Autistic Types clashing

Post Reply New Topic

I feel bad. I just sent a few PM apology letters to WP members.

I am the "logical/ type" autistic person.

The Logical Type
This subcategory of Aspergers concerns individuals who seem to be very cautious.
•They like to know exactly what to expect, and they prefer to have the rules systematically spelled out for them.
•They often have difficulty getting past the analytical stage when completing tasks and assignments.
•The need for order and logical sequence can lead to frustration and intolerance for things that appear to be irrational.
•The logical type might resist following directions that don’t make sense.

I engage in arguments with other WP members that don't appear to be are not as much of the logical/ordered type. So I am desiring a logic/order explanation, and the other WP members won't give it to me, because they don't think that way ???

This creates frustration on both sides. Because I can endlessly argue that the logic/order is not correct, and they can endlessly argue their beliefs.

Note: I have no causes. I only like to learn the order of things. So, if I argue, then I am not concerned with truth or false of the beliefs. I am concerned with the logic/order of how the beliefs are presented.

Also, I notice that WP members are quick to add condemnation to their posts if I present a logic/order that affronts their beliefs. This condemnation triggers me and makes me want to pursue the topic further, because it is an affront to my logic/order.

I like to be proven wrong, or corrected. However, both sides affronting each other over and over escalates the confrontation.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended with my persistent pursuit of logic/order.

The solution I set for myself is for me to pre-announce that I am a logic/order autistic person, and inquiring if I could inquire about the order of what has been written.

some members,not all of us are like that.

dont know the situation but have been here long enough to know it may be that have appeared to look like a troll or debate control freakery.

we cant request others to think differently for us,we can only ask politely if they coud explain it again in a different manner if we do not understand it and if they do not-its their loss because they have lost out on reaching someone who coud have related to it.

most of us have probably done stuff on forums we regret,its good that are trying to help people understand rather than letting people think are a troll/jerk/arse,that suggests are a good member of this forum because are thinking of others to.

Forgive me if this post comes across flippant, but I thought you might appreciate it.

(bolding emphasis mine)

I don't necessarily consider myself especially rational or especially emotional, as I like to think that I can keep something of a balance between the two; however, when compared to the 'average' person, I guess people would view me as 'rationally oriented', while on a community like Wrong Planet, maybe I'd be viewed as decidedly 'emotionally oriented'.

However, there are times when I'm going through a hyper-rational period, which reflects on my posting style. Typically at those times, in whichever discussion I'll be engaged, I will seek logic, and pretty much discard any heated emotions flaring up from the person I'm arguing with. I'll ignore ad hominems, and I'll disregard the other party's emotional involvement in the topic. I'll focus solely on the rational, logical aspect of the discussion. And as such, I circumvent getting frustrated, or angry, or offended, myself.

Most of the time, however, I'm not in hyper-rational mode, and I'll let my emotions speak as much as my reason. I just thought it funny that, every so often, there'll be a poster who self-identifies as 'logical' or 'rational', and then goes on to express sentiments that would muddle a rational perspective.

This is by no means a 'jab' at you, LoveNotHate, it's just to point out 2 things, namely that 1) personality types on the autistic spectrum are perhaps not as binary as an 'emotion-vs-reason' distinction but rather a fluid continuum of types, and 2) if the other party is caught up in their personal emotions about any topic of discussion, there is little use in getting frustrated or offended about this, and all you can do is counter with rational argumentation. (And, additionally a diplomatic apology as you described earlier, if you feel it's necessary.)

I know the situation that is being referred to, and I'm sorry, but deliberately extended the other person's argument to the point of absurdity is not being logical, nor is refusing to read any evidence they present while decrying them for "having no evidence for their position".
The same goes for making up your own interpretation of what they're talking about, and then, when they tell you that that is not in fact what they meant, continuing to argue based on your own made-up definition.

Is this your definition of logic ? Wiki says nothing about reasoning have a "limit" as your propose so as to stop the argumentation when a point of "absurdity" is reached.

Do you propose a ten minute rule, or say 2 page rule, then reasoning is ended, or is your limit of "absurdity" measured by another means ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic




On the contrary, I am the one who extracted the definition from the evidence presented that they would not do.

It is clear you are someone who writes condemnation about stuff you know nothing about.



1. I never stated that. I challenge you to find that.

2. What I repeatedly asked for is a definition. I first provided the wilkipedia one, and then I was told to find one in those links - which I did.

I think you are just making this up to add your condemning opinion, as it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

`

I did not make up a definition. If you reread, then you will see I first cited the Wikipedia link definition, and after I was told to find one from the links, then I started using that one.

Only opinions, and condemnation, and no explanation from someone who does not understand the discussion.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 Feb 2014, 2:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

KOR, Apologies

CyclopsSummers your points are taken and understood.

Kicker, point taken. I don't know if I would say they are "delusional" though.

I feel that Heart Aspie would e a better term than Illogical Type. People are different and some things are better left in the past instead of brought up in another thread. I'm also apologetic.

Last edited by CockneyRebel on 16 Feb 2014, 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Human brains are not logical or rational.

All people, including the most logic obsessed aspie, are driven by fundamentally irrational forces.

There is no logical reason to pursue an argument on a web forum. It is irrational behavior.

There is no logical reason to take any action at any time.

