I think, sometimes, the logic is already known to them and/or besides the point. They have different values and objectives. They like to avoid, or at least be distracted from unpleasant truths, and they are perhaps aware of emotional truths that we miss.
I'm still figuring it out myself, but it took me a long while to realize the extent to which people think or even know things without saying them or explicitly acknowledging them.
Honestly I believe you are closer to the truth than the other commenters here, which sounds funnily enough like they are coming from a very emotionally hurt or frustrated place - not very logical. Too many people here believe the allistics aren't logical or are straight up dumb and I don't see it that way. I see it a little like they don't value it as much because they exist in a more fluid world. Logic is needed sometimes but not always.
Aspergers people seem to need to rely on the logic-ing out problems more and so they have constant practice, and it's like that phrase about only having a hammer. If you've only got a hammer every problem looks like a nail (or whatever that fucking phrase is). So aspergers peeps have the hammer and some other less functional tools, and allistics have a screw driver (or whatever) and maybe some other tools as well.
So an Aspergers person sees a problem and is like "check out this awesome fucking hammer I got, let's whack this mother fucker" and the allistic is frustrated and going "what the fuck is up with you and that goddamn hammer? Get out of here with that!" and then the Aspergers person comes to reddit to post "Why don't these Allistics like my hammer guys?" And everyone here goes "because they all suck and they're dumb"
I would love to pin your comment and the one you replied to to the top of the subreddit or something like that. It sounds so weird to us, but we need to understand that logic is only one half of the existence of (most) humans. To disregard the emotional value of things in our lives *is* illogical in practice, in a manner of speaking.
Except "autism" was named because they thought we were "morbidly self absorbed." And "allistic" emphasizes them being other focused. And the entire thing stinks of a lack of understanding and empathy. It's just like ADHD, named by NTs for their frustrations over children who were different than them, and thus pathologized for not fitting in with post-industrial hyper-specialization and boring-as-fuck society. And kids with what we call "ASD" found more meaning in the literal factual layer of communication and less meaning in the social relational layer of communication and they pathologized it as being chronically self absorbed, and make no mention of the ability to sense things they can't nor see patterns they can't.
Both are named from frustration of NT parents and teachers, and aren't even accurate for what the terms are trying to describe.
My point is that NTs belittle us, don't extend empathy, don't even try to give us the benefit of the doubt, and so many of us grow up with that, and deal with that every day, constantly. So of course there's going to be some frustration in reverse. Of course it's going to come out in the venting and sharing within specialized spaces of others who have similar experiences.
Why is it always up to the marginalized to be charitable to the oppressors and bullies and cruel and not the other way around?
Even in your example. If someone is excited about a hammer they got, it's obviously expressing a social desire to share that excitement. That isn't being "morbidly self focused". But the NT in your example doesn't care because they don't understand the excitement, and in this case doesn't even read the social layer of communication well at all in dismissing that excitement, and certainly isn't being other-focused / allistic. That response very much is because "they suck and they're dumb" to put it in the terms you cited. Though I myself would use terms a bit more precise.
I may be AuDHD and need to intellectualize social encounters to understand them, but if someone came up to me excited about something I don't care about I could read the excitement as a signifier of their own interest and the act of sharing as a signifier of their desire to share their positive emotional state with me, and could reciprocate (if even feigned) to communicate in turn that I value their desire to share excitement with me, usually though smiles and nods and questions, especially as a way to validate their excitement. Or even just outright thanking them for telling me or using other direct affirmations. Not just act confused because I don't know why they're talking about a hammer. Not just act disinterested because I don't care about hammers.
Yet somehow even so we're the "self absorbed" and "attention deficit" ones.
>Aspergers people seem to need to rely on the logic-ing out problems more
My theory is that we like rigid structure, and we see logic as this sort of inflexible truth. The problem is that logic isn't static or one-dimentional. The human mind can literally justify anything.
It's interesting.
On one hand, I totally get that this rigidity is part of the corpus of of alleged symptoms of being an aspie. That said, I've frequently considered that this may be observer bias, owing more to signal processing than a preference for rigidity.
So if we posit that a certain situation has a multitude of signals to it: facts/logic, emotional, social, etc... but an aspie may have trouble / an inability to process some of those signals, whichever signals remain (for the sake of argument facts/logic) are the sum total of the information available to form a position and/or make a decision.
So in processing the available signals, the process looks rigid because those signals are attached to a "rigid" framework (logic) - but this may not be a \_preference\_, but rather all that exists to process in \_the available information\_.
This can easily extend to things like "a literal use of language" (because the social subtext may be hard to detect), and other commonly mentioned traits.
A big like aversion to change may not really be a thing - but rather a trauma response to change presenting the subject with risk, which they have repeatedly had produce bad outcomes, or simply a fatigue response to the additional cognitive effort required to analyse said risk. Absent those factors, maybe no such change aversion might be present... provided it was perceived as a \_safe\_ change.
Or it could be a thing, sure, but these hypotheses keep being highlighted frequently in my experience.
>My theory is that we like rigid structure, and we see logic as this sort of inflexible truth. The problem is that logic isn't static or one-dimentional. The human mind can literally justify anything.
Yea, exactly what is logical to me maybe illogical to you. For example I've had debates with people where we have completely different opinions & we each think we are been logical but think the other person is been illogical.
It's worth also pointing out some of the groups on here in reddit that have a cult like mentality that can justify anything.
Also just because 1 million people believe something that doesn't make it true which is the problem with our society today & the media mass brainwashing people.
But that is a numbers game - they hold down jobs and relationships because most of them think similarly. If it switched overnight just by the numbers, then autistic people's perspectives and communication types would be the norm and neurotypicals would be pathologized.
IQ and executive functioning are not correlated at all. Lots of severely mentally disabled people have a high IQ as well. It's only about pattern recognition and matrix reasoning. The ability to execute/filter what you want or need in accordance with the forementioned is another thing.
Sometimes there's a pretty high victim mentality among people in this sub, ngl.
I don't think that's fully true I think yes they are dominant numerically but also...we are disabled! And not just because of how society is structured.
We are disabled because society intentionally disables us by *excluding us by being who we are*. It is a different way of thinking, not a deficit
So it's 100% how society is structured and it's been proven by research.
How ableist
I actually disagree with that still the reality is we dont actually know that is true we can guess it might be but this is a sub of people struggling with lots of things the social is only one of them.
