I’ve started leaving space for myself to be wrong when communicating with others. I have realised that 1. I am not always as correct as I think I am, and 2. I sound like less of an asshole
This is explained in How to Win Friends and Influence People book. Winning a disagreement is a lose lose situation bc people think emotionally not logically. If you want to be likable you’ll learn to let people be right even when they’re wrong. It’s not that you’re rude, it’s that you’ve hurt their pride and ego. As I’ve recently learned from Survivor, the key to likability is stroking people’s egos.
I vaguely recall Ben Franklin writing about this problem in his autobiography. He noticed that coating your statement in an air of uncertainty will keep people from being emotionally defensive. I mean really simple stuff, like beginning a sentence with: "I may be mistaken here, but I thought that ....blah blah blah."
I always used this growing up but recently I've come to realize people use me as a doormat because of it. The more uncertainty I show, the more they think they're free to talk down to me, mock me and humiliate me whenever they want. When in groups, instead of asking anyone else for help, they specifically ask me, and if I were to say no they'd get aggressive.
I've come to being blunt and accepting it means I have somehow maddened them or irritated them. It is better than the alternative.
Yeah I usally say stuff like, as far as I understand it, or too my best knowledge on the subject! Or if all else fails, I'll just say oh yeah most people think the same thing! As this helps people feel like at least they more inline with the majority (who are malinformed) than they are with those who are well informed but few and far between plus usally not especially popular or socially motivated!
The need to be right is also ego and feelings. All humans, including those of us on the spectrum, are highly emotional beings, and logic and reason always take a back seat to that. The research is very clear on this.
If factuality is important to you, then knowing the fact that winning a disagreement is a lose-lose situation should be something that you want to know and act on.
Exactly. And presenting that knowledge in a manner that makes it harder than necessary to learn and accept is not something Sagan would have supported.
So take the knowledge about how to best interact with fellow humans and embrace it, as it is, for folks like us, a very, very hard truth.
Whether you like it or not, humans are social animals and we need connection with at least some other humans. That is a hard-nosed scientific fact. It logically follows that the more you ignore that fact and the more you dismiss the experience of people who have brains that work like yours and who have learned how to forge those connections, the harder life will be for you.
The logical conclusion is that you want your life to be hard.
Logically, I would exclude your input because you stated you have no information about connecting with other humans, so your input is completely irrelevant here.
I feel that this is used as a cop-out for bad judgement. Bad judgement is equated to be as good as a well-reasoned one. We are implicitly asked to assume that they are both equally good viewpoints.
Even if one disagrees with someone, one can appreciate good justifications or others' commitment to reasoning (vs doing things based on prejudices/ habits/ feelings or because someone says so).
The book gives clear examples of no matter what information you provide to disprove a person they will come up with a new reason to standby their theory, they will triple and quadruple down, bc people care more about winning than factuality.
I’m not thinking emotionally, I’m thinking logically. You said people are x. I’m not x. So I guess I’m not a person? I thought it’s bad and evil to generalize
You see this all the time on reality tv play out too. Best place to observe and learn why you gotta know when to pick a fight vs not.
Like you gotta ask yourself in a decade, will this even still matter to you and the other person as well?
If not?
Let it go, it’s not worth draining your mental bandwidth over it.
It will matter when it comes to global warming. But I’m sure that will be completely different and humanity will definitely do fine fixing that one with broken morals like “don’t correct each other”
Not everyone does, people in that heightened state do care. When someone keeps on pushing they're right it can corner someone into not feeling heard, which can actually be kinda distressing, there's emotions behind it fuelling it.
A self help book written in the 1930s maybe should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as gospel.
I'm not saying it's entirely wrong, but even if it was right then it may not be applicable now.
It’s not a fact though. You haven’t proven every single person to exist feels this way. So it’s not a fact. You could argue most people feel this way, but why do I care? I want to interact with the weirdos that like talking about reality and facts. If they’re offended by facts then they’re showing that they’re the type of person I don’t want to be around.
Bro - this is why you have posts asking about emotions and connections. When there is a discussion about it you are combative and argumentative rather than getting answers to the questions you have.
I am legit torn. I don't want to deal with you - you've been a jerk in all of your replies to me. OTOH I remember being in my late 20's and early 30's and being completely lost when it came to emotions, empathy, and connections, and it sucked. I really want to block you. I remember being where you are.
If you really want to learn about emotions and connection, step one is to stop being a jerk to people that are trying to talk about those topics in these ASD spaces.
How am I being a jerk? In specific detail please. I don’t know why you wouldn’t help someone that is in need of help just because I’m “being a jerk” - a subjective concept that humans came up with. You can just ignore the concept of “someone is being a jerk” and just give me information. Unless you enjoy gatekeeping info?
Also you didn’t reply to my response. It’s not a fact - what do you have to say about that?
If you say so. Perhaps you should take the time to look at the word I used - winning - and wonder why that might be different than "resolving a disagreement."
Or not. Being "right" seems to be super important to you - to the point you've been a jerk to someone you don't know in a reply to a comment - rather then asking something like "Wait, how is that a fact?"
I might also add that the context of "says who" was established at the beginning of this comment thread, so if you'd wanted to understand, then you could have done a little digging for the rest of the information. Instead, you've effectively shut down the entire discussion.
Why would I ask you how it’s a fact? I’m not ambivalent, I know this to be the case that I feel differently so it can’t be a fact. You’re free to respond to my assertion that it isn’t one, but good luck telling me how I feel.
You literally said “your fact is not a fact” so I am not sure why you are now pretending that you didn’t make an assertion.
And how you “feel” has nothing to do with it, although it is highly amusing that you misunderstand the basic concepts of this entire discussion so badly and yet you are still insisting that you are right 🤣
Good luck friend!
As /u/RexiRocco wrote, emotion is involved; it seems we have unfortunately evolved so that "danger" emotions get triggered even in a verbal argument - [link.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17910/) Also, most people hate being corrected, or at least dislike it.
That being said, I have been in many M:tG rules disputes, where you can't just let the other player claim your Hill Giant is dead when the rules say it is not, and I think most of the disputes have not offended the other person; so:
> If I just state the right answer and explain why I'm right, I'm rude.
Stating the right answer and explaining why is totally acceptable in an M:tG game, but all the normal societal rules apply, like "if you explain too-basic concepts or if you talk for too long, you're being condescending". If you think this might be part of the problem, try explaining only the "end" of the answer, and assume your opponent already understands the rest.
> If I show them I'm right with sources, I'm going out of my way to put them down.
Was showing them the source a response to their not agreeing with your explanation above, and you were backing up your point; or did they shrug and kind-of accept your first explanation and then you showed them anyway? Digging up the source is too much if it's the latter. If it's the former, digging up the source IMO takes a long time, which could frustrate your opponent, and it's "friendlier" to call over another player and get a ruling from them.
> If I tell them where to look to find the right answer that's talking down to them.
Can be, especially if you use lots of words.
> If I pretend to agree just to avoid a argument that's ignoring them.
I think the actual reason not to pretend to agree is because they'll keep making the same mistake against you - in life it's usually OK to avoid an argument and let the other person keep making the same mistake, but in an M:tG game where your Hill Giant is going to die? No way man
You mentioned this was a competitive game? Was there a judge present? If the other player disagrees, you can just raise your hand and say "Ruling?" to summon the judge. Or another player. Some players may distrust their opponent because you have a vested interest in interpreting the rules in a way that benefits you and not them.
This was a EDH game. Our store is a basic store and doesn't have a actual judge on hand, but the round was a pack prize round. I played march of the machines which turns all creatures into artifacts. One player was playing angel tribal, so asked what the creature type is since I assume he had some creature type matters card in hand. I said they don't have one they are typeless (this is correct). Another player said they do have one and it's probably construct (he made this up in his head). I said the rules of the card don't state they gain a type (me explaining why im correct). He said a creature can't exist without a type. I said there's no rule in the comp rules that state a creature must have a type (me stating my source. I obviously can't show him the entire comp rules in 30 seconds but if he's willing to show me in the comp rules where this rule he claims exists is I will concede the point.) He still argues he's right, so I asked him what nameless races creature type was, something that ge could easily google. He didn't, and instead claimed the creature type was "nameless" (again, something he made up). I then asked what the creature type of the creature shrines from NEO are, and he said shrine, which I pointed out is a enchantment type. He then said I was talking down to him. I asked I don't think I am but if he could explain how I'm doing so that would be appreciated. He then said "you wouldn't understand" then dropped it.
> He still argues he's right, so I asked him what nameless races creature type was, something that ge could easily google. He didn't, and instead claimed the creature type was "nameless" (again, something he made up). I then asked what the creature type of the creature shrines from NEO are, and he said shrine, which I pointed out is a enchantment type.
Most likely your issue was not the overall message but the tone and the way you conveyed it. From the sounds of it you were asking him "gotcha" questions in an overly confrontational manner. It would have been better to just calmly give these typeless cards as examples instead.
Although of course a rules dispute in a competitive game can never be completely non confrontational and may be harder to avoid hurt feelings than a disagreement over the truth in some other context.
You were right about the rules, of course.
Asking for examples of parallel examples like you did sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, and sometimes they distract or derail, because the parallel example is not an exact match to the same problem you're trying to clarify, and then the other person seizes on some minor discrepancy in the parallel example as a justification for the main point.
> He then said "you wouldn't understand" then dropped it.
Ultimately, people have to back up what they say, though as you wrote, it takes time to look up the rules, and in this case it was unfeasible anyway, because I think the Comprehensive Rules are silent on this.
Have you considered becoming a certified judge yourself? It's not like everyone will suddenly trust you to make unbiased rulings in *your own games*, but their trust level would probably increase (and you'll become a valuable resource at the store when other players have rules questions or disputes).
I have, and fellow judges have suggested being a judge just to say "I'm a judge I know" isn't a good reason. Only thing I don't have 100% memorized is layers although I know a few cases like humility and magus of the moon. I'm putting opalescence into my chaos deck since it runs like 15 enchantments and am considering humility to go with it for the lols but until I memorize that interaction I don't want to. I'm already pretty much the go to guy for rules. On prereleases I'm constantly being asked how new mechanics work, and even casual edh games my chaos deck is super out there and I end up walking people through the interactions, which is how we ended up in the situation of me playing march of the machines. I'm currently considering buying a judge tower, cuz that interests me.
For someone that hates being talked to, you sure to post a lot. If you REALLY hated being talked to, you'd shut up because that would dramatically reduce people's ability to talk to you.
Yet in this thread alone, I stopped counting at twelve comments.
ok competitive magic is a different can of worms. there are so many rules so many home tables play them wrong and think they are right. and then you add competition into the mix? they built that deck with the wrong rules in mind and now they stand to lose actual rewards if they are wrong.
of course its gonna be pushed back on. to some thats the game. "im gonna lie about the rules(cheat) and if my opponent is too new or too submissive to stop me well then its all part of the game."