Granted, there are many logical reasons to do things given certain premises, but these premises always come to down to irrational imperatives: desire for pleasure, aversion to pain, need for survival, desire to pursue interests, etc.

The only rational position is to accept that all people are irrational and that logic and rationality are faculties that we have and can cultivate: useful but essentially inadequate tools for understanding human behavior.

No, a person is not "delusional" simply because they hold a different view of the world than you do.

@xfiles and sweats

I'm glad that both of you don't feel the "shoe fits". Though I am unsure why you felt the need to comment about it after deciding that it doesn't. I certainly did not have either of you in mind when I wrote it and certainly did not mention any names. Arguing for the sake of arguing maybe? Whatever the reason it's neither here nor there. Have a good day.

I know you weren't talking about me, but I'm pretty sure I know who you were talking about and I'm simply not inclined to agree with your assesment.

So for the sake of arguing. I'm sorry, but I am not going to get into what is already a losing battle with you over having a different view than you do. So have a nice day, really.

When you got into a losing battle with me, you turned it into bizarre accusations and internet/armchair diagnoses. I am glad you can resist this impulse with others, because it is a terrible habit.

There were also the false claims of absurd arguments and the assertion that I had said things to you that I had not in fact said to you (and could easily be discerned by checking my previous posts).

Also, delusions are a symptom of psychosis and should not be invoked lightly. Trying to use the excuse of co-morbids is sophistry at best, but not related to the real world. I do in fact have co-morbid conditions, but none of them involve psychosis. No delusions, no hallucinations, no voices, no paranoia.

As far as the OP goes, I do not think this disagreement has anything to do with being emotional or irrational or illogical. It has to do with working from different information on how society works. This is why I spent so much time finding links to support what I was saying, rather than simply posting arguments with nothing to provide background or foundational information. Whether anyone makes use of that information is their own choice, but I am not responsible for their choices regarding that information or their perceptions of it.

Also, LoveNotHate's reply to Who_Am_I is a lie, in that a) I wasn't asked for a definition of privilege before LoveNotHate started insisting that I had failed at responding to such a request, and b) in response to that post, I provided multiple links that explain what privilege is. In this instance, LoveNotHate offered fallacious arguments to demonstrate that being poor is a privilege because poor people are not burdened by ownership of a private jet - and again I offered information and links demonstrating how being poor is not a privilege.

As such, the apology for arguing because she reacts badly to arguments she perceives as irrational, emotional, and illogical comes across as self serving. In this case, because she gets to apologize and disengage, but at the same time cast aspersions on those of us with whom she argued. This is commonly known as an argument ad hominem fallacy.

Now I am going to laugh because someone who argued with a straight face that poor people are privileged for not having private jets called me irrational.

People are too invested in topics that are so personal. And it's too easy to get self-righteous. I don't think that there is any such thing as a perfectly logical being, or even close to it (this is not a criticism of those who identify as logical, just an agreement with an earlier poster that it's a spectrum, with no one ever reaching the poles). Our responses and perspectives, in my opinion, are always informed by our experiences, families, education, etc. I think most people tend to spend their lives either consciously or subconsciously trying to validate or disprove the things they've learned. I don't think that anyone is starting from a neutral position on just about anything, even less so when it comes to things that are extremely central to identity.

I'm NT, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But, I'm a black woman married to a white Jewish man, and we have a white gay son (my stepson), and bi-racial twin boys on the autism spectrum. Oh, yeah, I started out very poor, and now most would consider me wealthy. So, I've had a lot of these types of conversations. Oh, I was a math major at an Ivy League college, so I consider myself to be "logical". But, I've seen both the most "logical" and the most "emotional" people on the spectrum and off passionately believe what I'd consider to be the craziest, most untrue things.

No. I responded because this is a message board and we respond to other people's opinions with our own opinions. That's why message boards exist.

In this case, my opinion is that calling everyone who disagrees with your opinion delusional, emotional, and/or irrational is an exercise in flinging cheap personal insults and not "logic."

Where exactly pray tell did I say everyone? Also do you believe it's rational to say all white people are racist? Do you find it rational to say all nts are bias against autistics? Do you find it rational to turn a topic about privilege into a racial debate? Do you find it rational to think that because your family is racist that everyone else is too? Do you find it rational to say that all nts will abuse you? That if someone that doesn't agree with you 100% that are in fact bias against their own kind? Where is the rational thinking when someone thinks nts are privilege because they got something an "aspie" didn't? Etc etc.

Really, get a grip and think before you decide to start this argument with me. Especially since your the one standing on the moral high ground of allowing others to have an opinion. Where is the rationale in that?

Also websters definition of delusion 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

I think there is plenty of proof that not all white people are racist, not all nts are bias towards autistics, etc etc. given that some people refused to hear or even attempt to hear any and all evidence to the contrary they have the delusion of thinking those things. So please explain to me how that isn't the case since some members dragged out a racial debate for over 9 pages to prove that nts are bias being the conversation was about privilege if they were being sane unemotional and rational? Why they felt the need to bash anyone who didn't agree with their ideas and why you feel the need to continue with your little crusade?

Btw I didn't attack anyone. I posted once saying I thought that the idea of nt privilege was self serving bias. Then I figured I'd post again with the definition of such. It was after that (page 6) I was attacked for having an opinion that clashed with some individuals. Then I responded and tried to drop it. The other posters refused. You want to promote free expression of ideas then don't condemn me for mine. Else you look like a fool.