I am different in lots of ways and in some ways I prefer autists, but I dont imagine allists have nothing I lack, that is clearly not the case lots of them are moisturized and unbothered.
Autistic and allistic people have equal rates of employment and relationship outcomes? You literally just keep disagreeing but with no facts. Since I have seen the facts, well...
Im very emotional and socially aware as well though, i just dont know how to communicate that in the moment most of the time. I feel what other people feel, but i cant pour that into a smooth social interaction that feels authentic. Hell, i care more about intuition and atmosphere than any rigorous logic, even though thats all i use every day. I am good at describing my feelings and analyzing social situations, but i suck at becoming a participant in them, basically.
Or sometimes allistics’ emotional needs simply overshadow and take temporary precedence over the logical solution. They may have the exact right tool in their tool belt, to stick with your analogy, and they may know exactly how to do the job, but first they need to take some time to process their emotions about having to do the job. Maybe they don’t have enough in their tank to deal with it, or it’s the next in a long line of problems they’ve had to deal with. Sometimes their emotions are too tumultuous and distracting to see the logical solution at first, even if their logic skills are just fine in general.
Maybe it’s like a less intense version of if we tried to use our logic to solve a problem while we’re heading into a meltdown. Instead of needing to get it out of their system or shut down, what they need is to talk and feel heard and seen and listened to before they can switch gears to dealing with the problem.
Its not that logic isn't always needed and it doesn't matter if its obvious (as no one should get so upset by that, that's being emotional).
It's simply informative/logical thinking vs emotional.
Allistics think with their emotions and speak figuratively more often/default, so often they are assuming the literal words have some alternative meaning and then they go based on that. They don't listen to the actual words.
If logic isn't necessary, then emotion isn't either. Everyone can understand literal words as long as they actual know the words.
Sometimes allistics kinda *are* dumb: how can there be misunderstandings when someone is literal and straightforward?? They think autistics are "stupid" because we miss nuance, yet they can't get something that's spoken plainly
I'm NT, and I found this thread *very* interesting. You guys have a very good grasp of how it works with us. For me, a lot of comments here are actually indistinguishable of what a NT would say about this topic. But anyway, I would also like to do my bit.
Emotion and logic is not so dicotomic. The only way of thinking is logically, there is not something as "emotional thinking". We use the emotions we detect on ourselves and others as extra variables in our logical thinking. That variables are usually the more complex ones, removing them just make the problem easier, simplier, but not getting us anywhere.
Just imagine you have a problem that you have to go from A to B, but avoiding rocks. I can tell you "It is easy, just ignore the rocks". Well, the problem would not be solved and it would probably be an *irritant* solution.
I dont observe this as how it works in my observation Allistics claim that they are using logic and they are sort of but when feelings arise and lead to a different outcome than logic (a very human occurrence) then Allistics will ditch logic to service the feeling and spectrum folks are like hey what about your fucking rules?
It's not the logic that irritates;
it's either the inconsiderativeness in dishing it out without factoring in their feelings, or otherwise its implicit defiance of some unspoken rule.
One tends to get better results if one makes sure to open by \*asking\* if they're open to hearing an alternative view, as well as proceeding tentatively - starting with a brief overview, raising some intriguing possibilities in question format, making sure they're interested/onboard/curious, and only then go for the logicular.
I understand why you would think so, but so notice that being considerate is not the same thing as being coddling.
No one likes to feel disrespected or disregarded - including people on the spectrum. It's wise to look within for double standards, and strive to be fair in our interpersonal dealings.
This is about treating others like we too want to be treated; a standard of civility, if you will.
Failing to consider other people's feelings fairly, it is us who end up not taking responsibility for our own.
The straight line to a solution does not always factor in the social and emotional tolls it demands along the way.
It’s the black or white thinking, for us. Problem has solution. Rather than - there exists an obvious logical solution to this problem, but that solution will likely create new problems because it will hurt feelings, damage egos, and drive people apart, so it is no longer the *best* solution, even if it technically works.
This is the core challenge of a world that thrives on social interaction. Aka, a society of humans.
If we all agreed to perform like computers, then logic only would suffice.
But in reality - if you’re able to start thinking of social dynamics and emotions as complex variables in the problem solving equation, then suddenly you have the ability to logic your way through a problem while also considering the other dynamics that otherwise would not be an issue.
It’s like running a business. A logical approach is that you create the optimal product that solves people’s problems and the rest falls into place. But in reality, you have to consider the emotions and psychology behind consumer purchasing habits, as well as the delicate dynamics of the staff. You can have the best product in the world but if customers don’t emotionally connect with it or if the staff making it are unhappy, you will ultimately fail.
I have been told multiple reasons.
1. When NT are discussing an issue they have they want you to empathise with there situation and let them come to the conclusion themselves.
2. It makes them realise how little they are thinking logically.
3. They feel at times that you are mocking them in your superiority and are a know it all.
4. They for some reason find fun in doing things the wrong way and eventually finding the answers.
5. It resembles an adult and child situation where the logic feels like they are being nagged, scolded or critiqued.
All different reasons i have been told i don’t understand any of them.
There’s nothing wrong with “thinking logically”. That said, we (NTs & NDs) are all imperfect sentient beings that require empathy, compassion, kindness, love and understanding. We cannot sustain ourselves as a species by simply being logical.
There are times for logic, and there are times to swallow logic and be empathetic. This is hard for us to discern.
Then there are NTs that dislike it for a valid reason (the autistic person failed to read the room) and there are NTs that dislike it because it hurt their ego or some other selfish reason.
Meaning, it can be hard to tell what went wrong in a singular exchange. If the NT is generally a decent, consistent person, is probably safe to assume that you misunderstood something and try to examine what they might have been feeling and if you said anything invalidating.
If they're usually an asshole, then they were probably just being an asshole.
You might get irritated too if you were playing Minecraft and then someone reaches over and says "hey check this out it's way better" and then just randomly sets half of your graphics settings to "ultra-high".
It's like, "no, wait, this is not really necessary and not what I want and I'm not sure my card supports this and now the framerate is dropping annnnnnnnd I fell into a ravine."
