People arguing with you about something when they are wrong

Post Reply New Topic

That's why I ask them to prove it. Because I get sick of the arguement and I want them to shut up. If they think its worth to prove it, they will shut up and maybe do the research and show me.

And that's OK, if that's the way you want to go through life. But it is very tiring behavior to be around if you do it all the time. You said your husband says you do it, your mom said it, and I imagine your friends would say the same. And I'm telling you that it's an annoying habit that will drive people away from you. JMHO.

Yes I hate this, particularly when the person arguing with you has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, but think they do.

I didnt really concede- I slightly retrenched.
It was roughly equivalent to me saying "you dont owe me a hundred dollars- you only owe me 97 dollarsl. Although (like you) he no doubt misread it as a major concession and didnt really comprehend how little I had conceded.

The thing about alaska was something I thought about after the first conversation and long before our next get together and the second part of the converstaion a year later.

It occured to me that in all fairness Cannada is more than five percent bigger than the contiguous USA- but hell- who cares - we will never return to the conversation again.

But to my amazement - his wife and my mom (both trying to keep from laughing) told me that he "had something to say to me" about that long ago conversation. I was amused and bemused that it still mattered to him. So I said -"well- in all fairness.." and got to amend what I first said with my subsequent insight. It still amuses me.

He put on a smug look (as if he had won a bigger victory than he had) and then explained how "and it occured to me that hudson bay should be counted as part of Cannada "(kinda like counting the gulf of mexico as part of the land area of the USA).
I didnt pick a fight about it, but didnt really agree with it either.

When I am wrong I'll get embarrassed and admit I was wrong. I rarely argue when I think I am right anymore. Only when I have enough evidence proving my point will I bother to argue, but even then that's not enough for some people.

I enjoy debating things with people. If it bothers people, they don't have to talk to me. I'm fine with having few friends, and the friends that I have know the difference between "I think you are incorrect" and "I think you are a stupid, bad person".

Wait...does this mean Greenland isn't as big as Africa?

You're good. Yuo must have recognized me by the avatar or just by my posting style or things I have said here or you must have saw the other thread where I said I was SG.

Most of my friends are aspies. I don't talk to many NTs anymore.

My problem is that I usually consider the fact that I could be wrong on things, and that has become a problem.

There are two types of argument topics... Black and white vs gray. A Black and White argument such as whether or not Canada is physically bigger than the US can easily by solved by looking up the answer. These are arguments about whether or not your memory is with it or if you've read the fact before, and they are easily resolved by looking it up. Most of the time, I just allow people to be stupid about their facts because of my last post. Even if I don't care about their ego, sometimes I just feel like it's a jerk thing to do to squash someone's ego for no reason (that's how it would appear to them if I stayed stuck on the accuracy of a fact). The main time this type of situation becomes really tough for me is in the work place and the fact has an impact on the outcome of the job. That's a tough call... making an enemy of a coworker in order to get the job done right? Or allow the job results to slip in order to salvage another period of time with that co-worker knowing they are just going to continue to screw up future jobs with their stupidity...

Now, the gray area arguments is where I have a problem at this point. Those are arguments like whether or not the kid deserved a spanking or a time out, or like whether or not you should argue with a co-worker about how to do a job you guys are doing. It's more about opinion and preference, but most people don't seem to recognize that. Because I'm aware it's a gray area so therefore I could be wrong, my side of the argument seems wishy washy compared to the other guy's argument who firmly believes it's a fact they are right.

So I guess while in the normal world, disagreeing with someone is an ego squasher, and to do it in a sense where you are aware you could be wrong isn't common because again, it's not about the topic, it's really about their ego (on the instinctive level going on without their conscious knowledge that it's happening). So the question shouldn't be about how to argue with someone, but when to argue with someone. Basically, pick and choose your battles wisely. In some cases, you are supposed to just agree no matter how ridiculous the statement is. In some cases, you will earn more respect to speak your mind. Finding when to argue is really an art, and then the way you argue is just your style and unless it's really annoying the way you approach it, nobody really cares how you argue. I think Aspies annoy people with our sense of always being right as opposed to just being right on this one thing. I think what annoys people with the way we argue is that we can often repeat ourselves, sometimes word for word, and sometimes re-worded, and we often monologue (which that annoys people no matter what you are doing), and while we don't usually reduce ourselves to name calling as fast as the next guy, we do get to a point of frustration where we just leave it at "You're stupid" which people really hate that.

