes less big words.

So if you point out all their overgeneralizations it will be just annoying because they know they are generalizing but theyre only doing it because it allows for a fast conversation. You dont want to listen to someone build up a solid argument for 5 minutes so that he covered all areas on which you can correct him.

So maybe I am making an incorrect assumption that everyone is as careful about saying exactly what he means as I am? It actually takes extra energy for me to generalize, rather than less. That's why, by default, I write too much rather than not enough for essays and tend toward tl;dr posts on forums.

hi callista,

i think that you have the same typical aspie talking style like me: I always concentrate on finding things where it doesnt fit (to put it in NLP terms: looking for a mismatch), and this has its advantages, for example if you want to find a new idea in science or get a new creative idea somewhere else. But this analytical talking style also got its drawbacks: It gets very complex, and a lengthy talk, and if you see just the differences, then you dont find any common things.

In my opinion, thats also the reason why I am so bad in small talk, i always note the differences, and think... oh my god, she is NOT EXACTLY like me in this case, but actually she is more similar in some area than different. And if you flirt with someone its good to find some common things, but this didnt come naturally for me.

hope this helped,
anton

Well, you know what you're doing to annoy people . . . so don't. If someone says something you think to be wrong, don't correct them and just be content with thinking to yourself "Well, that's twaddle, but whatever." I have a friend who spouts nonsense all of the time and gets very angry if she's told she's wrong. I'm now very good at not rising to it:

She: My mother's teeth all fell out because she was pregnant. There was nothing the dentist could do!
I:
She: I think the reason that people speak to me more than they speak to you is because I'm more visually distinctive.
I:


etc etc.

A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down.

Throw in some ego bolstering comment when you correct another.

they: the earth is flat

me: wow that new car of yours is awesome, BTW Galileo established that the earth is round and I love what you've done with your hair!

Hmmm......I knew a guy who'd been in the USA for a few years, and when he returned, he couldn't cope with British politeness any more. He said that in the States, it was a lot more acceptable to tell a person when they were talking crap, and that it led to better relationships and better decisions.

I agree with him in principle, but if the people around me aren't into that philosophy, I'm not going to drive on the left while they're all driving on the right. Certainly in the UK, most conversations seem to be of the "grooming talk" variety, where the goal is not to arrive at the truth, but to make each other feel liked. It seems ridiculously naive to imagine that if I disagree with you on a point of order, I therefore must dislike you, but that's the way the game is played. Disagreement comes over as an invalidation of the other person's opinion (which is exactly what it is), and if you do it too often, it will come over as an invalidation of the person (which is not necessarily the intended message).

Luckily things aren't quite that black and white. You can find people who like it when their ideas are challenged, people who feel that you're not really close to them if you do nothing but crank out unqualified agreement and approval. Indeed, in a longterm relationship, I suspect that most people eventually have to explore their differences - your spouse is often your worst critic because the relationship is of a higher quality than a superficial chat with a relative stranger. I see contradiction as a sign of maturity in a friendship. And I've known people who I've not been particularly close to, who have felt reasonably at ease in telling me when they think I'm wrong.

So, for immature, run-of-the-mill "friends," I'd recommend resisting the temptation to put them straight too often. It's usually safe to test a person out with a mild contradiction, just to see how they handle it. And there's a lot you can do protect them from feeling invalidated. As Surfman said, you can throw in a compliment or two......I think the example given was a little clumsy, I'd be more inclined to first outline the part(s) of their declaration that I agreed with (thus reassuring them that I don't think they're talking complete crap). I'd avoid blunt, insensitive negatives such as "you're wrong." I might tell them that their idea is in line with some revered author, if it happens to be. Anything to protect their delicate ego. If it's appropriate, I might even touch them, to underline the message that I'm not rejecting them.

It all hinges on the context - the type of social encounter. And it's a pain in the butt that it has to be this way.

Actually, I think people resent it when someone makes a statement in such a way that it presumes no further input is needed.

My psychologist told me that you can be right or you can be in relationship but rarely both. I think about this a lot now and find myself gritting my teeth more and more because my instinct is to be right but my heart wants the relationship. The right road is a lonely one.

I definitely have trouble with that exact same thing you mentioned. I love the idea of showing people that their happy little generalization is just a generalization and doesn't apply to x y or z scenario. It always gets me in trouble.

It was particularly bad when I was in Japan as a foreign exchange student. My host mom would always say these ridiculous statements that I felt compelled to correct. It never turned out well (it was her native language and the fact that she was much older than me and therefore was correct, etc). Eventually, though, it got to the point where I learned to just stay quiet. It just wasn't worth the effort to play devil's advocate.

I also came to a similar conclusion about my mom's stories. She loves to tell outlandish and exaggerated stories... for awhile, I'd end up ruining them because I'd correct her statements at ever turn. "No, mom, the fish wasn't four feet long. It was only about this big." In doing so, though, I'd ruin the dramatic effect and she'd get upset/annoyed (as would anyone listening). So now I just stay silent when listening to the stories and try to ignore any incorrect statements. It's easier when I wasn't there. Suffice to say... she is a MUCH better story teller than I am and I could probably learn a thing or two about it from her. My stories are always too factual and lack any sort of dramatic appeal.