Do Aspies argue?

Post Reply New Topic

In a lot of instances, I stop trying to argue, cause it's not like the other person is going to get it in most cases.

When it comes down to defending my principles, I will argue though. But usually only then.

I apologise for the spelling mistakes in the above post. I was typing very quickly as I was about to be late for a train. I caught the train but I hope I didn't make anyone suffer too much with the spellings.

I mean I was IN DANGER OF BEING late for a train, not ABOUT TO BE late for it, which obviously is not true, since I caught it.

OK, I'll stop now.

Sorry.

I don't argue, but I get angry. I think people should understand and shouldn't need to be told. And when they are told, I think they should pay attention. But they are not rational. And I understand this better as I get older.

Aye, that's about it. I want a broad law of identity to hold: my A to equal your A and both to equal the real A. Though I always feel like there's no safe place in my head that I can put things where they'll be "right"; there is a mix of things which are clear, things which are known with varying degrees of evidence, things which simply aren't known or have no "right" answer, and all of them I'm likely to forget, or to only remember half of the pieces of information I need to draw a good conclusion (the others generally turn up either halfway through saying something, or immediately after I've said it I realise I'm wrong). I'm a bit wary of my brain.

So how to define argue?

If I think the other is interested and participating I will present my vierw and evidence supporting in depth and detail as nauseam, while listening to his. Not trying to convince - USUALLY - but agreeing to disagree needs to be fully informed, else how be sure we DO disagree?

But by this time in my life and for some decades past, in MOST cases if the other gets huffy or resistant I just shut up - let him be wrong. Does he deserve to know?

Often it is hopeless - quote from one I had the misfortune to be communicating [if you call it that once]: "Don't tell him what we accujse him of, he will just lie and convince you he is innocent."

At that level, "argument" is not the accurate word.

I know it changes the subject since the past few responses were talking about correcting inaccuracy, while right now we are talking about someone literally accusing me of something and my having to defend myself, personally. But I can't help but respond, since that is what I have been on receiving end the past few years.

Oftentimes, people would not tell me what they accuse me of, perhaps because they won't trust my refutation. But at the same time I have to PERSONALLY suffer for whatever it is I am being accused of -- from physics department I used to do ph.d. on thinking that I have no capacity in doing physics, to a girl named Anita who used to totally love me all of a sudden blocking my phone number and saying she wants "nothing to do with me" without ever telling me why or what happened.

That is the number one reason I would start arguments, I would deliberately try to squeeze out of them just what it is they accuse me of, and force them to listen to something VERY SIMPLE that shows them that it is not the case. After all, oftentimes it IS a simple miscommunication where they simply don't know something, but if they won't hear it, how would they ever find out.

Now I understand what you said: that if a person is told what he is accused of, he might just lie to prove he is innocent. But he doesn't force anyone to BELIEVE what he is saying. So why not listen to it and then DECIDE whether to believe or not? If you know that extra piece of information, you can always dismiss it as a lie, but if you don't know, then how can you possibly double check your perceptions?

Now, often people did "listen" to what I said and simply didin't respond and ignored it. So who knows, perhaps they "chose" to believe it is a lie. Fine, but I would have preferred if they were to tell me "Roman, we heard what you said: you said X, Y and Z. But we beleive you lied, because of A, B, and C". Now, sure, I can then further defend myself and refute A, B, and C. And sure, may be that is a lie too. But again, I am not forcing them to believe my refutation.

Yes, I DO want ENDLESS opportunities to refute everything they say, but that doesn't mean I am forcing them to belive me. If I REALLY am a liar, they would be able to, equally endlessly, show me that what I am saying is a lie. So they really have nothing to lose. But WHAT IF it is not a lie? Then they have a lot to gain.

I do the same. Most of the time when I start to argue I eventually give up when I get the impression that the person's not going to change their mind or get it. Many people will continue to argue their point even after they've been proven wrong anyways. So I usually don't waste my time.

One thing that I continue to argue with people on is dogs because I know a great deal about them, and most of the time I just end up getting incredibly frustrated because few people really understand dog behavior. I guess I'm a bit arrogant when it comes to dogs.

Exactly.

One of the things I don't understand about other people is that they will decide that I have done something wrong, or that I have a bad personality trait, and they won't let me explain. Well, I understand why people do it if they want to hurt me - that makes sense. But nice people who don't want to hurt me do it too, and I find it bewildering.

I remember being told off at school once for something I didn't do. The teacher would not listen to me and I started crying. The teacher then said: "If you haven't done it, why are you crying?" I thought that was a crazy thing to say. Obviously I was crying because I was being falsely accused!! Isn't that a perfectly good reason to cry?

The way I felt in that moment years ago is the same way I often feel today in similar situations.

Recently my partner told me that he thinks I am defensive. What he meant (this is what he said he meant, anyway) is that I don't like to be proved wrong. I think that this is false. I don't mind when I am proved wrong. I like it, because it means I've leant something. I started to explain this to him and he started laughing and would not listen to me. He said that the fact that I was arguing with him about this proved him right - that because I was defending myself at that moment, I was showing that I WAS defensive and that I DIDN'T like being proved wrong.