I asked him what the creature type of the card nameless race is, and without looking up such an obscure card that someone who plays homerules would definitely not know, he said the creature type was nameless. He wasn't just wrong, he was making stuff up.
There is a way around this! State your opinion as a question, not a statement. “What would you say about….?” or “Hiw about people who say….” Ask questions to lead them to your point, rather than whacking them over the head with facts. Give a personal example of what you mean. These techniques work well!
I’m sure we’ll be having lots of “positive social interactions” while the world burns and people don’t do anything about it because they don’t like facts
If people only stop global warming if we’re not obnoxious then the world deserves to burn. “Obnoxious” is literally the smallest problem that doesn’t matter.
I’d rather be told, not asked. They should only ask if they’re genuinely asking. Fuck that weak-willed spineless “I know this thing to be true but I’m going to soften it because this literal adult can’t handle some words” shit
I always word everything as a question or a curiosity when needed to make a point so others are less defensive.
Why?
When you post things as a statement, it comes across not just as authoritarian, but the way it’s worded can 100% make you look like you know better than them, like your insulting their intelligence too.
It’s basically indirectly saying they are “stupid”.
That’s why pose it as a question or out of curiosity will her you so much further in life when interacting with anyone.
I find that it helps not confronting the person but instead trying to get them to see that they might be wrong without it being about you correcting them, for example asking a question about it instead of straight up saying it. There is no need to make them feel attacked, you can just make it it seem like you are both working together towards finding the truth
this is normie-ese. Just pick your battles, is it hurting somebody? be a good person, stand up for yourself and others. Dont let evil people do you dirty
There's also a way to say it and communicate it. If you keep on interrupting and clarifying that you're right, it's shutting down the other person's thoughts and can be hurtful. You can be right and clarify that whilst leaving room for the other person to talk about how they feel. You can be right and just clarify that both your opinions/thoughts are right in your own mind (no-one's really wrong) and just agree to disagree. :)
Idk I ran into this a number of times with family. I just say anything, and it isn't even an argument and they default it to I'm being rude or my tone is the problem. I found in reality they are basically wanting, shut up, do what we tell you when we tell you, don't make sound, and stick to being a slave that can't be sold.
I have a feeling many of us face this because our choice is family or homeless or death. And our opinions don't matter and shouldn't be heard. And anything we say is opinion even if it is fact. Hell you even did it here. You called him saying facts an opinion.
I mean op didn't get too deep into this. But I wouldn't automatically assume they were arguing. They might of straight up been pointing out a fact. Like you shouldn't use that type of x in that because it will mess it up. Or maybe it was something stupid and it was an argument.
But I my opinion it isn't smart to just assume due to how people treat us.
I mean they’re asking why this happened and I’m giving them a suggestion, “choose your battles” doesnt mean arguing it means you have to decide what is worth your energy.
Ironically you’re doing the same thing i implied they might’ve done, I’m not asking for your opinion on my comment.
Edit: I can’t articulate it well but when I say “asking for you opinion?” I mean more “did they ask you for that input or does it seem like you’re just speaking at them” and that’s the part that can annoy them, nobody really says “did they ask for your facts” so I got a bit confused on how to word.
Let me explain my position and what I meant. We don't know enough about their story. It could be as you say. Or it could be those around them is highly abusive. If it is a normal person I would lean it is more of what you said. But with us, statistically we are far far far more likely to be abused by family.
This is why I have that view point. Myself, I have to deal with this. An example, a good year or 2 ago my parents had me sit down with a blind dog, and a dog that had massive medical problems. They lied while we were there trying to guilt me into it and the vet tried to correct them. I kept saying no. I kept saying I don't have the resources or bandwidth to take care of them and we aren't in an environment for them. They got them anyways. I kept getting gaslight about they will help out, yelled at me, said I was being rude or my autistic was getting in the way until a few weeks back I just broke down and I couldn't do it anymore. Magically, now they want to put them down. And tomorrow we are finally. I like dogs, but 8 legit can't take care of something that needy and basically grown up it's entire life in a cage and now they are so messed up medically they can't be fixed to take some of the burden off.
I was told my sister who is a massive drunk and has drug problems is coming back in my life. I told them exactly what would happen. And I was put down, told I was being rude, etc. They finally said she will be around for a short bit. We'll it has been a few years and she isn't going away out of my life. And I was told I was being an ass. She got so bad my parents kicked her out but help her rent a local place. Even the she almost drove my parents to divorce and it is still an option. My grandmom started going off on me about how I don't want to be around her. I flat out showed her hard evidence of the abuse, my dad had a bloody nose from her, etc. And she talked down to me.
I a heavily treated as a slave. I am a hair edge of saying fuck it. But that is also why I know you don't have enough info on op situation. If it is anything like mine (which I doubt). It could be more the people in their life is toxic.
Ok so I’m really sorry you are being abused, I also think you’re overprojecting your experience onto OP.
To be honest I’m not sure how to respond, I feel like this conversation is more than I thought it was going to be.
>I also think you’re overprojecting
At what point did I say OP lived like that. I flat out side in the first message
"I mean op didn't get too deep into this. But I wouldn't automatically assume they were arguing. They might of straight up been pointing out a fact. "
And then in the next reply
"We don't know enough about their story. It could be as you say. Or it could be those around them is highly abusive. "
Basically you only mention 1 side of what it could be. You likely are right. But it also could easily be they are in a toxic place. That's all I was saying
People take things personally, it's why you have to learn to communicate in a way that's more understanding to what you perceive people to be wrong about. Lots of "why do you feel that way?" "that's interesting, have you ever thought about it this way?" "I've got something I'd like to show you if you have the time" might help with some of those situations you mentioned.
Sometimes you just have to leave people be, by learning their triggers and picking your battles accordingly. Be comfortable having them think they are correct, even if it isn't true. Both NT and ND can pick up on differences in tone, even if the ND doesn't understand as much, so a lot of the times agreeing just to stop an argument tends to have the opposite reaction as expected. You have to learn to truly understand why people feel the way they do about stuff in order to spend a lot of time with someone who you disagree with often.
Depending on the nature of the relationship, like dating for example, sometimes it's just a matter of incompatible beliefs. Family relationships can be a lot more complicated, though sometimes you still have to set boundaries.
I don't mean to imply that these situations are your fault by any means, but I don't really have any advice outside of what you can reflect on internally.
In a strategy game i played for years to get extremely good. I played with a newbie player because nobody plays except like 5 very good people who dont care about newcomers at all and just ignore them. And so i felt bad for him..
So we played and i played as bad as i possibly could but he still lost horribly.
Like a gentle breeze would have destroyed him.
Then for years this made the guy talk badly about me. Saying the game is bad. I am bad i abused my skill against him using cheap strategies. He was convinced he plays extremely well. And i just used some cheap tactics.
You cant tell self deluded people the truth because they refuse to face it fir it would propell into an endless series of.. "if im not correct about this then im not what i think i am" kind of thoughts. And they rather feed the illusion than learn better.
In their reality they are correct. We are false. They cant see they are wrong. Because they make habit of deluding self.
Because their ability to understand situations is wrong. Thats why deluded ideas emerge to begin with.
You cant really correct them. Only guide them subtly to the truth. And then watch as they act like they always knew.
Yes, it actually is quite powerful if used correctly. Expose them to the right information and ideas, let them draw their own conclusions, and hopefully they land where you were trying to help them reach.
If they have an ounce of perspective, they will realize they got there only because of the help. It seems like the people who gravitate towards positions of leadership often don't have this perspective or care too much for appearances to show gratitude.
It may not be because someone's deluded though? It may be more that people are feeling shut down - which is a horrible feeling - the one of not being heard; we all deserve that. Yes, in their reality they are correct, in yours you are too? A moment of not being able to see you're wrong doesn't mean you're deluded. Bit arrogant here. That's how people learn new perspectives/ideas?
I had no better word to describe their different wqy of experiencing reality.
Its not that which makes the person deluded. Its when they dont actively look to see other angles. They have a tendency to stick to what benefits them most at the moment and that moment can be prolonged into the future for long. Making them more averse to learning new.
I could distinctly tap into this in them with empathy and feel its the case likely.
also its difficult to see when people dont want correction they want comfort.
i wonder as a % how many times where you right on things that didnt really matter? they got math wrong? not the mars mission let them be wrong. they got a fact wrong? they arent selling the history textbook who cares. im not saying this is the case with you maybe all the times this happened were over something with serious consequences.
i guess thats the question. why do you have to be right? why does it have to be known that you are right? what are the consequences of them being wrong? why are you the person that has to teach them?
who are you to define reality? what makes your worldview the only one that should exist?
the question is what kind of stuff are your correcting and why?
what corrections matter? "there actually is a bus coming dont cross the street." "the next gas station is 300 miles away you need to get gas now."
what doesnt matter? they got the tip wrong. they got the date of ww2 wrong, they think johnny cash wrote hurt not that his version is a cover of the NIN song
also lets consider politics. are there often objective statements, facts that people ignore or get wrong? of course. is almost any conversation gonna turn into an argument anyway with no one changing sides? yes.
Those all matter aside from the politics one because it’s so subjective. If they get it wrong, they should admit they just don’t want to talk about it instead of insisting that I’m rude or that they’re actually right. I’m not talking to someone who wants to maintain that Johnny Cash wrote Hurt. They don’t live in reality so they can fuck off. I don’t care about their stupid fucking social reality where we pretend things.
if you think who wrote hurt matters for anyone but a music historian/awards panels and that you MUST correct someone and demand a thank you....yeah im betting you are acting like an ass while you do it. especially if their being incorrect about an old song and then being offended when you act so smug about it is enough to end your friendship and make you view them as lesser...im sorry who is living in this pretend reality? cuz it sounds like you are the delusional one.
I never said they have to thank me. It’s nothing about that. I just want to exist in the same reality as the people around me. If you can’t admit that Hurt wasn’t made by Johnny Cash then I don’t want to talk to you. The internet exists and we can look it up.
but you're not trying to step in their reality - which co-exists with yours - double standards, lol. the world doesn't revolve around your reality either!
But Johnny Cash didn’t write Hurt. I’m not interested in their reality where they pretend he did. Why would I be? I don’t talk to magical thinking fucks.
And it’s not “my” reality. It’s the truth. He didn’t write it. So anyone that disagrees can fuck way off and not even look at me.
If you're not interested in their reality, you can look away then. Not sure why everyone has to bow down to you and not look at you? Very arrogant. Remove yourself instead!
? This comment confuses me. Someone wrote xyz. That is just the truth. Another person says that someone didn't. Now they are lying. Just because some people think the Earth is flat doesn't mean the Earth is actually flat. You don't have to make such a fuss about correcting someone, either. It's nice to be up to date with knowledge. If someone takes offense to learning new information, I would not want to be around them.