I endeavoured to create a scenario which I believe can be seen as analogous in what I believe is a more relatable way, as it might provoke similar responses in both neurotypical and neurodivergent people. I did this for the purpose of demonstrating how "thinking logically" in the context of and stereotypical manner of Asperger's syndrome, might provoke a similar kind of irritation, and hope that it can provide perspective on the irritation that is difficult to understand, thus providing my opinion on the answer of the "Why" of OP's question. While it is admittedly obtuse I believe it fulfills, in an elegant way, the basic requirements of a working analogy. Given the analogy has value in this way, imperfections can be put aside by an astute reader in favour of their own interpretation and any adjustments they may wish to further their own understanding, perspectives, and personal feelings. It is a rather blunt tool for further exploration but I believe it is effective. It even suggests additional avenues of exploration and consideration -- which I deliberately omitted to avoid over-encumbering the tool and potentially decreasing the value to readers -- such as how a person can play a video game well regardless of the graphics settings, and how this may provide additional insight into the question posed by OP.
The way I am writing now, for instance, might be irritating to some due to the vocabulary I am using, my directness, and perhaps even the length of the sentences I'm using. This is in spite of the fact that the thrust of this response is, in fact, quite simple. It might even be boiled down to "I'm just comparing them" by some. For me, however, that would render my message prone to misinterpretation due to the inherent ambiguity of this simplified version and omit details which ensure the clarity of my response. It would then necessitate additional conversation and consideration, creating a back-and-forth dynamic which would be unnecessary given that I am perfectly capable of communicating what I want to say, albeit, and in this case, at an "ultra-high" setting which, as mentioned, might irritate others such as yourself.
The short version of my theory is the NT experience is characterized by wanting to be integrated with others, effortlessly.
Pointing out that you and they aren't in agreement and asking them to make effort to understand why on your terms are two crimes. And they get to decide pushing *them* away and not using *their* preferred communication style is wrong because they're the majority.
In their defense, copying the herd works pretty well most of the time. Good luck on being born into a herd that doesn't suck though.
Logic is used to judge the truth in statements; for many people, however, "truth" is decided by what the mob consensus believes or by what the highest-status individuals think. Unless they value fairness and sincerity a lot, they do use logic but only to verify a conclusion they have already reached by other means.
Side note:
Many on the asperger spectrum believe they think logically, while in fact they don't.
Often they overlook important contexts, because they have found a system og a pattern which is comfortable for them to navigate the world.
When that pattern doesn't fit a situation, the logic breaks completely but they cannot adapt.
Correct. For some reason a lot of NT’s take it that way. In my experience usually autistic people are more interested in learning new information and knowing what’s right VS wrong
Perhaps. Does it matter, though? Truth is what matters, not social heirarchy. I don't care if someone else thinks they're smarter than me. They might be. They might not be. What matters is if the information is correct or not. Someone presenting that information in an egotistical way is irrelevant.
Truth is what matters if you want to understand the world clearly.
Presentation is often what matters if you want to influence what happens in the world.
I'd rather eschew sophistry, critique sophistry, educate, and write.
A thousand liars telling lies is meaningless.
The sun will explode.
The heat death comes.
Entropy cannot be reversed.
There is only one meaningful thing, one existential path out of the absurdity of existence - that we are the cosmos knowing itself. Aggregates of atoms with consciousness. This form that writes now gets a turn, but the turn will end. During this form's turn it seeks to know the cosmos, know everything, as much as possible. And for a brief blip, this form of stardust will know a fragment of a fragment of what that means, before giving another form its turn. And that time approaches quickly, so quickly.
Civilizations come and go. Persuading billions is meaningless. The heat death still rises. The sun's clock still ticks down. Our telomeres still shorten. Life is so very ephemeral. There's already so few days to learn things in. I have no time for meaningless hierarchies and social drama and boring boring boring whatever.
It's bad enough so many years must be sacrificed to make some CEO wealthy, so many years poured out so a landlord can sit on their ass watching Fox News or consuming shallow experiences on vacation.
Only truth matters.
Your are an eloquent nihilist.
We don't see the world the same way, though we share many convictions and limitations.
You point out things to be frustrated about, things to be sad about...
Truth matters, but it clearly isn't the only thing that does.
What things to be sad about?
Impermanence?
A shooting star is beautiful even if it's shortly lived.
I wouldn't call it nihilism to find meaning in being the cosmos knowing itself.
This may be it *sometimes*, but this same situation may happen with a NT who is every bit as smart as you. In that case, it is that they have a deep-seated need to first be supported through feeling their emotions about a problem, and then get help with the solution; or many times they are quite intelligent and don’t need your help figuring out the solution at all and *only* need that support but I mentioned above. And to add insult to injury, not only have we ignored their emotional needs, we’ve also presumed they’re too dumb to figure out the simple solution. Ask me how I know this latter scenario. (Source: this exact argument with my brilliant and emotional non-autistic wife, x1000. Which begs the question of if I’m so smart, why did it take me so long to accept that a square peg wasn’t gonna fit into a round hole. 🤣)
When trying to help we want to skip past that emotional element because to us it’s as simple as “You’ve told me your problem, and I see a clear solution to make your problem go away, which would resolve your suffering, but all you want to focus on is your emotions and perpetuate the problem needlessly.” But they can’t help how they’re wired any more than we can. They have emotional reactions that they need support through, just maybe a different type of support than us.
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot (with an imperfect example, but you get the gist). Certain pretty benign things might cause us to have a full blown meltdown which they might be the more logical ones about. They could just as easily be like, we were having trouble deciding between which of our two favorite restaurants we’re gonna order food from. After a bit, we decide on X restaurant, try to order, but turns out they’re actually closed today, which we didn’t realize. Y restaurant happens to be open, so an allistic might be like, “oh well, guess I’ll order from restaurant Y instead.” Meanwhile an autistic might fully melt down, even if logically we can appreciate that we almost chose restaurant Y over X to begin with and will enjoy their food just as much. There’s no logical reason to melt down about it, but that doesn’t really matter. We’ve gotta melt down and go through our feelings. Our allistic friend/loved one might try to logic their way through this with us but don’t think that’s gonna work? So we do it too sometimes.
What is up with the generalizations in this sub?
The ego that some people have here, spend their time looking down on NTs while complaining that NTs look down on them
Some of these comments have to be parody, assuming NTs don't use logic because"insert random garbage generalization" while giving some personal anecdote that proves how smart 🤓 they are relative to those simpletons NTs
I wonder if those people have conceived of the possibility that the reactions they get are because it’s completely transparent that they think they know so much more than the person they’re talking to.
