I'm not stubborn. I'm just right.

Post Reply New Topic

indeed....Analize....Find problem...MUST correct , mentality myself

NA's Egos do get in their way, they seem to stop listening to facts and start internalizing their dislike for your "wierdness". Unfortunatly I see right thru their... hidden agenda, actual meaning, thought process. IMO unprofessional but thats ego for ya .

I will be the first to admit when I'm wrong, but prove it.

I just needed to learn how to talk to the natives in ways that they will understand without disrupting their customs I'm still working on that

there are times that one must declare a disclaimer before stating the facts. but that doesnt always work either....especially when the facts are overwelming and irrefutable.

Everyone believes their beliefs are right, or they wouldn't believe it in the first place. Find me a person who believes in something that he/she thinks to be false but who still continues to believe it, and you earn a cookie.

Stubbornness is not listening to alternative feedback and evaluating it. A problem we might have with NTs is that it's not that we haven't listened to their ideas, it's that we have, and we have evaluated it as utter moonshine.

If you really don't listen to someone else's proposals and think about it first, then yes, you are stubborn. If you listen and you judge it to be nonsense, then you are not stubborn. Quite a simple distinction here, and it's not something that anyone else can judge you for. Only you know for sure whether you listened or not.

We simply have this problem more than NTs because our relative lack of ability to use nonverbal communication makes them feel that we didn't consider their views in the first place, when they were (I hope) actually considered already.

Our beliefs may be right more often than NTs' ones are owing to our relative ability to see things from an objective viewpoint, and so that kind of "but I was right anyway" thing applies often. I do not believe anyone to be infallible in belief and logic, not even myself. But I do believe that nobody I know in real life can possibly hope to be correct as often as I am, and that is good enough for me. I do still listen, of course. There are times in which I was able to learn because of that. And even though more than 95% of the time I'm correct, the 5% or less times are times in which I learned something new, and that learning is worth screening EVERY debate for, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Mr. Xxx I don't agree with it either but I do understand what you're saying and it is what it is. I have had to learn this the hard way myself. I'm 32 right now. Like Willard said, we are not privy to their view of reality and they are not privy to ours. I've spent some of my life trying to fight it myself. I have gotten nowhere either. In my opinion, I think the best move we can make is to learn to be very humble and humble ourselves. I think humility will be our best friend.

This is what I wrote on my blog here, http://mycontributionstoamerica.blogspot.com/

"If an individual says something, believes something, or writes something this individual needs to make sure they are correct. They need to confirm it through logic, asking others to see if they are correct, and through observations. There may be other things to do to help confirm statements and arguments the individual makes. Unless otherwise confirmed, always assume you are wrong.

Here is an example of this method.
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/20 ... /#comments

I was very polite to this man, Walter Hudson. I did not understand a certain concept about property rights. First, I put the blame on myself. I did not blame him and accuse him of providing false information. I assumed I was misunderstanding what his intent was and I admitted that maybe I was. It turned out I was misunderstand his intent until he clarified.

Another point is I did not demand him to provide me an answer. I asked him, by the sentence construction I used and I used the word please. The sentence construction I used was the asking voice and not the demanding voice. Remember, with the asking voice the person the individual asks does not have to provide what is asked for. "

By believing you are always wrong, acting like you are wrong, and being humble the person will check themselves and either comfirm you are correct or show you why you are wrong. I believe this is what humility is and it is a completely different paradigm shift.

I agree with you 100%. Here is the problem. How do we know with 100% certainity a fact is true or false. I do not believe we can be 100% certain. I believe we can be reasonably certain but I believe we have to keep in mind we may be wrong on some things.

To make matters more complex, even if we are right sometimes the best move is just to go along and let the other party discover for themselves unless it is something illegal or unethical. In my opinion, just suggest it to them once and be very humble. If they say no just say to them "ok, that's fine," buy yourself a cup of coffee and just move on.

Another thing, truly check if something is a fact or is your opinion. http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ela4/ ... inionl.cfm

Because most of the western world works on a democratic system, the needs of the majority will outweigh the needs of the few. If you believe the statistics, the number of people with AS account for only 3 in 10,000 of the population. Minorities can, at best, be accommodated. A society where everyone can really choose the world that they want is not achievable because, compromises have to be made and a compromise is not quite what was wanted by each of the individual parties.

This assumes that the needs of the majority can best be achieved by opposing the needs of the few. What if their needs could be best achieved through a win-win scenario?

[quote="cubedemon6073]
How do we know with 100% certainity a fact is true or false.[/quote]

Maths.
90% can be ok according to situation, but I admit that I have an extreme fantasy for the last 10%.

[quote="cubedemon6073]
I do not believe we can be 100% certain. I believe we can be reasonably certain but I believe we have to keep in mind we may be wrong on some things.

