How do you evaluate arguments? How do NTs?

Post Reply New Topic

When people say things I usually first evaluate the truth of the statement in a logical fashion.

This can get you into trouble if you don't think about the context and who is saying it.
Eg Why don't you get into this car with me, I will drive you home. It will be faster.

A lot of disinformation is also true but omits other stuff.

Probably its not possible to really pin down exact thought processes.
But I think NTs would think
- who is saying this
- look at emotional content, eg do I like what they are saying, are they being nice to me.

This emotional stuff can make them more vulnerable than autists in some situations.

I try to respect the "T.H.I.N.K." paradigm.

T - is it True?
H - is it Helpful (Useful)?
I - is it Inspiring?
N - is it Necessary?
K - is it Kind?

Most 'arguments' (claims, actually) I encounter cannot make it past 'T' or 'H' -- they are neither true nor helpful/useful.

The "T.H.I.N.K." paradigm is an outgrowth of Socrates' "Triple-Filter Test":

Usually, I try to look at the argument itself. A lot of people seem to want to dismiss arguments based on who said it. (Ad hominem fallacy.)

Here's an example regarding movie criticism, which is a special interest of mine.

If a critic gives a movie a bad review and I disagree with them, I will disagree with what they actually said in their review.

I.e., "They criticized the movie for not explaining [plot point], however, there's a scene where that's very clearly explained."

Whereas many people on the internet will be like:

"The critics are wrong about this movie because the critics are always wrong!"

And if you ask them why they liked the movie, they'll say:

"I don't get the hate! It was good! I mean, maybe it wasn't the best, but it was okay!"

And no details whatsoever.

It does not help when I'm in a emotional culture of high context interactions.
Therefore, my approach may likely not work much in different cultural trait.


Since I'm usually hyperemotional; offensively and defensively. Usually as passive and nonconfrontational possible because I'd easily sway into offending aggression.

Unless it's a simple thing...
It's a tug of war of sorts.

Who is more hurt? Who runs the vibe atmosphere around here?
Who 'should know better' because the other party is some sort of child?
Who 'had to submit' because the other party is in no position to talk back?

Eloquence and wit is just a bonus. A good one. Better when paired with charm. Even better if it wins sides of others.

The rationale doesn't matter unless the argument itself is rational and both parties had to be rational.


Whether it's the truth, or a lie, if it helps, if it doesn't, whether it benefits only self or other or particular people or all, whether the argument itself is logical or not...

That's just a matter of someone's integrity, principle and standards.
Autistics seem to focus more on this alone. And I say it's not the whole picture.

As much as I wish I have the hyperrational linguistic analysis on every spoken word as an attempt to look for contexts... And being very firm and rigid.

Unfortunately that's not how "I" work (not my choice). The best of me breaks a certain rule or dynamic to surprise NTs. That's how they're vulnerable.

On top of my language processing issues, auditory processing issues, verbal processing speed issues... It's sort of how I make do when communication itself can feel like a gamble.

Not recommended.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

I suppose I just analyse arguments to see if they're logical, check the premisses to see if they're correct, and look for emotive words and other propaganda tricks in the argument. Then I try to decide what I think about the matter, and whether I need to modify it at all on the basis of the new input. But if I don't have much time, I might fudge it and pass a tentative intuitive judgement.

I guess NTs are somewhat more open to emotional contagion, and to propaganda tricks if they're not well-educated in how to spot them. Otherwise there'd be no ads, no political speeches, no religious preaching, no pretty names for ugly initiatives, just unadorned information for people to go and find out for themselves if they wanted to. No adversarial debate, just people discussion things in a genuine attempt to learn the truth. Nobody would say "it's going to be fine" unless that was a fact.

But the ND sector isn't necessarily always so immune to faulty communication as I am, and I don't rule out that even in my own case somebody might occasionally get one past the goalie.

NTs heavily identify with groups which leads to unconscious biases. They may favor one side's argument just because they share something else in common.

Autistics can do this too, but I think to a lesser degree overall, because we're more individualistic. We are more likely to separate ourselves somewhat from groups we belong to because we grow up with a more separated identity. It also means we are more okay with being on our own. I think NTs truly fear this and it explains their sometimes extreme conformism.

^
That need to belong to a group had massive survival connotations at one time. Probably not so important these days, but relics of antiquity linger. I like belonging, but not to the degree that the group's views have to be mine. I did notice a trace of it when I was in a group I'd invested a lot of hope in. One of the main members said a few things and I noticed a while afterwards and had more come to my senses, that I'd been a tad brainwashed by their ideas. I didn't like that feeling.

Conformity often was necessary in the past and it isn't always bad. Yet it's good to be cautious because of the problems it can cause.

Here is an example from 2012 that happened in South Korea. It's about the North Face jacket trend.

"The winter jackets, long popular among grade-school and high-school students, have become the objects of robbery and bullying, authorities say."

"In recent months, half a dozen students have committed suicide after being bullied at school, authorities said, leading beleaguered education officials to institute a rash of new security measures, including starting plainclothes-police patrols and prosecuting teenage suspects."

"Lee, a high school junior, said he has heard of bullies forcing students to purchase the bullies’ used jackets so they could then buy newer and more expensive ones. ‘It was common for kids to beg their parents, work part-time or save money to buy these jackets,’ he said."

"One Korean website popular among youth has included a page that shows the price and desirability of North Face’s latest winter line. Meanwhile, many parents have complained that the fad had crimped household budgets, say South Korean media reports."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/ ... ying-theft

In a world that valued individualism more, a trend like this wouldn't get so big that it'd create these issues.

^
hahahaha.. maybe I shouldn't be laughing, but it's a bit silly... reminds me of the run on toilet paper during the pandemic.