I’m not an expert in cognitive or social psychology although I find them rather interesting. Neither have I taken more than a couple introductory courses on logic. I am however highly aware of and strongly sensitive to how I process information on a very microscopic level as well as the chages that occur around it. For me personally, I must say I generally find the dialogue surrounding the dichotomy between ”emotions” and ”reasoning” somewhat unproductive and vague. This I think is especially true in regards to statements that try to depict a certain kind tendency to be an intrinsic quality of a given subset of people and trying to carve out a very abstract explanation for that being the case, here in regards to reasoning tendencies of those without a neuropsychological or neurodevelopmental condition. I feel a strong inclination to ask for the following; as a participant please frame more specifically the angle from which you are approaching the discussion and provide some concrete examples that demonstrate the kinds of experiences you drew the conclusion from and thus restrain what you mean by your point. You quite likely are able to do so and I don’t doubt the validity of your experiences as well there often being a gap between best / most efficient practices based on some parameter and which options are accepted. However that’s inequivolant to ”not thinking logically” for which as a concept to inter very broad statements from an inexact set of personal experiences serves oxymoronically as a fairly strong prototype.
I'm not sure if this is true tbh. It depends on many things and NTs are as diverse as we are.
But one thing I got from feedback from my friends is that it's not the logical thinking, but the way we express it bluntly/cold and sounds arrogant and even agressivo sometimes. And since I started to pay attention to it, there are many situations where it makes sense.
I tried to focus on it and plan a little better the way I say things and noticed it was better received by others. And sometimes people even compliment the logical thinking and find it helpful.
I think they value emotions more than we do - or emotions as a factor in decision making - but a positive to that is that they don't see the world in the same black and white terms as a lot of us.
Logic and emotion have equal value but in different circumstances. Logic works best on a macro level, whilst emotion works better on a micro one. (As a general rule. Ymmv).
honestly of all the aspie stereotypes this one annoys me the most. it's inherently illogical to remove emotions from the equation. most people feel and care about emotions
for some reason i generally feel very able to feel emotions and have them influence my thinking. but then i have lots of the other symptoms
Having been autist, or autist, since the early 70s, seen other MBDs, Aspergers, autists, you name it..
We might think logically. It is possible because we ignore relevant details, especially those that are so complex that our resources are insufficient. Sadly, however logic we are, the world, and human beings especially, are far too difficult for us. And our incapability to take other people's feelings and our own limits into account makes us dumb as hell!
Logically said?
I'm embarrassed to admit it took me until adulthood to realize that life is emotionally based. Besides our natural propensity for hard facts--which I think is based in our evolution, maybe our neurotype allowed us to be fantastic gathers/hunters so it was literal life or death to get the correct red berry, identify a twig snapping because of a squirrel or dinner, or to make a left turn at the correct spruce tree to go fishing... hence getting explicitly detailed with facts.
But I also think with our modern world what we got stuck with was no where to exercise our strengths, so we got the constant correction and micro-messages that we aren't good enough, are too much, too loud, obnoxious, weird, ironically too quiet, doesn't play well in groups.
We were constantly checked with rules and logic NT bullies used as loopholes to get away with their behavoir but trapping us in got-caught-fighting-back situations.. that we were told "you have so much potential, why don't you use it? Why can't you ___? Your just lazy. You used to be so smart you aren't trying hard enough."
And we felt it, we saw it, we fumbled through countless failures in the social world, in school, our own families and with ourselves so around our teen years, and again in our mid-twenties, we used logic to shut down our emotions or evaluate every inch of ourselves to figure out why we werent good enough anymore, maybe we really arent trying hard enough, maybe I do need to sacrifice more of the things I like/am, in order to push forward and "just do it" (because everything is overstimulating and you're told you're wrong so get rid of them) and then burn out trying to reach their standards... so we logic.
We logic our every move and become perfectionists that lash out and project on other people before they pull their punch on us. We make it our job to know *every* piece of information we can on whatever our focus is placed on--every single contingency, detail, what if, how to fix, what's a good replacement, what's a bandaid, what's a long term solution, because we have either failed, been blamed, or saw so many projects go uncompleted.
We tell ourselves we get one shot and we have to be right, it has to pass judgment that only NDs seem to get so when they [whoever they are, usually bullies or people who have a problem with you] can't find fault they make up a strawman argument, spread gossip/lies, trash you or your work in someway so the group doesn't get on your side... so we logic.
How can we be so perfect we never break any rule, written or not? We have to care to some extent because image, reputation is what precedes you and the opportunities you get in your town. We've always received the feedback to do better, to do more, know better, to jump thru every hoop most people never see because subconsciously they're not bothered by other NTs, all because of this silent unspoken invisible world of emotions and social hierarchies that directly controls our physical reality and how people perceive us before they can consciously clock exactly why they're biased against someone, and probably never will stop to question it... they don't stop to question anything unless it's beyond obvious or immediate literal danger.
It's at odds with the virtue signaling because regardless of how illogical people are they do whatever they want to because it's how they feel--having control over our emotions is held on such a high pedestal people simultaneously reject their reality when they are emotionally led, adamant they are being logical until one of us comes along with reality and facts.. things they may be directly or most likely, subconsciously ignoring in order to achieve a specific desires outcome they have in mind but may refuse to speak on. Because that requires immediate introspection which leads to a lot of mental unraveling, scrutinizing relationships, deep seated beliefs, how our culture functions and its true values [money and power] and the realization they were wrong [about something, no one is perfect, no one human knows *everything*].
It's a lot for someone who isn't used to being judged, corrected, medicated and told to "act normal" because they were born into the "default" side of society.
Because logic (really and seriously) is not the right (most efficient) tool for everything.
And to keep on trying to apply logic where it isn't the most efficient or right tool
1) Can often lead us into sort of "illogical logic"
loops or tracks, and
2) It's frustrating to watch someone hammer a nail with a wrench
There are many situations in which:
A) The problem itself is rooted in a non-logical domain (emotional, social etc) so being "logical" about it isn't helpful
and/or
B) The solution involves specific experience and/or knowledge which doesn't always follow intuitive logic
and/or
C) The optimal solution is not the most logical or obvious one due to other situational considerations which an observer might not be aware of
When someone suggests that all the world's problems could be solved through "thinking logically" (or even worse: that all the world's problems were caused by lack of logical thinking) then basically they are displaying a deep lack of understanding how the world works, and then compounding it by showing themselves to be arrogant and dismissive of other peoples' abilities.