To make matters more complex, even if we are right sometimes the best move is just to go along and let the other party discover for themselves unless it is something illegal or unethical. In my opinion, just suggest it to them once and be very humble. If they say no just say to them "ok, that's fine," buy yourself a cup of coffee and just move on.

Another thing, truly check if something is a fact or is your opinion. http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ela4/ ... inionl.cfm [/quote]

I understand that I cant be sure, still I run around making systems and making things fit to something I can never be sure of. I understand that it can be pure imagination, but the probability calculations just go on and on. I can imagine that it can be possible to shut it down as soon as I have understood that probability calculations dont work, but if I do, my curiosity will probably have me again next second, so how do you get there?

And why does it seem to work? ...am I controlling the world?

Last edited by Maje on 19 Sep 2011, 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not at all... In ethical societies, the needs of the few are taken into account and there are accommodations to meet their needs. But these are compromises that do not adversely affect the majority. Unfortunately, while the win-win situation is a worthy goal and should be the aim of any compromise, it is not always possible.

To bring this subject back on topic: Aspies have a tendency to be able to quickly formulate a workable solution to a stated problem, taking into account detail and the big picture. What Aspies are not good at is recognising the unstated issues that can cause resistance to that solution, even derailing it altogether, or causing the solution to be unsuitable in the real situation.

Indeed, I am trying to learn how to deal with unstated issues. I will never gain the same level of skill as an NT because I still have to use my Aspie driven reasoning to try to work things out rather than smelling the issue. I have worked out how to use knowledgeable NT colleagues allowing them to smell out the issues for me by questioning them on previous company and personal history of the key stakeholders affecting and being affected by the issue. I can do this because I have been with the company for just one year. I expect that this tactic will become less effective the longer I am with the company and hence expected to understand more of the unstated issues. Perhaps I will gain this understanding after a time. It may just take a little longer than an NT.

Does not an accommodation imply a cost? Even if it only costs one cent, it is a cost. It adversely affects the majority by one cent.

I admire your courage in trying to play these games by established rules. I see it as a quagmire of endless complexity and hidden motives, a game that nobody can win, but an excellent way to hide evil and call it good.

I don't want to derail this into how to fix society, so will leave it there.

You are right, but this cost is justified/offset by the moral benefits gained by the majority in feeling good about helping the minority (as long as it does not cost too much of course).

Unfortunately, this just about sums it up in a nutshell. Fortunately, most people have a reasonable level of integrity and strive for good. The few that have little integrity tend to play the game in such a way that they are likely to use their manipulative skills to corrupt and defraud their way to powerful and influential positions, where they are then able to further use those skills to benefit only themselves.

Many successful works of fiction tell cliff-hanger stories of such complex deceit. From personal experience, often the fiction is closer to the real world than we would like to admit and, while the story is exciting to a reader, the real life situations are not so enjoyable to the innocent that get caught in the intrigue.

That sounds like my NT neighbours upstairs in my set of units very stubborn and always think their right when their not, not good at all.

No no no. Probably many people just nod their heads when they read this, because they understand what you talk about, of course people experience this... because human being is no machine. If you dont think about it, you dont think about it, because you didnt learn enough yet, NT or AS.

If you want to make a generalized statement, prove it please.

Another name for being always right is being a "Know-It-All". This is not a friendly appellation.

Actually, not, as a lot of people, especially in California, but all over the US, to some extent, have been learning for the last several years, by buying on credit. When the value of real estate in general began going down, suddenly the homes were worth less than the money they still owed, which meant that they had trouble covering the interest. The real estate market had been going up for a good many years, especially in California, so the owners were taken by surprise.

The other thing is, that even if the market remained simply steady, or went slowly up, you can't own one and do nothing (this idea is currently a problem for a lot of California banks! ) You need to do and pay for maintenance, protect from vandals, and buy insurance covering flood, fire, wind, earthquakes, vandals, and a lot of other things. A house left to itself without maintenance deteriorates even without catastrophic weather, and its value goes down with every fleck of paint that peels off the outside, and pretty soon the roof falls in, and the house is worth the price of the lot it sits on, and maybe less, since someone is going to have to bear the cost of its removal before something else can be built on the lot.

Yes, there are exceptions but historically the are unusual. Throughout history land has generally creates wealth even if we do nothing.



Again you are right, I was guilty of sloppy language. The land argument applies only to bare land, not to buildings or other improvements. I am only against unearned wealth. Unusually that means I must now side with the Californian home owners: if you do work on your house, making it (and your neighborhood) a better place, then you have created wealth. But if, despite your improvements, your home becomes less valuable than before, a transfer of wealth has taken place. Transfer of wealth from someone who makes it to someone who does not, unless it is a freely given gift or a mutually beneficial trade, is theft. If the word theft means anything.

Oh, I'm always right, and I always have the best solution... right up until the point where someone points out the blindingly obvious factor that I haven't noticed.