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.