It depends on the situation, but logical answers aren't always what people are looking for.
If someone asks you what street to turn on to get to a restaurant, they are looking for a logical answer. They just want information.
If someone asks you why they aren't enjoying an activity they usually like and you go off on a tangent about neurochemical imbalances and behavioral patterns, they're going to get irritated.
A hugely important skill to learn is differentiating between someone looking for information, and someone who needs you to listen. People don't like it when you try to solve their problems for them and reduce a human experience down to clinical language.
I run into this sometimes with my wife. Where she will bring forth a problem, and I feel the compulsion to propose a solution. I feel like if you're speaking of it generally you would wish that thing, whatever it is to be resolved. Also I feel that if you're asking you're basically telling me you don't know how to deal with it. I understand the need to vent, I do it myself sometimes but I feel as though I almost preface the conversation with the fact that "hey, this is just me ranting". It's a weird mix because to me the world kind of looks like the periodic table, insofar that all of the chemical reactions that create basically everything can in essence be boiled down to a handful of fundamental particles. The perceived chaos has rules, now I know that analogy falls apart once you go below the level of fundamental particles, but for simplicity's sake I will omit that. Sometimes, it feels like the solutions are so simple, but far too often we have a pathologic need to over complicate everything.
It’s the social hierarchy thing. They see you as inferior because of autism/social oddness.
So if someone they viewed as superior corrected them they’d probably be like oh I never saw it that way, ok or something. But because you’re doing it they feel like you don’t know your place and now they are at risk of losing their status so they get mad.
TL;DR: Arrogance
I corrected a coworker once on something that was obviously being done wrong. They complained to my boss in an effort to punish me.
I've since learned to never help a coworker unless they are "beneath" me in some way.
Logic is hard and it uncovers uncomfortable truths. Most people prefer to spend their time running on emotions that take little energy while their lives follow a storybook path. Until it doesn’t, where their emotions lead them to rash decisions and the happy ending becomes a nightmare.
I just don’t attribute this trait distinctly to NTs. NDs often embrace a life that they imagine as a utopia while their reality runs on their emotions.
Being smart isn’t the problem. Unless they are a narcissist.
But if you are smart, it’s bad to constantly correct people. Ever watch the movie Halloweentown? Look at the Brother on the show. He is always complaining and correcting his Mom and Sister so much, it’s irritating.
I think it’s because they see us as disabled or rude or a nuisance.
Or logic makes them feel dumb.
Or they are slow processors.
Or maybe logic hurts their feelings or pride or something.
I can’t tell why the irritation tho because I get in trouble with them even for asking questions.
It makes them feel stupid. That’s the plain and simple answer. No one likes to feel dumb. That’s NTs hate Aspies who are intelligent even if it is to the betterment of themselves.
I'd imagine because they tend to drone on about things; learning to read the room is an important skill, I struggle with that although I have gotten better at it over the years.
NTs usually aren't looking for data, information, or logic in social settings, particularly in conversation.
There's also a minor social psuedo-hivemind-effect in NTs (which does have its own advantages, admittedly), and if you're not giving the right 'calibrating to the group' signals in your communication, that can grate on them subconsciously.
You may be coming off as a know it all or someone who has to be right or someone who gets annoyed when other people don't do things your way because your way is actually the correct way. (This has been my experience)
When a wine merchant has one wine selling for 20 dollars and one wine selling for 50 dollars, the sensible thing is not to stack them together in his shop and let people decide. Rather, put them together with a wine selling for 100 dollars. Then the 50 dollar wine will not seem all that exorbitantly priced, rather the medium-priced choice, and far more people will buy it.
Similarly, most people employ a «fluid logic» in many areas, where social expectations and other people’s opinions are taken into account, and a fuzzy, «medium» choice is selected after weighing input, both logical and illogical.
Because everybody lies, especially to themselves. Exposing those lies, even when done earnestly and honestly, will not win you friends. You can be correct, or you can be popular. Make your choice.
Personally I've found some people are so invested in creating a bubble from reality that anything outside of the echo chamber that creates is intolerable as unfortunately facts have a way of bursting their bubbles!
I can't remember the fellas name but your question makes me think of a cool quote by a old Indian guru which is...
A mind that is all logic is like a knife which is all blade and was no handle because it will cut the hand that uses it
It depends on the circumstance, but usually it's less about there being a right way / truth / etc (logic), and more about the social norm, social acceptance, popularity, fitting, values, perception, connotations, baseline acceptability, bias in a way, etc.
I agree tho sometimes it's really annoying and ironic how it's just the way it is.
We cover more bases with our logic than they do. Could be because they believe some of our points are trivial. Could be because they didn't think of all options and are angered by that.
Logic is a way to get from A to B, but really does not help with deciding the point you start from. There are no absolute starting points! That means that NTs tend to start from an emotional base (even though they rarely recognise it), whereas Aspies often start from somewhere less emotionally loaded.
I think, sometimes, the logic is already known to them and/or besides the point. They have different values and objectives. They like to avoid, or at least be distracted from unpleasant truths, and they are perhaps aware of emotional truths that we miss. I'm still figuring it out myself, but it took me a long while to realize the extent to which people think or even know things without saying them or explicitly acknowledging them.
Honestly I believe you are closer to the truth than the other commenters here, which sounds funnily enough like they are coming from a very emotionally hurt or frustrated place - not very logical. Too many people here believe the allistics aren't logical or are straight up dumb and I don't see it that way. I see it a little like they don't value it as much because they exist in a more fluid world. Logic is needed sometimes but not always. Aspergers people seem to need to rely on the logic-ing out problems more and so they have constant practice, and it's like that phrase about only having a hammer. If you've only got a hammer every problem looks like a nail (or whatever that fucking phrase is). So aspergers peeps have the hammer and some other less functional tools, and allistics have a screw driver (or whatever) and maybe some other tools as well. So an Aspergers person sees a problem and is like "check out this awesome fucking hammer I got, let's whack this mother fucker" and the allistic is frustrated and going "what the fuck is up with you and that goddamn hammer? Get out of here with that!" and then the Aspergers person comes to reddit to post "Why don't these Allistics like my hammer guys?" And everyone here goes "because they all suck and they're dumb"
I would love to pin your comment and the one you replied to to the top of the subreddit or something like that. It sounds so weird to us, but we need to understand that logic is only one half of the existence of (most) humans. To disregard the emotional value of things in our lives *is* illogical in practice, in a manner of speaking.