Now he is a clever guy and he loves me and I do not believe that he wants to hurt me. But that conversation (if "conversation" is the word for it - to me, it felt more like a verbal/emotional beating) is exactly the kind of thing that sends me absolutely mad and makes me feel like I am being torn up inside.

Why can't a clever, nice person like him see that obviously it is OK to explain to someone why they have a false impression of you, in this case as much as any other?

I think he was genuinely confused by the case in question because it is superficially self-referential. But I could probably have explained that too, if he'd just listened for a minute.

I am beginning to to admit to myself hat I sometimes have trouble working out the expressions on people's faces. But one expression I am able see quite clearly is the expression that people have when they have switched off from me and won't listen any more. Over the years I've learnt what it looks like and I know that at that moment I have lost them because they have just decided not to bother with me any more. It's like a door slamming in my face. It hurts.

Mom says I was born to be a lawyer.

I'm another one following the pattern of posts here.

a couple of points really caught my eye -

I believe i am extremely open minded and i am very willing to change my minf *if* someone proves their way is better, yet i get accused of being closed minded, unwilling to bend, refuse to accept someone elses point etc etc. I often change my mind in an instant if someone proves their point, but all the other people unable or unwilling to back up their POV just accuse me of being egotistical and say i always have to be right.

The other point is that i also hate conflict, i go into hyper-aspie mode, completely ignoring emotions and getting really specific and systematic, which seems to annoy people even more. Then afterwards i get emotional, distrated, thinking about it over and over and then more and more upset that i just wanted to discuss a point or clarify something and yet again i totally screwed it up. I just don't understand how to disagree with someone without making them upset/angry/cry/get defensive.

I sometimes wish i could find someone who thinks as i do and just spend my time with them, everyone else is just too difficult and i'm fed up with the constant effort and failure.

Oh i forgot to say, anomie, your posts made me smile (the 2 corrective posts), i think like that much of the time then realised no-one cared about my initial error anyway other than me.

^ perfectly put Jingo.

This.

And add in that I like to "debate" because I like to see other people's perspectives and I think other people should be able to logically explain and defend those perspectives. If someone can logically prove to my why their perspective is superiour, I may well change my perspective.
I greatly enjoy discussing all angles of every situation, researching facts, and intelligent challenging converstation.

So, yes. I argrue

Totally agree with most of the posts here. I've had a lot of trouble with being acused of being close minded and argumentitive my entire life.

But I do not argue with just anyone. If someone that doesn't mean anything to me says something I percieve as incorrect, I will not attempt to correct them or debate. I am likely to just let it go to preserve peace. I only do this with people who are close to me and important to me - not to be divisive but rather because of the above: I enjoy it and find it important to explain myself and understand the other's perspective. I don't care about hearing the perspective of someone who does not matter to me. I believe that for regular people, it is the opposite. They would be more likely to "pick fights" with a person who does not mean anything to them and bend over backwards to preserve peace with the people closest to them. Its somewhat ironic and definately causes issues

*edit* @anomie - I just read your post and it very much resonates with me. That sounds so similar to the things that I have delt with in the past. It frustrates me greatly when things like that happen and my attempts to explain the issue are seen as proving the accusers point. I get extremely frustrated and feel like I want to just explode on the spot. At this point I usually shut down emotionally and mentally to avoid having a melt down which seems to anger the other party even more.

I don't know if Aspies tend to argue (or have a greater tendency to argue than NTs)

I know that I am someone who is willing to argue; sometimes over the most trivial of things (and sometimes even here on WP!)

I have read about the AS trait for correcting others who make mistakes.

Apparently the reason for this is that we are genuinely trying to 'help' them to improve (rather than our personal attempt to feel superior!!)

I am gradually realising that arguing is usually not a good use of my time and so now I (try to) make a conscious effort not to argue when I recognise that an exchange seems to have the potentional to escalate into confrontation.

It can be quite hard for me to recognise when things are heating up unless I am paying close attention to the other person; which often I am not.

Even when I realise what is 'going on' it takes quite a lot of effort for me to 'stand-down', particularly when the other person seems determined to argue/make his or her point.

This reminds me a little of why I don't interact with others very much.

Give me a good book instead.

deleted

It is actually quite tiring to be correcting people, which is one of the MANY reasons I am making a very real effort to stop doing it.

I will admit that the feelings of the other person are a secondary consideration with this change in my behaviour; at the moment.

There are many AS qualities that are not endearing... and also some that are.

I do know quite a lot of things, within and outside my special interests.

I think the most important thing that I know is that I DON'T know everything.

I do know that NTs (and those on the Spectrum) probably find me quite hard work.

I have volunteered this to a couple of close friends, both of whom have been kind enough to reply (speaking ONLY for themselves) that as a friend, they don't consider me to be hard work.

I certainly find other people (AS or NT) quite hard work.

I realize that this is mostly because of the way I am hard-wired; but occassionaly it really is because of who they are.

I also realize that whilst postings on WP can be very interesting and informative, such postings aren't necessarily representative of everyone with AS, but that doesn't mean that postings on WP can't or don't sometimes reflect the general AS population.

The same applies to the NTs who are kind enough to post here.

Last edited by Blindspot149 on 28 Jan 2010, 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.