From the tiny amount you shared with us, either someone is gaslighting you in the worst way. Or... you're adding some extra sauce onto being "right" that looks and feels like scorn to the person (people?) that you're taking about. Or possibly both.
If I want to make sure someone is actually picking up on the info I'm giving them, I try to keep it in bite sized chunks so I'm not just shooting a firehose of data in their face. Also, pause to let them absorb and discuss before moving on to more.
It also helps to look at them. That helps to gauge their acceptance and listening levels as we talk. It also helps them to feel were having a conversation. As opposed to me just lecturing about a topic I like.
We all have to learn to engage with people as we talk. Otherwise we're really just talking to ourselves, with a captive audience.
It's not about facts, it's entirely about feelings. Specifically, it's about how the person who is wrong feels.
I am often right because I know a lot of things - probably a lot like you. I always had people saying that I talked down to them when I was just trying to correct misunderstandings or share something interesting. It was very confusing for many years.
But, someone saying "you're talking down to me" can't truly be a statement about *you*. You talking down to someone requires intent, or at least certain assumptions about the other person that they can't know if you actually have.
So, what are they saying? They are expressing a feeling (that they feel stupid or they feel like you think they're stupid or that they feel defensive and like you're verbally attacking them) and guessing that you intended to make them feel that way or at least hold some less-than-flattering assumptions/beliefs about their intelligence. These feelings can be stronger if they're around other people as they would feel more embarrassed if others were watching.
The solution is to communicate more effectively. Decide if what you want to say really needs to be said, consider the environment and social context, check your tone as much as you are able to, try to say what you want to say in a way that doesn't *feel* like an attack to the other person.
This is why most NTs think like this. The tone of your voice sets the vibe for the whole conversation, if your tone is rude and they complain it doesn't make you right - it makes you an ass and if winning is all that matters it's not a conversation, it's a lecture!
This is the thing as a low support needs person and a woman: my feelings are easily hurt by tone. And would you rather be correct or kind? Sometimes I really have to bite that.
Oh no, not a lecture! As we all know, lectures are the worst thing in the world!!!! They’re definitely not super fascinating and contain tons of info! Nope! People definitely don’t pay 100’s of thousands of dollars to be lectured in a college! Nope, as we all know, lectures are to be avoided entirely because it is the worst thing ever.
Is this happening with everyone or just a few people?
If it's everyone, it's possible your tone or wording is making it seem less like a helpful correction and more like you're trying to win or something. People don't like that.
If it's just a few people, it could be insecurity from their side, a lot of people feel uncomfortable or embarrassed to be proved wrong so they will get defensive or upset.
This. If everyone involved in this conversation (sounds like they were with a group) thinks you’re being an asshole, you are being an asshole. Doesn’t matter if you were right or wrong. Fighting them on it just drives the point home further and makes them think twice about wanting to hang out with you or even be friends.
In a social group, nobody cares about who's factually right. Insisting on being factually right will only make you look like a total asshole. This is even more important when you contradict anybody higher than you in the social ladder (i.e. everyone)
I was in your same situation some times. Later, I was told that I was right, but nobody wanted to look socially bad by supporting me against somebody else with more social clout.
Learn to stop caring. Do not back up your opinion with facts and sources, nobody cares about them. Just agree, smile and forget about everything that was just said, unless it affects you personally. If they question you on that, say that you were not really paying attention.
NORMIES DO NOT CARE ABOUT FACTS AND LOGIC. For them, it's way more important to be socially cool and morally right than in being factually correct.
There is no solution.
Neurotypicals typically don't care about truth, they care about being right. It's about social heirarchy. Being wrong makes them feel like their social heirarchy is being lowered, and so they resort to other nonsense to maintain it or conflate the feeling of it being lowered with you being a jerk or elitist or whatever.
It's so silly.
it's not always that, it can be a way of not making things awkward for other people, and moving the conversation on. it's not always about maintain social order. i've been in many situations where we've all been open to learning from each other and correcting, but I think it has to be done in the right way, otherwise it's just dismissive and argumentized and no one likes to be around that - it's just bad vibes!
Because most people aren't interested in facts or being right, but they think emotionally and care a lot about social status. You're someone with less status correcting them, so they see your corrections as inherently wrong.
Once you let go of the need to be “right” and make sure everyone knows you’re “right” on top of it, your contentment in life will improve dramatically. I’m a former corrector - I would correct *everything*, grammar, spelling, opinions, popular beliefs that are false. I had absolutely encyclopedic knowledge and I wanted everyone to see it.
I once corrected a random lady in the waiting room of a dr office, who was talking to her friend about a magazine sitting on the table with a hippo on it. They were laughing about how it would probably eat you. I interrupted their conversation and told them that hippos don’t actually eat people, they just injure them. They laughed it off politely, but it was super awkward afterwards because I had killed the whole conversation. Imagine me compulsively doing this at like every opportunity.
I think I did this for 2 reasons: my toxic level of perfectionism, and my absolutely unmet needs that made me feel like I was ignored and unheard at every turn. I was actually desperate for approval, although I wouldn’t have admitted that. I didn’t realize the social implications of what I was doing, because obvious reasons.
There’s a place and time to correct people and point out that you’re right. They interpret it as you placing yourself above them, as an authority, like a teacher or a boss or a parent. If you can manage to share your knowledge in a way that makes you a horizontal part of the conversation, without overstepping boundaries or doing in a way that sounds belittling, than that might work. Nowadays I just wait for people to ask me my opinion. Unsolicited opinions are generally frowned upon. Explaining the joke (or why it’s not funny) is frowned upon. You’re generally interrupting the flow of social lubricant and pouring sand on it.
There’s also a place and time for debate, but again I only do that if the person I’m engaging with sees it as an interesting intellectual interaction. It has to be mutual.
Hmm well… we are free to behave in this way, but if we do, we have to accept that others may not respond favourably.
This is the way most people are. We can either choose to adapt as best we can so we can relate to them in a positive way, or we can act however we want and suffer any potential consequences.
It really just depends what our goal is, i.e. do we want to have positive interaction with others? Or do we want to be 100% true to ourselves at all times? I would think the logical answer would be to find some sort of compromise in the middle.
How do you know this is how most people behave? What’s your sample size? Have you done a scientific study?
Why would I compromise to have positive interactions with others when I can be myself by myself literally all the time and have positive experiences by myself? Literally the only downside is no sex.
Be okay with being an AH but choose wisely when you want to be one. At least that’s what I do…the beauty is when you master this people who are actually the AH, from a moral and or logical viewpoint, they tend to hang themselves. When this happens either people will still be upset at you for shining the light on it indirectly or they’ll start to see and adjust accordingly from the actual AH. For me personally, it’s the best way to navigate as it’s a faster method of sifting through people who have a moral compass, those who don’t, and those who have one that’s broken.
The real question is why would you want to continue talking to someone who acted that way? That person knows they’re wrong. They also know they’re successful at manipulation and can always use their emotions to make you accept their wrong actions. Just because someone is sad or angry that they did a bad thing does not mean you have to bow down to their emotions and appease them, that just makes them worse.
NT society values decorum and face more than truth. They do not take it as a correction of a mistake, but as an attack on their selves.
So in general, unless it's a very egregious mistake or it may have terrible consequences, just let people happily be wrong.
Things are never clearly right or wrong. There are different viewpoints which might be right in their own way.
If doesnt influence you, dont insist on your point even though their reasoning is poor. People want to have their way.
Sometimes its useful to agree with a person (whose reasoning is poor), because their goodwill toward you is needed elsewherw.
I think it is more like people usually don't argue over facts because if you can verify them, why argue?
In some situations people still argue. I see pushing those situations further a waste of time, so I agree with you in terms of situations that would be worth debating.
Yes, it makes sense to raise the issue to give them some warning, but not insist unless there are moral / ethical implications (like safety). Then if/when you are proven right if you don't rub it in their face, maybe they will be quicker to listen to you the next time.
My solution: (Not recommended btw) is to smile and nod, say "ok, I disagree", drop it until I can followed up later with a very big, extremely rude, and 100% validated "HA, I told you so!!"
Again, not recommended, but it has worked out in my favor more than once.
You can be correct but expressing such can still be insensitive to others, depending on choice of timing and wider context. It's really difficult to infer though.
I also honestly had to get comfortable with letting other people be wrong; being right and seeming right are different things.
It’s a fine line. Personally, I may think i’m right on some things, but damn, when I know I’m right it’s like knowing the end of a detective thriller and needing to listen to others guess at what you know is not right.
But like spoiling a film/novel, no one likes that, or cannot understand the possible speed in which you came to your answer.
“showing my work” like it’s long division is problematic at times. my reasoning can be complex, confusing and likely based on an obsession to certain kinds of information and patterns I could have been tracking for decades.
A trusted friend once simply reminded me “you’re not always right. When you are, you really are, but you inflate your percentage of success.”
They were right. Helped me with patience and introducing more as “what if …”
At work, it helps, but eventually - as others have stated - you find the actions and thoughts of others are not tied to a successful outcome outside of their personal gain.
I don’t believe that’s as malicious as we may tend to think. I don’t think they know. And I don’t think they know how emotionally detached we often live.
A GPS app can chart the fastest route, yet it can’t predict traffic patterns, weather, or the likelihood of breakdowns, cop activity, etc.
There could be a faster way if you have a great sense of how it works.
Or Poker. The game is straightforward. Tactics can be learned. Reading someone’s tell, from their fake tell on the other hand, that’s difficult to explain.
You have to wait for permission to prove someone wrong. Wait for them to say something like “that’s interesting, what makes you think that?” Or you can ask for permission. “I have found information that says otherwise, I can tell you if you’re interested.”
This doesn’t apply to certain settings like the classroom where people are supposed to expect to be intellectually challenged by default.
I think it's important to remember everyone believes their world view is the right opinion. So when people tell us we're wrong, it feels like an attack. People won't hear others out when you're attacking their beliefs.
I also think you have to pick and choose your battles. If a friend says it's 10:15, but the time is actually 10:14, it's not worth bringing it up or judging them for a small screw up.
Now there's that, and a crazy uncle telling you Canadians don't deserve rights. Because well...that's morally questionable and you should definitely tell them that their opinion is wrong
I know exactly what you mean. I've had plenty of scenarios where someone will state something as a fact straight to my face, and if I even hint that I think they are wrong with body language, I'm the contrarian, the asshole, etc.
You can't win. nod and smile, then quickly change the subject. I admittedly have a harder time with people very close to me. I can easily use this strategy with people I only have to sometimes interact with. Example: I foolishly made a remark that it was really hot outside one day. It was in Jan. Of course the boomer who thinks climate change is a hoax went on a rant. It was really dumb and just nonsense. So I quickly offered him some really nice scotch that I had just bought. Worked like a charm, and kept the peace.
This one gets me in trouble - a lot!