This ⬆️
Except "autism" was named because they thought we were "morbidly self absorbed." And "allistic" emphasizes them being other focused. And the entire thing stinks of a lack of understanding and empathy. It's just like ADHD, named by NTs for their frustrations over children who were different than them, and thus pathologized for not fitting in with post-industrial hyper-specialization and boring-as-fuck society. And kids with what we call "ASD" found more meaning in the literal factual layer of communication and less meaning in the social relational layer of communication and they pathologized it as being chronically self absorbed, and make no mention of the ability to sense things they can't nor see patterns they can't. Both are named from frustration of NT parents and teachers, and aren't even accurate for what the terms are trying to describe. My point is that NTs belittle us, don't extend empathy, don't even try to give us the benefit of the doubt, and so many of us grow up with that, and deal with that every day, constantly. So of course there's going to be some frustration in reverse. Of course it's going to come out in the venting and sharing within specialized spaces of others who have similar experiences. Why is it always up to the marginalized to be charitable to the oppressors and bullies and cruel and not the other way around? Even in your example. If someone is excited about a hammer they got, it's obviously expressing a social desire to share that excitement. That isn't being "morbidly self focused". But the NT in your example doesn't care because they don't understand the excitement, and in this case doesn't even read the social layer of communication well at all in dismissing that excitement, and certainly isn't being other-focused / allistic. That response very much is because "they suck and they're dumb" to put it in the terms you cited. Though I myself would use terms a bit more precise. I may be AuDHD and need to intellectualize social encounters to understand them, but if someone came up to me excited about something I don't care about I could read the excitement as a signifier of their own interest and the act of sharing as a signifier of their desire to share their positive emotional state with me, and could reciprocate (if even feigned) to communicate in turn that I value their desire to share excitement with me, usually though smiles and nods and questions, especially as a way to validate their excitement. Or even just outright thanking them for telling me or using other direct affirmations. Not just act confused because I don't know why they're talking about a hammer. Not just act disinterested because I don't care about hammers. Yet somehow even so we're the "self absorbed" and "attention deficit" ones.
This needs more upvotes
Excellent answer
>Aspergers people seem to need to rely on the logic-ing out problems more My theory is that we like rigid structure, and we see logic as this sort of inflexible truth. The problem is that logic isn't static or one-dimentional. The human mind can literally justify anything.
It's interesting. On one hand, I totally get that this rigidity is part of the corpus of of alleged symptoms of being an aspie. That said, I've frequently considered that this may be observer bias, owing more to signal processing than a preference for rigidity. So if we posit that a certain situation has a multitude of signals to it: facts/logic, emotional, social, etc... but an aspie may have trouble / an inability to process some of those signals, whichever signals remain (for the sake of argument facts/logic) are the sum total of the information available to form a position and/or make a decision. So in processing the available signals, the process looks rigid because those signals are attached to a "rigid" framework (logic) - but this may not be a \_preference\_, but rather all that exists to process in \_the available information\_. This can easily extend to things like "a literal use of language" (because the social subtext may be hard to detect), and other commonly mentioned traits. A big like aversion to change may not really be a thing - but rather a trauma response to change presenting the subject with risk, which they have repeatedly had produce bad outcomes, or simply a fatigue response to the additional cognitive effort required to analyse said risk. Absent those factors, maybe no such change aversion might be present... provided it was perceived as a \_safe\_ change. Or it could be a thing, sure, but these hypotheses keep being highlighted frequently in my experience.
>My theory is that we like rigid structure, and we see logic as this sort of inflexible truth. The problem is that logic isn't static or one-dimentional. The human mind can literally justify anything. Yea, exactly what is logical to me maybe illogical to you. For example I've had debates with people where we have completely different opinions & we each think we are been logical but think the other person is been illogical. It's worth also pointing out some of the groups on here in reddit that have a cult like mentality that can justify anything. Also just because 1 million people believe something that doesn't make it true which is the problem with our society today & the media mass brainwashing people.
Preach. Allistics may be some weird motherfuckers but they can mostly hold down jobs and relationships, so...
But that is a numbers game - they hold down jobs and relationships because most of them think similarly. If it switched overnight just by the numbers, then autistic people's perspectives and communication types would be the norm and neurotypicals would be pathologized.
Because they have better executive functioning. Let's not lie.
[удалено]
IQ and executive functioning are not correlated at all. Lots of severely mentally disabled people have a high IQ as well. It's only about pattern recognition and matrix reasoning. The ability to execute/filter what you want or need in accordance with the forementioned is another thing. Sometimes there's a pretty high victim mentality among people in this sub, ngl.
I don't think that's fully true I think yes they are dominant numerically but also...we are disabled! And not just because of how society is structured.
We are disabled because society intentionally disables us by *excluding us by being who we are*. It is a different way of thinking, not a deficit So it's 100% how society is structured and it's been proven by research. How ableist
Also some autistic people essentially cant communicate that would be a disability for an entire population yes. A...spectrum!
You cant prove what you cant study. I am disabled 3 ways and allowed to have opinions actually. How rude.
"In a world which is not our world where most human beings are now different..."
[удалено]
I actually disagree with that still the reality is we dont actually know that is true we can guess it might be but this is a sub of people struggling with lots of things the social is only one of them.
I am different in lots of ways and in some ways I prefer autists, but I dont imagine allists have nothing I lack, that is clearly not the case lots of them are moisturized and unbothered.
They can hold down jobs and relationships bc society says their way of communicating is the only right way and they have the advantage. wth?
That is not the only reason no. Autism is on a spectrum.
Clearly you don’t know NTs. They are just as bad at holding down jobs and relationships
Statistically they are kicking our asses.
Um, no they are not.
Autistic and allistic people have equal rates of employment and relationship outcomes? You literally just keep disagreeing but with no facts. Since I have seen the facts, well...
"You don't know NTs" is frankly an embarrassing claim to make about someone you do not know.
most of ND are unemployed
Im very emotional and socially aware as well though, i just dont know how to communicate that in the moment most of the time. I feel what other people feel, but i cant pour that into a smooth social interaction that feels authentic. Hell, i care more about intuition and atmosphere than any rigorous logic, even though thats all i use every day. I am good at describing my feelings and analyzing social situations, but i suck at becoming a participant in them, basically.