I see myself falling into black and white arguements. My husband think I always have to be right, even my ex thought that. My husband says it's fifty questions asked or you are wrong and my ex said I always argued if I thought I was right.
I don't mean to argue, it just happens. I am trying to discuss something and speak my mind, they like to see it as an arguement. It's as if they don't want to hear it but yet they want me to hear them. Seems like 90% of my discussions are arguements. Luckily my husband never sees us as arguing. He sees it as a discussion we're having. I remember I used to get accused of it a lot and I can't remember the last time I got it.

Exactamundo!

Greenland is about the size of Mexico.

Big, but only a fraction of the size of the USA (much less africa).
Also the old USSR appeared to be twice the size of the African continent on mercator maps. Its actually slightly smaller than Africa. Both the USA and Greenland appear to be the same size as South America. South America is actually twice the size of the USA, and the contiguous USA is almost four times the size of Greenland.

There are facts, and then are facts.
Some maybe trivial, but some have non trivial underpinnings.

If your ex thought Bush was elected in 1999 it show that he needs a little help with his sloppy thinking.

American Presidents are elected in years divisable by four, and then they are sworn into office the following January. Thats a general concept that every native born citizen ought to know.

So he shouldve known that Bush could NOT have been elected in 1999.
If he was that close then he couldve done the math and gotten the right answer: 2000.

Maybe you should not have screamed at him, but it wasnt just a trivial fact either.

You shouldve gingerly pointed out to him that he was wrong for above reason for HIS sake not yours to prevent him from going out into the world and being laughed at for being a civics dolt!

On the other hand you shouldnt take the country singer Johnny Paycheck as a role model. He was thrown in the slammer after knifing a guy in a bar in a heated debate.
The subject of the debate was "which tastes better: snapping turtle or venison?"

I do not like when I am arguing with someone over something (or simply discussing) they will suddenly decide they do not want to continue the conversation and say either that I am rude, that they are right or simply that they do not want to continue.

This usually happens when I am discussing something with someone who is in a position of authority.

This does usually not happen with my peers as they are not under the illusion that they can do that sort of thing and still think they have done the right thing.

There's elements spread throughout this thread that I find incredibly distressing.

A) The over-exalted importance of simply being correct in a disagreement,
B) The labeling of people as either smart or stupid based on what is usually not significant in a practical sense,
C) The willingness to inevitably impose a negative and stressful mood on what is non-significant,
D) The frustration towards individuals insightful enough to know when to eject from a downward spiraling discussion.
E) The reluctance to give proper consideration of one's own fallibility,
F) The inability to recognize the existing merits of going along with broader social consensus, even when it's sub-optimal or inaccurate,
G) The overlooking of how often even the 'smartest' people make mistakes(it's very easy to overlook or be unaware of the simple day-to-day fact errors)
H) The willingness to let one's emotions get the better of them over something minor,
I) .... Forgot what else.
J) The above items not being realized.

My first impulse was marvelling at the utter lack of objectivity happening. But then I realized the odd way in which the idea of objectivity is, itself, objective. But anyways.

Perhaps I'm lucky in having developed the ability to follow through with this, but: As a person who revels in calm, exploratory argument, I've found that some debates have times where they should simply end, even without resolution, even when 'they're wrong.' If a debate lasts long enough, and if the participants are sure enough of themselves, it is almost certain that it will become emotional, no matter how insignificant the topic. Being accurate is cool and all, but sometimes the fight for that accuracy can ruin someone's day, even yours. Weigh those two outcomes, case by case.
Correcting an error(that might not actually be an error at all) sometimes just doesn't help anything in a practical manner.

I can get kinda uppity about jingoistic judgments, so I apologize if I come off as judgmental myself.

I make a point to check my sources, regularly correct errors in my knowledge, and do my best to further my understanding of any subject I may be discussing with someone else.

...

Why can't everyone else do that?


Yes, I am terrible at letting something go when I know someone is stating an incorrect version of a knowable fact... though it annoys many, as I point out: 'I'd rather be right than popular.'

The crime is not in cutting you off, but in how they cut you off.
You may find yourself in a position of authority, or in other myriad situations, in which you have to postpone the discussion and just act. You will then need to cutoff people talking at you- thats life.
The trick is how to do it without dissing others.
One trick is to use the expression " Im not here to engage in a debating tournament".
Thats better than saying " you're rude" or "your wrong". because the other person may not be being either rude nor even wrong- its just that you the speaker dont have time to jabber.