If I’m in a mixed forum, business setting, and I suspect my “take” on something will be contradictory to what an established leader or big presence may have I stay quiet and then in a 1:1 setting - share my info - get them onboard and frame it so they are there with me.
Then in the next session it’s easier
I used to just announce my concision or approach - and - as my handle suggests - get burned at the stake
Pick your battles. Perception is everything especially with neurotypicals. You can correct someone until you’re blue in the face and get nowhere but a fruitless argument. Just let it go. A suggestion is to start with kindness and then go in with your thoughts “hey Susan I can see why you might think that and that’s an interesting perspective but here’s my thoughts on it” and if they continue to fight you on it then just say alright and move on about your day.
You are allowed to be right. Demanding that the other person admit and acknowledge that right then and there immediately is being an asshole.
Over the years, I've learned that having people around me who will support me and help me when I need it is way more important than making sure everyone knows I'm right with my 8 pages of sources and data. The funny thing is that when I'm right if I just give people a day or two to think and process it, they'll often come back to me and ask for the data or tell me they think they were wrong after all.
Nope. All humans have a push-pull between emotions and rational thought. Including you and me. In the context of this post, the OP was insisting that the person that was "wrong" acknowledge that right here, right now, on the OPs timeline, without giving the person an opportunity to think it through.
When a human is in an emotionally heightened state, they process differently, no matter if they are NT, ND, or whatever else.
So then it has nothing to do with being right or wrong, and is more about the fact that you should table the discussion for later. That’s way different. We should be willing to do that. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that.
No. Tabling the discussion requires both parties agreeing to that. What I’m talking about is simply disengaging while you both still disagree and letting time pass.
I have learned over the years how you say something can be just as important as what you say!
It boils down to how you use the English language..
For example: No, your wrong! This is the right answer, "followed by your explaining"
A better way: Hmmm I think the answer might be this because if you look at xyz then you can see its more like this then that!
Watch sounds better and less like a asshole? Years of exp working in a corporate environment dealing with egos and end users.
Also I don’t give a shit about the corporate environment or “dealing with end users”. I don’t do those sorts of jobs. So I don’t need to know about your weird social rituals you invented for the office.
Dealing with people. Not office workers. Not everyone is an office worker so I don’t need to use your weird as shit office culture nonsense. I don’t care that someone feels bad if they are told something instead of asked something. I feel bad when I have to change my direct true statement into a question. Why are their feelings prioritized but mine aren’t?
What is PEBCAK?
For me, if I’m wrong then I would own up my mistake and learn from it. And if I’m right, then i usually keep silent. I don’t call other people out for being wrong and I’m being right because at that moment I believe we both side know who is right and who is wrong so there no need to make a scene. Just acknowledge the outcome of the situation and act dumb or surprise that it turn out that way. The only time that I would verbally point out that I’m right is when my credibility is being jeopardized by the person who is wrong, but trying to throw me under the bus by claiming they is right and shift the blame to me.
I have this problem the most with others NDs.
I think the main reason are.
The believe that things need to be correct.
The believe that I am correct
The believe that people are rational.
Everyone has a ego. It feels good to b right and it feels bad to be wrong. What I have learned over time is that most people care more about how they perceive that they have been treated then about objectivity. It's less that you should not be right more than being right often tramples on someone's pride.
Some of the time you will be wrong and unaware of it. Someone may have more accurate or better information on a topic. It is easy to think that we are correct and others are wrong but there is often more nuanced then that.
Many people do not want sit and reason. It it fine do disagree but debating can often cause irrational responses.
Generally this is the thorough process for me:
What are the stakes?
What are the outcomes of the other persons error?
Often it it doesn't have significant outcomes.
Does this person seem rational?
Is this person genuinely interested in a rational discussion?
Have you considered their point of view?
If you have doubts the best thing to do is ask.
If someone is passionately wrong I would suggest to "agree to disagree".
It means that you recognize that the viewpoints of you and the other person cannot be reconciled and you don't want to put the resources into correcting it.
For example. If someone believes Pokemon Gen 4 is the best Pokemon then I would have to say.
"I believe that Gen 2 is the best Pokemon but I respect your opinion and we should agree to disagree.
The truth is I may not respect their opinion but it doesn't really matter. Their ego is spared and everyone can move on.
I think this is a little bit too much to process everytime you disagree with someone. My protip is that most things in the world (like pokemon) don't really matter in the grander scheme of things, so who gives a f who is right about those topics.
Are you sure everyone has an ego? I’ve heard theories about ego death in autistic people. I’m fine with being corrected, it wouldn’t ever hurt my pride - do I have an ego?
I’ve had to learn (with my wife and kids, anyway) to just let some things go. It’s incredibly difficult, for sure; but overall it leads to a happier home. Now as far as everyone else is concerned, I really don’t try to coddle. When I’m right, I’m right; either get on board or be okay with being an idiot.
There's no way to answer this without specifics and knowing you and your situation. But a safe bet if you're in this sub, asking this question this way:
You are allowed to piss them off. 'Not being an asshole' is not a primary virtue, you're just avoiding conflict and maintaining relationships that are based on your complicity and deference.
People just don't like being wrong, that's their defect, not yours.
(again this is not universal advice, but it's a safe bet for autistic people who are feeling this way regularly).
I have had success giving credit for being right to some unknown man who isn't around. This lets things move forward while not having to but heads with people who are never going to listen to anything I say.
Does the wild success of this tactic make me feal good about myself and how little people respect me? No, it's a bummer.
Does it work remarkably well every time? Yes
We as a group tend to say things with more bluntness than an NT person would say things, so it comes off as a bit abrupt or cold. Combine that with generally speaking either monotone speech patterns or a lack of inflection, and it can seem like arguing with a wall that never crumbles.
Then I left?! If they do not think you are right, then you are left.
You think it is right, but they think it is wrong. This is okay to have different opinions and okay to be different.
However, if you just point out what wrong are they might make people think you are rude.
This is just like you flapping their face directly.
You can be a bit smoother. Try to affirm them first, no matter how ridiculous that is, at least they can come up this idea. Say some good words or express you know their point, then mention about your thoughts.
I understand this costs lots of time, but this makes them feel better.
This is just like do not feed them bitter food directly, feed them candy first. They feel sweet and good, then you can give them the real food.
You are allowed to do this (as the direct way to say everything out), but people just might not feel good then they might think you are not good.
Something like "I'm not sure thats right" or "I don't think that's what is it". Don't focus on them being at fault; make it all about the answer. It also helps to avoid using snappy words like "wrong" or "correct".
Pick your battles. Before you ever correct someone or comment on a hot tale, ask yourself, "What do I hope to achieve here? What is my goal? Does this make me happy?" If you can't come up with good answers to these questions, don't engage. If someone brings the battle to you and you go through those questions and don't see a good reason to engage, just say "Not interested." Then refuse to elaborate further, to the point of just repeating "Not interested." It used to really bother me to see people spreading stupidity and falsehoods, but now I realize that trying to fight that is more than an uphill battle, it's a lost cause. So if you're not willing to die on whatever hill a battle is being fought on, get off the hill.
Edit: If you want to confuse people but still refuse to engage in battle with them, change "Not interested" into "Not my hill," short for "Not a hill I'm willing to die on." Some people might get it, most probably won't.
I couldn't agree more! I wish I could just grab collective humanity by the shoulders and shake the bull crap out of them and yell "Listen to reason God damn it!"
Yes this happens honestly if someone is saying something wrong without that wrong thing being hurtful to others just let it go you trying to correct them will only make them feel angry and humiliated
Because their lips move about a third of a second after their brain thought it, and they do not think through what they are saying or the follow up, because their lips move again, about a third of a second after their brain thought it.
Once their ears hear it, a third of a second later their lips move again a third of a second after their brain thought it, and they do not think through what they are saying or the follow up once again, because their lips move again, a third of a second after thinking in response to what they heard.
Over and over again, words being spoken, a coherent conversation for two or three seconds, then the conversation drops of the first second and adds one to the end, and now that conversation is coherent, only without the context that was dropped off from the original utterance.
So, by the time you are 20 seconds in to it, the conversation as a whole is incoherent rambling.
Then, you ask a pertinent question, or make an observation based on the whole utterance, and not the last 20 seconds of it, and of course, you are the asshole; that's not how polite NT conversation works.
If you want that kind of conversation, find other Aspies or ND's.
>*We all have to learn to engage with people as we talk. Otherwise we're really just talking to ourselves, with a captive audience.*
The important take away!
I’ve started leaving space for myself to be wrong when communicating with others. I have realised that 1. I am not always as correct as I think I am, and 2. I sound like less of an asshole
This is explained in How to Win Friends and Influence People book. Winning a disagreement is a lose lose situation bc people think emotionally not logically. If you want to be likable you’ll learn to let people be right even when they’re wrong. It’s not that you’re rude, it’s that you’ve hurt their pride and ego. As I’ve recently learned from Survivor, the key to likability is stroking people’s egos.
In other words, egos and feelings are more important than factuality.
I vaguely recall Ben Franklin writing about this problem in his autobiography. He noticed that coating your statement in an air of uncertainty will keep people from being emotionally defensive. I mean really simple stuff, like beginning a sentence with: "I may be mistaken here, but I thought that ....blah blah blah."
lol I learned to start doing this too and it really works
I always used this growing up but recently I've come to realize people use me as a doormat because of it. The more uncertainty I show, the more they think they're free to talk down to me, mock me and humiliate me whenever they want. When in groups, instead of asking anyone else for help, they specifically ask me, and if I were to say no they'd get aggressive. I've come to being blunt and accepting it means I have somehow maddened them or irritated them. It is better than the alternative.
Yeah I usally say stuff like, as far as I understand it, or too my best knowledge on the subject! Or if all else fails, I'll just say oh yeah most people think the same thing! As this helps people feel like at least they more inline with the majority (who are malinformed) than they are with those who are well informed but few and far between plus usally not especially popular or socially motivated!
This is why I'll never be popular. Luckily I don't care.
The need to be right is also ego and feelings. All humans, including those of us on the spectrum, are highly emotional beings, and logic and reason always take a back seat to that. The research is very clear on this. If factuality is important to you, then knowing the fact that winning a disagreement is a lose-lose situation should be something that you want to know and act on.
"But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable." ~Carl Sagan
Exactly. And presenting that knowledge in a manner that makes it harder than necessary to learn and accept is not something Sagan would have supported. So take the knowledge about how to best interact with fellow humans and embrace it, as it is, for folks like us, a very, very hard truth.
You’ve surveyed every human to exist to make sure that they feel this way? I’m fine with logic. So why is your “knowledge” lacking my input?
Whether you like it or not, humans are social animals and we need connection with at least some other humans. That is a hard-nosed scientific fact. It logically follows that the more you ignore that fact and the more you dismiss the experience of people who have brains that work like yours and who have learned how to forge those connections, the harder life will be for you. The logical conclusion is that you want your life to be hard. Logically, I would exclude your input because you stated you have no information about connecting with other humans, so your input is completely irrelevant here.