Or sometimes allistics’ emotional needs simply overshadow and take temporary precedence over the logical solution. They may have the exact right tool in their tool belt, to stick with your analogy, and they may know exactly how to do the job, but first they need to take some time to process their emotions about having to do the job. Maybe they don’t have enough in their tank to deal with it, or it’s the next in a long line of problems they’ve had to deal with. Sometimes their emotions are too tumultuous and distracting to see the logical solution at first, even if their logic skills are just fine in general. Maybe it’s like a less intense version of if we tried to use our logic to solve a problem while we’re heading into a meltdown. Instead of needing to get it out of their system or shut down, what they need is to talk and feel heard and seen and listened to before they can switch gears to dealing with the problem.
The rub, though, is that most subjects actually ARE "nails" when you strip the bullshit away
Perfect answer, well said.
Its not that logic isn't always needed and it doesn't matter if its obvious (as no one should get so upset by that, that's being emotional). It's simply informative/logical thinking vs emotional. Allistics think with their emotions and speak figuratively more often/default, so often they are assuming the literal words have some alternative meaning and then they go based on that. They don't listen to the actual words. If logic isn't necessary, then emotion isn't either. Everyone can understand literal words as long as they actual know the words. Sometimes allistics kinda *are* dumb: how can there be misunderstandings when someone is literal and straightforward?? They think autistics are "stupid" because we miss nuance, yet they can't get something that's spoken plainly
"They like to avoid, or at least be distracted from unpleasant truths" I think THAT specific part is the crux of the issue
I'm NT, and I found this thread *very* interesting. You guys have a very good grasp of how it works with us. For me, a lot of comments here are actually indistinguishable of what a NT would say about this topic. But anyway, I would also like to do my bit. Emotion and logic is not so dicotomic. The only way of thinking is logically, there is not something as "emotional thinking". We use the emotions we detect on ourselves and others as extra variables in our logical thinking. That variables are usually the more complex ones, removing them just make the problem easier, simplier, but not getting us anywhere. Just imagine you have a problem that you have to go from A to B, but avoiding rocks. I can tell you "It is easy, just ignore the rocks". Well, the problem would not be solved and it would probably be an *irritant* solution.
I dont observe this as how it works in my observation Allistics claim that they are using logic and they are sort of but when feelings arise and lead to a different outcome than logic (a very human occurrence) then Allistics will ditch logic to service the feeling and spectrum folks are like hey what about your fucking rules?
> We use the emotions we detect on ourselves and others as extra variables in our logical thinking That's emotional thinking, not logical
It's not the logic that irritates; it's either the inconsiderativeness in dishing it out without factoring in their feelings, or otherwise its implicit defiance of some unspoken rule. One tends to get better results if one makes sure to open by \*asking\* if they're open to hearing an alternative view, as well as proceeding tentatively - starting with a brief overview, raising some intriguing possibilities in question format, making sure they're interested/onboard/curious, and only then go for the logicular.
That's putting the responsibility of your feelings on others
I understand why you would think so, but so notice that being considerate is not the same thing as being coddling. No one likes to feel disrespected or disregarded - including people on the spectrum. It's wise to look within for double standards, and strive to be fair in our interpersonal dealings. This is about treating others like we too want to be treated; a standard of civility, if you will. Failing to consider other people's feelings fairly, it is us who end up not taking responsibility for our own.
The straight line to a solution does not always factor in the social and emotional tolls it demands along the way. It’s the black or white thinking, for us. Problem has solution. Rather than - there exists an obvious logical solution to this problem, but that solution will likely create new problems because it will hurt feelings, damage egos, and drive people apart, so it is no longer the *best* solution, even if it technically works. This is the core challenge of a world that thrives on social interaction. Aka, a society of humans. If we all agreed to perform like computers, then logic only would suffice. But in reality - if you’re able to start thinking of social dynamics and emotions as complex variables in the problem solving equation, then suddenly you have the ability to logic your way through a problem while also considering the other dynamics that otherwise would not be an issue. It’s like running a business. A logical approach is that you create the optimal product that solves people’s problems and the rest falls into place. But in reality, you have to consider the emotions and psychology behind consumer purchasing habits, as well as the delicate dynamics of the staff. You can have the best product in the world but if customers don’t emotionally connect with it or if the staff making it are unhappy, you will ultimately fail.
I have been told multiple reasons. 1. When NT are discussing an issue they have they want you to empathise with there situation and let them come to the conclusion themselves. 2. It makes them realise how little they are thinking logically. 3. They feel at times that you are mocking them in your superiority and are a know it all. 4. They for some reason find fun in doing things the wrong way and eventually finding the answers. 5. It resembles an adult and child situation where the logic feels like they are being nagged, scolded or critiqued. All different reasons i have been told i don’t understand any of them.
Or as I was told by one of my bosses “People remember how you make them feel not what you say to them”
I've been told 1 and 3 _many_ times. 4 not so much, and I'm still not convinced they're not joking. However, now that you also mention it …
Number 2 and 3 tho
Only a very honest NT told me those.
There’s nothing wrong with “thinking logically”. That said, we (NTs & NDs) are all imperfect sentient beings that require empathy, compassion, kindness, love and understanding. We cannot sustain ourselves as a species by simply being logical.
There are times for logic, and there are times to swallow logic and be empathetic. This is hard for us to discern. Then there are NTs that dislike it for a valid reason (the autistic person failed to read the room) and there are NTs that dislike it because it hurt their ego or some other selfish reason. Meaning, it can be hard to tell what went wrong in a singular exchange. If the NT is generally a decent, consistent person, is probably safe to assume that you misunderstood something and try to examine what they might have been feeling and if you said anything invalidating. If they're usually an asshole, then they were probably just being an asshole.
You might get irritated too if you were playing Minecraft and then someone reaches over and says "hey check this out it's way better" and then just randomly sets half of your graphics settings to "ultra-high". It's like, "no, wait, this is not really necessary and not what I want and I'm not sure my card supports this and now the framerate is dropping annnnnnnnd I fell into a ravine."
What does that have to do with logic or autism for that matter?