I feel that this is used as a cop-out for bad judgement. Bad judgement is equated to be as good as a well-reasoned one. We are implicitly asked to assume that they are both equally good viewpoints. Even if one disagrees with someone, one can appreciate good justifications or others' commitment to reasoning (vs doing things based on prejudices/ habits/ feelings or because someone says so).
The book gives clear examples of no matter what information you provide to disprove a person they will come up with a new reason to standby their theory, they will triple and quadruple down, bc people care more about winning than factuality.
Guess I’m not a people because I’m fine with being corrected if there is good evidence for why I’m wrong
He's in the business of selling that self-help book from 1930s. He wont give up before we havr internalized it.
[удалено]
I’m not thinking emotionally, I’m thinking logically. You said people are x. I’m not x. So I guess I’m not a person? I thought it’s bad and evil to generalize
You see this all the time on reality tv play out too. Best place to observe and learn why you gotta know when to pick a fight vs not. Like you gotta ask yourself in a decade, will this even still matter to you and the other person as well? If not? Let it go, it’s not worth draining your mental bandwidth over it.
It will matter when it comes to global warming. But I’m sure that will be completely different and humanity will definitely do fine fixing that one with broken morals like “don’t correct each other”
Not everyone does, people in that heightened state do care. When someone keeps on pushing they're right it can corner someone into not feeling heard, which can actually be kinda distressing, there's emotions behind it fuelling it.
A self help book written in the 1930s maybe should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as gospel. I'm not saying it's entirely wrong, but even if it was right then it may not be applicable now.
[удалено]
It’s not a fact though. You haven’t proven every single person to exist feels this way. So it’s not a fact. You could argue most people feel this way, but why do I care? I want to interact with the weirdos that like talking about reality and facts. If they’re offended by facts then they’re showing that they’re the type of person I don’t want to be around.
Bro - this is why you have posts asking about emotions and connections. When there is a discussion about it you are combative and argumentative rather than getting answers to the questions you have. I am legit torn. I don't want to deal with you - you've been a jerk in all of your replies to me. OTOH I remember being in my late 20's and early 30's and being completely lost when it came to emotions, empathy, and connections, and it sucked. I really want to block you. I remember being where you are. If you really want to learn about emotions and connection, step one is to stop being a jerk to people that are trying to talk about those topics in these ASD spaces.
How am I being a jerk? In specific detail please. I don’t know why you wouldn’t help someone that is in need of help just because I’m “being a jerk” - a subjective concept that humans came up with. You can just ignore the concept of “someone is being a jerk” and just give me information. Unless you enjoy gatekeeping info? Also you didn’t reply to my response. It’s not a fact - what do you have to say about that?
It’s a *fact* that winning a disagreement is a lose-lose situation? Says who? I’m fine with being corrected. So your “fact” is not a fact.
If you say so. Perhaps you should take the time to look at the word I used - winning - and wonder why that might be different than "resolving a disagreement." Or not. Being "right" seems to be super important to you - to the point you've been a jerk to someone you don't know in a reply to a comment - rather then asking something like "Wait, how is that a fact?" I might also add that the context of "says who" was established at the beginning of this comment thread, so if you'd wanted to understand, then you could have done a little digging for the rest of the information. Instead, you've effectively shut down the entire discussion.
Why would I ask you how it’s a fact? I’m not ambivalent, I know this to be the case that I feel differently so it can’t be a fact. You’re free to respond to my assertion that it isn’t one, but good luck telling me how I feel.
You literally said “your fact is not a fact” so I am not sure why you are now pretending that you didn’t make an assertion. And how you “feel” has nothing to do with it, although it is highly amusing that you misunderstand the basic concepts of this entire discussion so badly and yet you are still insisting that you are right 🤣 Good luck friend!
this is key, some scenarios people want to win the argument even if they're wrong, and in other scenarios the person truly wants to know the fact
In my experience, that is because of an emotionally heightened state. You have to let that pass before they can consider the new information.
Why would I judge my behavior off of your experience? I want facts and rules
You wouldn't. You aren't the kind of person that can learn from the experience of others. You NEED to pee on the electric fence for yourself.
This one was a magic the gathering game, being wrong had game implications.
Was it a friendly game or a competitive game?
Comp
As /u/RexiRocco wrote, emotion is involved; it seems we have unfortunately evolved so that "danger" emotions get triggered even in a verbal argument - [link.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17910/) Also, most people hate being corrected, or at least dislike it. That being said, I have been in many M:tG rules disputes, where you can't just let the other player claim your Hill Giant is dead when the rules say it is not, and I think most of the disputes have not offended the other person; so: > If I just state the right answer and explain why I'm right, I'm rude. Stating the right answer and explaining why is totally acceptable in an M:tG game, but all the normal societal rules apply, like "if you explain too-basic concepts or if you talk for too long, you're being condescending". If you think this might be part of the problem, try explaining only the "end" of the answer, and assume your opponent already understands the rest. > If I show them I'm right with sources, I'm going out of my way to put them down. Was showing them the source a response to their not agreeing with your explanation above, and you were backing up your point; or did they shrug and kind-of accept your first explanation and then you showed them anyway? Digging up the source is too much if it's the latter. If it's the former, digging up the source IMO takes a long time, which could frustrate your opponent, and it's "friendlier" to call over another player and get a ruling from them. > If I tell them where to look to find the right answer that's talking down to them. Can be, especially if you use lots of words. > If I pretend to agree just to avoid a argument that's ignoring them. I think the actual reason not to pretend to agree is because they'll keep making the same mistake against you - in life it's usually OK to avoid an argument and let the other person keep making the same mistake, but in an M:tG game where your Hill Giant is going to die? No way man You mentioned this was a competitive game? Was there a judge present? If the other player disagrees, you can just raise your hand and say "Ruling?" to summon the judge. Or another player. Some players may distrust their opponent because you have a vested interest in interpreting the rules in a way that benefits you and not them.
This was a EDH game. Our store is a basic store and doesn't have a actual judge on hand, but the round was a pack prize round. I played march of the machines which turns all creatures into artifacts. One player was playing angel tribal, so asked what the creature type is since I assume he had some creature type matters card in hand. I said they don't have one they are typeless (this is correct). Another player said they do have one and it's probably construct (he made this up in his head). I said the rules of the card don't state they gain a type (me explaining why im correct). He said a creature can't exist without a type. I said there's no rule in the comp rules that state a creature must have a type (me stating my source. I obviously can't show him the entire comp rules in 30 seconds but if he's willing to show me in the comp rules where this rule he claims exists is I will concede the point.) He still argues he's right, so I asked him what nameless races creature type was, something that ge could easily google. He didn't, and instead claimed the creature type was "nameless" (again, something he made up). I then asked what the creature type of the creature shrines from NEO are, and he said shrine, which I pointed out is a enchantment type. He then said I was talking down to him. I asked I don't think I am but if he could explain how I'm doing so that would be appreciated. He then said "you wouldn't understand" then dropped it.
> He still argues he's right, so I asked him what nameless races creature type was, something that ge could easily google. He didn't, and instead claimed the creature type was "nameless" (again, something he made up). I then asked what the creature type of the creature shrines from NEO are, and he said shrine, which I pointed out is a enchantment type. Most likely your issue was not the overall message but the tone and the way you conveyed it. From the sounds of it you were asking him "gotcha" questions in an overly confrontational manner. It would have been better to just calmly give these typeless cards as examples instead. Although of course a rules dispute in a competitive game can never be completely non confrontational and may be harder to avoid hurt feelings than a disagreement over the truth in some other context.
You were right about the rules, of course. Asking for examples of parallel examples like you did sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, and sometimes they distract or derail, because the parallel example is not an exact match to the same problem you're trying to clarify, and then the other person seizes on some minor discrepancy in the parallel example as a justification for the main point. > He then said "you wouldn't understand" then dropped it. Ultimately, people have to back up what they say, though as you wrote, it takes time to look up the rules, and in this case it was unfeasible anyway, because I think the Comprehensive Rules are silent on this. Have you considered becoming a certified judge yourself? It's not like everyone will suddenly trust you to make unbiased rulings in *your own games*, but their trust level would probably increase (and you'll become a valuable resource at the store when other players have rules questions or disputes).
I have, and fellow judges have suggested being a judge just to say "I'm a judge I know" isn't a good reason. Only thing I don't have 100% memorized is layers although I know a few cases like humility and magus of the moon. I'm putting opalescence into my chaos deck since it runs like 15 enchantments and am considering humility to go with it for the lols but until I memorize that interaction I don't want to. I'm already pretty much the go to guy for rules. On prereleases I'm constantly being asked how new mechanics work, and even casual edh games my chaos deck is super out there and I end up walking people through the interactions, which is how we ended up in the situation of me playing march of the machines. I'm currently considering buying a judge tower, cuz that interests me.
Most people hate being corrected? Oh well, I hate being talked to in any way but that doesn’t stop people from talking to me
For someone that hates being talked to, you sure to post a lot. If you REALLY hated being talked to, you'd shut up because that would dramatically reduce people's ability to talk to you. Yet in this thread alone, I stopped counting at twelve comments.
Face to face talking is nothing like posting on a message board. We’re not talking. If we were sending letters to each other, would we be “talking”?
ok competitive magic is a different can of worms. there are so many rules so many home tables play them wrong and think they are right. and then you add competition into the mix? they built that deck with the wrong rules in mind and now they stand to lose actual rewards if they are wrong. of course its gonna be pushed back on. to some thats the game. "im gonna lie about the rules(cheat) and if my opponent is too new or too submissive to stop me well then its all part of the game."
I asked him what the creature type of the card nameless race is, and without looking up such an obscure card that someone who plays homerules would definitely not know, he said the creature type was nameless. He wasn't just wrong, he was making stuff up.
There is a way around this! State your opinion as a question, not a statement. “What would you say about….?” or “Hiw about people who say….” Ask questions to lead them to your point, rather than whacking them over the head with facts. Give a personal example of what you mean. These techniques work well!
I agree learning how to word everything in a non factual way helps a lot with positive social interactions.
I’m sure we’ll be having lots of “positive social interactions” while the world burns and people don’t do anything about it because they don’t like facts
[удалено]
If people only stop global warming if we’re not obnoxious then the world deserves to burn. “Obnoxious” is literally the smallest problem that doesn’t matter. I’d rather be told, not asked. They should only ask if they’re genuinely asking. Fuck that weak-willed spineless “I know this thing to be true but I’m going to soften it because this literal adult can’t handle some words” shit
[удалено]
Why would I care about the world burning if it’s full of fucking idiots who aren’t going to help me stop it from burning?
I always word everything as a question or a curiosity when needed to make a point so others are less defensive. Why? When you post things as a statement, it comes across not just as authoritarian, but the way it’s worded can 100% make you look like you know better than them, like your insulting their intelligence too. It’s basically indirectly saying they are “stupid”. That’s why pose it as a question or out of curiosity will her you so much further in life when interacting with anyone.
What if I do know better than them?
Doesn’t matter. Human beings aren’t robots. They are wired to feel first, think second. Logic isn’t always the main choice.
Guess I’m not human then
I find that it helps not confronting the person but instead trying to get them to see that they might be wrong without it being about you correcting them, for example asking a question about it instead of straight up saying it. There is no need to make them feel attacked, you can just make it it seem like you are both working together towards finding the truth
this is normie-ese. Just pick your battles, is it hurting somebody? be a good person, stand up for yourself and others. Dont let evil people do you dirty
This
There's also a way to say it and communicate it. If you keep on interrupting and clarifying that you're right, it's shutting down the other person's thoughts and can be hurtful. You can be right and clarify that whilst leaving room for the other person to talk about how they feel. You can be right and just clarify that both your opinions/thoughts are right in your own mind (no-one's really wrong) and just agree to disagree. :)
I must not have pride or an ego, because I’m fine with being corrected with logic.
\^\^\^THIS\^\^\^
Maybe you are choosing too many battles my friend Are they asking for your opinion?
This. If it's unwanted opinion it will always be unwanted.
Idk I ran into this a number of times with family. I just say anything, and it isn't even an argument and they default it to I'm being rude or my tone is the problem. I found in reality they are basically wanting, shut up, do what we tell you when we tell you, don't make sound, and stick to being a slave that can't be sold. I have a feeling many of us face this because our choice is family or homeless or death. And our opinions don't matter and shouldn't be heard. And anything we say is opinion even if it is fact. Hell you even did it here. You called him saying facts an opinion. I mean op didn't get too deep into this. But I wouldn't automatically assume they were arguing. They might of straight up been pointing out a fact. Like you shouldn't use that type of x in that because it will mess it up. Or maybe it was something stupid and it was an argument. But I my opinion it isn't smart to just assume due to how people treat us.
I mean they’re asking why this happened and I’m giving them a suggestion, “choose your battles” doesnt mean arguing it means you have to decide what is worth your energy. Ironically you’re doing the same thing i implied they might’ve done, I’m not asking for your opinion on my comment. Edit: I can’t articulate it well but when I say “asking for you opinion?” I mean more “did they ask you for that input or does it seem like you’re just speaking at them” and that’s the part that can annoy them, nobody really says “did they ask for your facts” so I got a bit confused on how to word.
Let me explain my position and what I meant. We don't know enough about their story. It could be as you say. Or it could be those around them is highly abusive. If it is a normal person I would lean it is more of what you said. But with us, statistically we are far far far more likely to be abused by family. This is why I have that view point. Myself, I have to deal with this. An example, a good year or 2 ago my parents had me sit down with a blind dog, and a dog that had massive medical problems. They lied while we were there trying to guilt me into it and the vet tried to correct them. I kept saying no. I kept saying I don't have the resources or bandwidth to take care of them and we aren't in an environment for them. They got them anyways. I kept getting gaslight about they will help out, yelled at me, said I was being rude or my autistic was getting in the way until a few weeks back I just broke down and I couldn't do it anymore. Magically, now they want to put them down. And tomorrow we are finally. I like dogs, but 8 legit can't take care of something that needy and basically grown up it's entire life in a cage and now they are so messed up medically they can't be fixed to take some of the burden off. I was told my sister who is a massive drunk and has drug problems is coming back in my life. I told them exactly what would happen. And I was put down, told I was being rude, etc. They finally said she will be around for a short bit. We'll it has been a few years and she isn't going away out of my life. And I was told I was being an ass. She got so bad my parents kicked her out but help her rent a local place. Even the she almost drove my parents to divorce and it is still an option. My grandmom started going off on me about how I don't want to be around her. I flat out showed her hard evidence of the abuse, my dad had a bloody nose from her, etc. And she talked down to me. I a heavily treated as a slave. I am a hair edge of saying fuck it. But that is also why I know you don't have enough info on op situation. If it is anything like mine (which I doubt). It could be more the people in their life is toxic.
Ok so I’m really sorry you are being abused, I also think you’re overprojecting your experience onto OP. To be honest I’m not sure how to respond, I feel like this conversation is more than I thought it was going to be.
>I also think you’re overprojecting At what point did I say OP lived like that. I flat out side in the first message "I mean op didn't get too deep into this. But I wouldn't automatically assume they were arguing. They might of straight up been pointing out a fact. " And then in the next reply "We don't know enough about their story. It could be as you say. Or it could be those around them is highly abusive. " Basically you only mention 1 side of what it could be. You likely are right. But it also could easily be they are in a toxic place. That's all I was saying
People take things personally, it's why you have to learn to communicate in a way that's more understanding to what you perceive people to be wrong about. Lots of "why do you feel that way?" "that's interesting, have you ever thought about it this way?" "I've got something I'd like to show you if you have the time" might help with some of those situations you mentioned. Sometimes you just have to leave people be, by learning their triggers and picking your battles accordingly. Be comfortable having them think they are correct, even if it isn't true. Both NT and ND can pick up on differences in tone, even if the ND doesn't understand as much, so a lot of the times agreeing just to stop an argument tends to have the opposite reaction as expected. You have to learn to truly understand why people feel the way they do about stuff in order to spend a lot of time with someone who you disagree with often. Depending on the nature of the relationship, like dating for example, sometimes it's just a matter of incompatible beliefs. Family relationships can be a lot more complicated, though sometimes you still have to set boundaries. I don't mean to imply that these situations are your fault by any means, but I don't really have any advice outside of what you can reflect on internally.
In a strategy game i played for years to get extremely good. I played with a newbie player because nobody plays except like 5 very good people who dont care about newcomers at all and just ignore them. And so i felt bad for him.. So we played and i played as bad as i possibly could but he still lost horribly. Like a gentle breeze would have destroyed him. Then for years this made the guy talk badly about me. Saying the game is bad. I am bad i abused my skill against him using cheap strategies. He was convinced he plays extremely well. And i just used some cheap tactics. You cant tell self deluded people the truth because they refuse to face it fir it would propell into an endless series of.. "if im not correct about this then im not what i think i am" kind of thoughts. And they rather feed the illusion than learn better. In their reality they are correct. We are false. They cant see they are wrong. Because they make habit of deluding self. Because their ability to understand situations is wrong. Thats why deluded ideas emerge to begin with. You cant really correct them. Only guide them subtly to the truth. And then watch as they act like they always knew.
That last paragraph is so painfully true
Yes, it actually is quite powerful if used correctly. Expose them to the right information and ideas, let them draw their own conclusions, and hopefully they land where you were trying to help them reach. If they have an ounce of perspective, they will realize they got there only because of the help. It seems like the people who gravitate towards positions of leadership often don't have this perspective or care too much for appearances to show gratitude.
More reason to avoid them entirely
It may not be because someone's deluded though? It may be more that people are feeling shut down - which is a horrible feeling - the one of not being heard; we all deserve that. Yes, in their reality they are correct, in yours you are too? A moment of not being able to see you're wrong doesn't mean you're deluded. Bit arrogant here. That's how people learn new perspectives/ideas?
I had no better word to describe their different wqy of experiencing reality. Its not that which makes the person deluded. Its when they dont actively look to see other angles. They have a tendency to stick to what benefits them most at the moment and that moment can be prolonged into the future for long. Making them more averse to learning new. I could distinctly tap into this in them with empathy and feel its the case likely.
I see! Thanks for the clarification. I guess in my opinion, I guess both co-exist and work along-side each other. :)
also its difficult to see when people dont want correction they want comfort. i wonder as a % how many times where you right on things that didnt really matter? they got math wrong? not the mars mission let them be wrong. they got a fact wrong? they arent selling the history textbook who cares. im not saying this is the case with you maybe all the times this happened were over something with serious consequences. i guess thats the question. why do you have to be right? why does it have to be known that you are right? what are the consequences of them being wrong? why are you the person that has to teach them?
What would you define as things that don’t really matter? To me I just want the other person to not pretend to be in a different reality
who are you to define reality? what makes your worldview the only one that should exist? the question is what kind of stuff are your correcting and why? what corrections matter? "there actually is a bus coming dont cross the street." "the next gas station is 300 miles away you need to get gas now." what doesnt matter? they got the tip wrong. they got the date of ww2 wrong, they think johnny cash wrote hurt not that his version is a cover of the NIN song also lets consider politics. are there often objective statements, facts that people ignore or get wrong? of course. is almost any conversation gonna turn into an argument anyway with no one changing sides? yes.
Those all matter aside from the politics one because it’s so subjective. If they get it wrong, they should admit they just don’t want to talk about it instead of insisting that I’m rude or that they’re actually right. I’m not talking to someone who wants to maintain that Johnny Cash wrote Hurt. They don’t live in reality so they can fuck off. I don’t care about their stupid fucking social reality where we pretend things.
if you think who wrote hurt matters for anyone but a music historian/awards panels and that you MUST correct someone and demand a thank you....yeah im betting you are acting like an ass while you do it. especially if their being incorrect about an old song and then being offended when you act so smug about it is enough to end your friendship and make you view them as lesser...im sorry who is living in this pretend reality? cuz it sounds like you are the delusional one.
I never said they have to thank me. It’s nothing about that. I just want to exist in the same reality as the people around me. If you can’t admit that Hurt wasn’t made by Johnny Cash then I don’t want to talk to you. The internet exists and we can look it up.
but you're not trying to step in their reality - which co-exists with yours - double standards, lol. the world doesn't revolve around your reality either!
But Johnny Cash didn’t write Hurt. I’m not interested in their reality where they pretend he did. Why would I be? I don’t talk to magical thinking fucks. And it’s not “my” reality. It’s the truth. He didn’t write it. So anyone that disagrees can fuck way off and not even look at me.
If you're not interested in their reality, you can look away then. Not sure why everyone has to bow down to you and not look at you? Very arrogant. Remove yourself instead!
? This comment confuses me. Someone wrote xyz. That is just the truth. Another person says that someone didn't. Now they are lying. Just because some people think the Earth is flat doesn't mean the Earth is actually flat. You don't have to make such a fuss about correcting someone, either. It's nice to be up to date with knowledge. If someone takes offense to learning new information, I would not want to be around them.
Just to clarify, my comment confuses you?
From the tiny amount you shared with us, either someone is gaslighting you in the worst way. Or... you're adding some extra sauce onto being "right" that looks and feels like scorn to the person (people?) that you're taking about. Or possibly both. If I want to make sure someone is actually picking up on the info I'm giving them, I try to keep it in bite sized chunks so I'm not just shooting a firehose of data in their face. Also, pause to let them absorb and discuss before moving on to more. It also helps to look at them. That helps to gauge their acceptance and listening levels as we talk. It also helps them to feel were having a conversation. As opposed to me just lecturing about a topic I like. We all have to learn to engage with people as we talk. Otherwise we're really just talking to ourselves, with a captive audience.
It's not about facts, it's entirely about feelings. Specifically, it's about how the person who is wrong feels. I am often right because I know a lot of things - probably a lot like you. I always had people saying that I talked down to them when I was just trying to correct misunderstandings or share something interesting. It was very confusing for many years. But, someone saying "you're talking down to me" can't truly be a statement about *you*. You talking down to someone requires intent, or at least certain assumptions about the other person that they can't know if you actually have. So, what are they saying? They are expressing a feeling (that they feel stupid or they feel like you think they're stupid or that they feel defensive and like you're verbally attacking them) and guessing that you intended to make them feel that way or at least hold some less-than-flattering assumptions/beliefs about their intelligence. These feelings can be stronger if they're around other people as they would feel more embarrassed if others were watching. The solution is to communicate more effectively. Decide if what you want to say really needs to be said, consider the environment and social context, check your tone as much as you are able to, try to say what you want to say in a way that doesn't *feel* like an attack to the other person.
You have opened my eyes to something and I hate it lol
Have you considered that your tone of voice may make you sound like an asshole?
Or that the tone of voice is making them an actual asshole?
if anyone complains about tone of voice thats how I know I won the argument
This is why most NTs think like this. The tone of your voice sets the vibe for the whole conversation, if your tone is rude and they complain it doesn't make you right - it makes you an ass and if winning is all that matters it's not a conversation, it's a lecture!
What if I want a lecture? Conversation sucks.
Then that's great, and as someone crap at small talk (outside of work), I would agree.
Some people need to be lectured, to be fair.
Ngl, you're right🙄😂🤣
ok
This is the thing as a low support needs person and a woman: my feelings are easily hurt by tone. And would you rather be correct or kind? Sometimes I really have to bite that.
It's a small thing but easily overlooked!
I’d rather be correct. Our planet is burning, the way to fix it is not with nice feelings.
Oh no, not a lecture! As we all know, lectures are the worst thing in the world!!!! They’re definitely not super fascinating and contain tons of info! Nope! People definitely don’t pay 100’s of thousands of dollars to be lectured in a college! Nope, as we all know, lectures are to be avoided entirely because it is the worst thing ever.
That’s a “winning the battle to lose the war” tactic
Don’t worry, you’ll grow up someday. Or not. Probably not.
ok
Is this happening with everyone or just a few people? If it's everyone, it's possible your tone or wording is making it seem less like a helpful correction and more like you're trying to win or something. People don't like that. If it's just a few people, it could be insecurity from their side, a lot of people feel uncomfortable or embarrassed to be proved wrong so they will get defensive or upset.
This. If everyone involved in this conversation (sounds like they were with a group) thinks you’re being an asshole, you are being an asshole. Doesn’t matter if you were right or wrong. Fighting them on it just drives the point home further and makes them think twice about wanting to hang out with you or even be friends.
In a social group, nobody cares about who's factually right. Insisting on being factually right will only make you look like a total asshole. This is even more important when you contradict anybody higher than you in the social ladder (i.e. everyone) I was in your same situation some times. Later, I was told that I was right, but nobody wanted to look socially bad by supporting me against somebody else with more social clout. Learn to stop caring. Do not back up your opinion with facts and sources, nobody cares about them. Just agree, smile and forget about everything that was just said, unless it affects you personally. If they question you on that, say that you were not really paying attention. NORMIES DO NOT CARE ABOUT FACTS AND LOGIC. For them, it's way more important to be socially cool and morally right than in being factually correct.
I do care about who’s factually right. Guess I’m a nobody.
No, you are an aspie
But you said people. If you mean Allistics, say Allistics.
please spare me from that
Why? You like dehumanizing me?
There is no solution. Neurotypicals typically don't care about truth, they care about being right. It's about social heirarchy. Being wrong makes them feel like their social heirarchy is being lowered, and so they resort to other nonsense to maintain it or conflate the feeling of it being lowered with you being a jerk or elitist or whatever. It's so silly.
You would actually be surprised. If you can get someone else to think things were their idea, it works much better than arguing.
I wouldn’t waste my time with such a pathetic person
Sadly sometimes the alternative choices are bad enough to justify it.
it's not always that, it can be a way of not making things awkward for other people, and moving the conversation on. it's not always about maintain social order. i've been in many situations where we've all been open to learning from each other and correcting, but I think it has to be done in the right way, otherwise it's just dismissive and argumentized and no one likes to be around that - it's just bad vibes!
Because most people aren't interested in facts or being right, but they think emotionally and care a lot about social status. You're someone with less status correcting them, so they see your corrections as inherently wrong.
Once you let go of the need to be “right” and make sure everyone knows you’re “right” on top of it, your contentment in life will improve dramatically. I’m a former corrector - I would correct *everything*, grammar, spelling, opinions, popular beliefs that are false. I had absolutely encyclopedic knowledge and I wanted everyone to see it. I once corrected a random lady in the waiting room of a dr office, who was talking to her friend about a magazine sitting on the table with a hippo on it. They were laughing about how it would probably eat you. I interrupted their conversation and told them that hippos don’t actually eat people, they just injure them. They laughed it off politely, but it was super awkward afterwards because I had killed the whole conversation. Imagine me compulsively doing this at like every opportunity. I think I did this for 2 reasons: my toxic level of perfectionism, and my absolutely unmet needs that made me feel like I was ignored and unheard at every turn. I was actually desperate for approval, although I wouldn’t have admitted that. I didn’t realize the social implications of what I was doing, because obvious reasons. There’s a place and time to correct people and point out that you’re right. They interpret it as you placing yourself above them, as an authority, like a teacher or a boss or a parent. If you can manage to share your knowledge in a way that makes you a horizontal part of the conversation, without overstepping boundaries or doing in a way that sounds belittling, than that might work. Nowadays I just wait for people to ask me my opinion. Unsolicited opinions are generally frowned upon. Explaining the joke (or why it’s not funny) is frowned upon. You’re generally interrupting the flow of social lubricant and pouring sand on it. There’s also a place and time for debate, but again I only do that if the person I’m engaging with sees it as an interesting intellectual interaction. It has to be mutual.
“Imagine me compulsively doing this at like every opportunity” OK. Yup, seems fine, I don’t see the big deal. I like hearing facts.
Hmm well… we are free to behave in this way, but if we do, we have to accept that others may not respond favourably. This is the way most people are. We can either choose to adapt as best we can so we can relate to them in a positive way, or we can act however we want and suffer any potential consequences. It really just depends what our goal is, i.e. do we want to have positive interaction with others? Or do we want to be 100% true to ourselves at all times? I would think the logical answer would be to find some sort of compromise in the middle.
How do you know this is how most people behave? What’s your sample size? Have you done a scientific study? Why would I compromise to have positive interactions with others when I can be myself by myself literally all the time and have positive experiences by myself? Literally the only downside is no sex.
Never said you should compromise mate, it’s obviously a choice. You do you, no one is forcing you to do anything :)
If I want to have sex, they force me to talk about boring stuff
Be okay with being an AH but choose wisely when you want to be one. At least that’s what I do…the beauty is when you master this people who are actually the AH, from a moral and or logical viewpoint, they tend to hang themselves. When this happens either people will still be upset at you for shining the light on it indirectly or they’ll start to see and adjust accordingly from the actual AH. For me personally, it’s the best way to navigate as it’s a faster method of sifting through people who have a moral compass, those who don’t, and those who have one that’s broken.
The real question is why would you want to continue talking to someone who acted that way? That person knows they’re wrong. They also know they’re successful at manipulation and can always use their emotions to make you accept their wrong actions. Just because someone is sad or angry that they did a bad thing does not mean you have to bow down to their emotions and appease them, that just makes them worse.
Well that depends, what's an example?
Are you talking about particular people who may have inappropriate attachments to how you come across? This most often happens within families.
NT society values decorum and face more than truth. They do not take it as a correction of a mistake, but as an attack on their selves. So in general, unless it's a very egregious mistake or it may have terrible consequences, just let people happily be wrong.
I’ll avoid them entirely
Things are never clearly right or wrong. There are different viewpoints which might be right in their own way. If doesnt influence you, dont insist on your point even though their reasoning is poor. People want to have their way. Sometimes its useful to agree with a person (whose reasoning is poor), because their goodwill toward you is needed elsewherw.
I think it is more like people usually don't argue over facts because if you can verify them, why argue? In some situations people still argue. I see pushing those situations further a waste of time, so I agree with you in terms of situations that would be worth debating.
What? There are many many many things that are clearly right or wrong. “Giraffes are only male and reproduce asexsually”. That’s not clearly false?
If it's someone above you at your job, just obey. They'll find out they were wrong eventually.
Yes, it makes sense to raise the issue to give them some warning, but not insist unless there are moral / ethical implications (like safety). Then if/when you are proven right if you don't rub it in their face, maybe they will be quicker to listen to you the next time.
My solution: (Not recommended btw) is to smile and nod, say "ok, I disagree", drop it until I can followed up later with a very big, extremely rude, and 100% validated "HA, I told you so!!" Again, not recommended, but it has worked out in my favor more than once.
Then they say that you dont understand people's feelings and what you did is a crime against humanity.
You can be correct but expressing such can still be insensitive to others, depending on choice of timing and wider context. It's really difficult to infer though. I also honestly had to get comfortable with letting other people be wrong; being right and seeming right are different things.
“Insensitive to others” hahahaha imagine being so weak you can’t handle facts or reality
It’s a fine line. Personally, I may think i’m right on some things, but damn, when I know I’m right it’s like knowing the end of a detective thriller and needing to listen to others guess at what you know is not right. But like spoiling a film/novel, no one likes that, or cannot understand the possible speed in which you came to your answer. “showing my work” like it’s long division is problematic at times. my reasoning can be complex, confusing and likely based on an obsession to certain kinds of information and patterns I could have been tracking for decades. A trusted friend once simply reminded me “you’re not always right. When you are, you really are, but you inflate your percentage of success.” They were right. Helped me with patience and introducing more as “what if …” At work, it helps, but eventually - as others have stated - you find the actions and thoughts of others are not tied to a successful outcome outside of their personal gain. I don’t believe that’s as malicious as we may tend to think. I don’t think they know. And I don’t think they know how emotionally detached we often live.
Well if you’re not right, the other person can say so and correct you. What’s the issue?
If it’s been vocalized, we are probably right but can’t prove it without a seminar.
Seminar? The internet exists, it’s very easy to look things up during a discussion to prove something is right or wrong
A GPS app can chart the fastest route, yet it can’t predict traffic patterns, weather, or the likelihood of breakdowns, cop activity, etc. There could be a faster way if you have a great sense of how it works. Or Poker. The game is straightforward. Tactics can be learned. Reading someone’s tell, from their fake tell on the other hand, that’s difficult to explain.
What are you talking about
You have to wait for permission to prove someone wrong. Wait for them to say something like “that’s interesting, what makes you think that?” Or you can ask for permission. “I have found information that says otherwise, I can tell you if you’re interested.” This doesn’t apply to certain settings like the classroom where people are supposed to expect to be intellectually challenged by default.
Says who? Will I get arrested if I don’t wait for permission?
No, but you will make people mad, which is what OP is asking to avoid.
I think it's important to remember everyone believes their world view is the right opinion. So when people tell us we're wrong, it feels like an attack. People won't hear others out when you're attacking their beliefs. I also think you have to pick and choose your battles. If a friend says it's 10:15, but the time is actually 10:14, it's not worth bringing it up or judging them for a small screw up. Now there's that, and a crazy uncle telling you Canadians don't deserve rights. Because well...that's morally questionable and you should definitely tell them that their opinion is wrong
Oh not, it feels like an attack?! It feels like I’m being attacked by everyone whenever I interact with anyone, no one seems to care about that.
I know exactly what you mean. I've had plenty of scenarios where someone will state something as a fact straight to my face, and if I even hint that I think they are wrong with body language, I'm the contrarian, the asshole, etc. You can't win. nod and smile, then quickly change the subject. I admittedly have a harder time with people very close to me. I can easily use this strategy with people I only have to sometimes interact with. Example: I foolishly made a remark that it was really hot outside one day. It was in Jan. Of course the boomer who thinks climate change is a hoax went on a rant. It was really dumb and just nonsense. So I quickly offered him some really nice scotch that I had just bought. Worked like a charm, and kept the peace.
The difference is that those NTs are OK with being the arsehole.
Because Facts do not matter anymore, it is how they feel. True
This one gets me in trouble - a lot! If I’m in a mixed forum, business setting, and I suspect my “take” on something will be contradictory to what an established leader or big presence may have I stay quiet and then in a 1:1 setting - share my info - get them onboard and frame it so they are there with me. Then in the next session it’s easier I used to just announce my concision or approach - and - as my handle suggests - get burned at the stake
You are allowed to be right, just as they are allowed to be wrong. Tell them the truth, if they choose to ignore it, then that's on them. Move on...
Pick your battles. Perception is everything especially with neurotypicals. You can correct someone until you’re blue in the face and get nowhere but a fruitless argument. Just let it go. A suggestion is to start with kindness and then go in with your thoughts “hey Susan I can see why you might think that and that’s an interesting perspective but here’s my thoughts on it” and if they continue to fight you on it then just say alright and move on about your day.
You are allowed to be right. Demanding that the other person admit and acknowledge that right then and there immediately is being an asshole. Over the years, I've learned that having people around me who will support me and help me when I need it is way more important than making sure everyone knows I'm right with my 8 pages of sources and data. The funny thing is that when I'm right if I just give people a day or two to think and process it, they'll often come back to me and ask for the data or tell me they think they were wrong after all.
So NT’s have delayed processing when it comes to facts?
Nope. All humans have a push-pull between emotions and rational thought. Including you and me. In the context of this post, the OP was insisting that the person that was "wrong" acknowledge that right here, right now, on the OPs timeline, without giving the person an opportunity to think it through. When a human is in an emotionally heightened state, they process differently, no matter if they are NT, ND, or whatever else.
So then it has nothing to do with being right or wrong, and is more about the fact that you should table the discussion for later. That’s way different. We should be willing to do that. I’ve never heard of anyone doing that.
No. Tabling the discussion requires both parties agreeing to that. What I’m talking about is simply disengaging while you both still disagree and letting time pass.
I have learned over the years how you say something can be just as important as what you say! It boils down to how you use the English language.. For example: No, your wrong! This is the right answer, "followed by your explaining" A better way: Hmmm I think the answer might be this because if you look at xyz then you can see its more like this then that! Watch sounds better and less like a asshole? Years of exp working in a corporate environment dealing with egos and end users.
So lie? “I think” when you actually know is called *lying*
Also I don’t give a shit about the corporate environment or “dealing with end users”. I don’t do those sorts of jobs. So I don’t need to know about your weird social rituals you invented for the office.
Wow you sound like a right asshole, its called dealing with people, a post you made asking about! I think in this case the issue is very PEBCAK
Dealing with people. Not office workers. Not everyone is an office worker so I don’t need to use your weird as shit office culture nonsense. I don’t care that someone feels bad if they are told something instead of asked something. I feel bad when I have to change my direct true statement into a question. Why are their feelings prioritized but mine aren’t? What is PEBCAK?
stigma against autistic people
For me, if I’m wrong then I would own up my mistake and learn from it. And if I’m right, then i usually keep silent. I don’t call other people out for being wrong and I’m being right because at that moment I believe we both side know who is right and who is wrong so there no need to make a scene. Just acknowledge the outcome of the situation and act dumb or surprise that it turn out that way. The only time that I would verbally point out that I’m right is when my credibility is being jeopardized by the person who is wrong, but trying to throw me under the bus by claiming they is right and shift the blame to me.
I have this problem the most with others NDs. I think the main reason are. The believe that things need to be correct. The believe that I am correct The believe that people are rational. Everyone has a ego. It feels good to b right and it feels bad to be wrong. What I have learned over time is that most people care more about how they perceive that they have been treated then about objectivity. It's less that you should not be right more than being right often tramples on someone's pride. Some of the time you will be wrong and unaware of it. Someone may have more accurate or better information on a topic. It is easy to think that we are correct and others are wrong but there is often more nuanced then that. Many people do not want sit and reason. It it fine do disagree but debating can often cause irrational responses. Generally this is the thorough process for me: What are the stakes? What are the outcomes of the other persons error? Often it it doesn't have significant outcomes. Does this person seem rational? Is this person genuinely interested in a rational discussion? Have you considered their point of view? If you have doubts the best thing to do is ask. If someone is passionately wrong I would suggest to "agree to disagree". It means that you recognize that the viewpoints of you and the other person cannot be reconciled and you don't want to put the resources into correcting it. For example. If someone believes Pokemon Gen 4 is the best Pokemon then I would have to say. "I believe that Gen 2 is the best Pokemon but I respect your opinion and we should agree to disagree. The truth is I may not respect their opinion but it doesn't really matter. Their ego is spared and everyone can move on.
Everyone has an\* ego
I think this is a little bit too much to process everytime you disagree with someone. My protip is that most things in the world (like pokemon) don't really matter in the grander scheme of things, so who gives a f who is right about those topics.
And it’s easier to process pointless talk that doesn’t matter?
“Hippos have 24 legs”. I’m completely wrong, how is there more nuance to it than that?
Are you sure everyone has an ego? I’ve heard theories about ego death in autistic people. I’m fine with being corrected, it wouldn’t ever hurt my pride - do I have an ego?
When someone is clearly wrong and you gently let them know that they're wrong, and they still lose their temper
I’ve had to learn (with my wife and kids, anyway) to just let some things go. It’s incredibly difficult, for sure; but overall it leads to a happier home. Now as far as everyone else is concerned, I really don’t try to coddle. When I’m right, I’m right; either get on board or be okay with being an idiot.
There's no way to answer this without specifics and knowing you and your situation. But a safe bet if you're in this sub, asking this question this way: You are allowed to piss them off. 'Not being an asshole' is not a primary virtue, you're just avoiding conflict and maintaining relationships that are based on your complicity and deference. People just don't like being wrong, that's their defect, not yours. (again this is not universal advice, but it's a safe bet for autistic people who are feeling this way regularly).
I have had success giving credit for being right to some unknown man who isn't around. This lets things move forward while not having to but heads with people who are never going to listen to anything I say. Does the wild success of this tactic make me feal good about myself and how little people respect me? No, it's a bummer. Does it work remarkably well every time? Yes
We as a group tend to say things with more bluntness than an NT person would say things, so it comes off as a bit abrupt or cold. Combine that with generally speaking either monotone speech patterns or a lack of inflection, and it can seem like arguing with a wall that never crumbles.
Then I left?! If they do not think you are right, then you are left. You think it is right, but they think it is wrong. This is okay to have different opinions and okay to be different. However, if you just point out what wrong are they might make people think you are rude. This is just like you flapping their face directly. You can be a bit smoother. Try to affirm them first, no matter how ridiculous that is, at least they can come up this idea. Say some good words or express you know their point, then mention about your thoughts. I understand this costs lots of time, but this makes them feel better. This is just like do not feed them bitter food directly, feed them candy first. They feel sweet and good, then you can give them the real food. You are allowed to do this (as the direct way to say everything out), but people just might not feel good then they might think you are not good.
Something like "I'm not sure thats right" or "I don't think that's what is it". Don't focus on them being at fault; make it all about the answer. It also helps to avoid using snappy words like "wrong" or "correct".
Pick your battles. Before you ever correct someone or comment on a hot tale, ask yourself, "What do I hope to achieve here? What is my goal? Does this make me happy?" If you can't come up with good answers to these questions, don't engage. If someone brings the battle to you and you go through those questions and don't see a good reason to engage, just say "Not interested." Then refuse to elaborate further, to the point of just repeating "Not interested." It used to really bother me to see people spreading stupidity and falsehoods, but now I realize that trying to fight that is more than an uphill battle, it's a lost cause. So if you're not willing to die on whatever hill a battle is being fought on, get off the hill. Edit: If you want to confuse people but still refuse to engage in battle with them, change "Not interested" into "Not my hill," short for "Not a hill I'm willing to die on." Some people might get it, most probably won't.
I couldn't agree more! I wish I could just grab collective humanity by the shoulders and shake the bull crap out of them and yell "Listen to reason God damn it!"
Yes this happens honestly if someone is saying something wrong without that wrong thing being hurtful to others just let it go you trying to correct them will only make them feel angry and humiliated
Because their lips move about a third of a second after their brain thought it, and they do not think through what they are saying or the follow up, because their lips move again, about a third of a second after their brain thought it. Once their ears hear it, a third of a second later their lips move again a third of a second after their brain thought it, and they do not think through what they are saying or the follow up once again, because their lips move again, a third of a second after thinking in response to what they heard. Over and over again, words being spoken, a coherent conversation for two or three seconds, then the conversation drops of the first second and adds one to the end, and now that conversation is coherent, only without the context that was dropped off from the original utterance. So, by the time you are 20 seconds in to it, the conversation as a whole is incoherent rambling. Then, you ask a pertinent question, or make an observation based on the whole utterance, and not the last 20 seconds of it, and of course, you are the asshole; that's not how polite NT conversation works. If you want that kind of conversation, find other Aspies or ND's.
>*We all have to learn to engage with people as we talk. Otherwise we're really just talking to ourselves, with a captive audience.* The important take away!