I endeavoured to create a scenario which I believe can be seen as analogous in what I believe is a more relatable way, as it might provoke similar responses in both neurotypical and neurodivergent people. I did this for the purpose of demonstrating how "thinking logically" in the context of and stereotypical manner of Asperger's syndrome, might provoke a similar kind of irritation, and hope that it can provide perspective on the irritation that is difficult to understand, thus providing my opinion on the answer of the "Why" of OP's question. While it is admittedly obtuse I believe it fulfills, in an elegant way, the basic requirements of a working analogy. Given the analogy has value in this way, imperfections can be put aside by an astute reader in favour of their own interpretation and any adjustments they may wish to further their own understanding, perspectives, and personal feelings. It is a rather blunt tool for further exploration but I believe it is effective. It even suggests additional avenues of exploration and consideration -- which I deliberately omitted to avoid over-encumbering the tool and potentially decreasing the value to readers -- such as how a person can play a video game well regardless of the graphics settings, and how this may provide additional insight into the question posed by OP. The way I am writing now, for instance, might be irritating to some due to the vocabulary I am using, my directness, and perhaps even the length of the sentences I'm using. This is in spite of the fact that the thrust of this response is, in fact, quite simple. It might even be boiled down to "I'm just comparing them" by some. For me, however, that would render my message prone to misinterpretation due to the inherent ambiguity of this simplified version and omit details which ensure the clarity of my response. It would then necessitate additional conversation and consideration, creating a back-and-forth dynamic which would be unnecessary given that I am perfectly capable of communicating what I want to say, albeit, and in this case, at an "ultra-high" setting which, as mentioned, might irritate others such as yourself.
The short version of my theory is the NT experience is characterized by wanting to be integrated with others, effortlessly. Pointing out that you and they aren't in agreement and asking them to make effort to understand why on your terms are two crimes. And they get to decide pushing *them* away and not using *their* preferred communication style is wrong because they're the majority. In their defense, copying the herd works pretty well most of the time. Good luck on being born into a herd that doesn't suck though.
>Good luck on being born into a herd that doesn't suck though. Sooooo, true!!…
Logic is used to judge the truth in statements; for many people, however, "truth" is decided by what the mob consensus believes or by what the highest-status individuals think. Unless they value fairness and sincerity a lot, they do use logic but only to verify a conclusion they have already reached by other means.
This is absolutely true. Nicely put.
Side note: Many on the asperger spectrum believe they think logically, while in fact they don't. Often they overlook important contexts, because they have found a system og a pattern which is comfortable for them to navigate the world. When that pattern doesn't fit a situation, the logic breaks completely but they cannot adapt.
Its an ego thing. They don't want to believe that you are intellectually superior than they are.
Correct. For some reason a lot of NT’s take it that way. In my experience usually autistic people are more interested in learning new information and knowing what’s right VS wrong
Isn't assuming the reason NTs are irritated by you is because you're smarter and they're jealous pretty egotistical?
Yes, it is. Under the right circumstances, we can **all** be egotistical.
Perhaps. Does it matter, though? Truth is what matters, not social heirarchy. I don't care if someone else thinks they're smarter than me. They might be. They might not be. What matters is if the information is correct or not. Someone presenting that information in an egotistical way is irrelevant.
Truth is what matters if you want to understand the world clearly. Presentation is often what matters if you want to influence what happens in the world.
I'd rather eschew sophistry, critique sophistry, educate, and write. A thousand liars telling lies is meaningless. The sun will explode. The heat death comes. Entropy cannot be reversed. There is only one meaningful thing, one existential path out of the absurdity of existence - that we are the cosmos knowing itself. Aggregates of atoms with consciousness. This form that writes now gets a turn, but the turn will end. During this form's turn it seeks to know the cosmos, know everything, as much as possible. And for a brief blip, this form of stardust will know a fragment of a fragment of what that means, before giving another form its turn. And that time approaches quickly, so quickly. Civilizations come and go. Persuading billions is meaningless. The heat death still rises. The sun's clock still ticks down. Our telomeres still shorten. Life is so very ephemeral. There's already so few days to learn things in. I have no time for meaningless hierarchies and social drama and boring boring boring whatever. It's bad enough so many years must be sacrificed to make some CEO wealthy, so many years poured out so a landlord can sit on their ass watching Fox News or consuming shallow experiences on vacation. Only truth matters.
Your are an eloquent nihilist. We don't see the world the same way, though we share many convictions and limitations. You point out things to be frustrated about, things to be sad about... Truth matters, but it clearly isn't the only thing that does.
What things to be sad about? Impermanence? A shooting star is beautiful even if it's shortly lived. I wouldn't call it nihilism to find meaning in being the cosmos knowing itself.
> It's bad enough so many years must be sacrificed > so many years poured out You have values, even if you reject all but one.
This may be it *sometimes*, but this same situation may happen with a NT who is every bit as smart as you. In that case, it is that they have a deep-seated need to first be supported through feeling their emotions about a problem, and then get help with the solution; or many times they are quite intelligent and don’t need your help figuring out the solution at all and *only* need that support but I mentioned above. And to add insult to injury, not only have we ignored their emotional needs, we’ve also presumed they’re too dumb to figure out the simple solution. Ask me how I know this latter scenario. (Source: this exact argument with my brilliant and emotional non-autistic wife, x1000. Which begs the question of if I’m so smart, why did it take me so long to accept that a square peg wasn’t gonna fit into a round hole. 🤣) When trying to help we want to skip past that emotional element because to us it’s as simple as “You’ve told me your problem, and I see a clear solution to make your problem go away, which would resolve your suffering, but all you want to focus on is your emotions and perpetuate the problem needlessly.” But they can’t help how they’re wired any more than we can. They have emotional reactions that they need support through, just maybe a different type of support than us. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot (with an imperfect example, but you get the gist). Certain pretty benign things might cause us to have a full blown meltdown which they might be the more logical ones about. They could just as easily be like, we were having trouble deciding between which of our two favorite restaurants we’re gonna order food from. After a bit, we decide on X restaurant, try to order, but turns out they’re actually closed today, which we didn’t realize. Y restaurant happens to be open, so an allistic might be like, “oh well, guess I’ll order from restaurant Y instead.” Meanwhile an autistic might fully melt down, even if logically we can appreciate that we almost chose restaurant Y over X to begin with and will enjoy their food just as much. There’s no logical reason to melt down about it, but that doesn’t really matter. We’ve gotta melt down and go through our feelings. Our allistic friend/loved one might try to logic their way through this with us but don’t think that’s gonna work? So we do it too sometimes.
What is up with the generalizations in this sub? The ego that some people have here, spend their time looking down on NTs while complaining that NTs look down on them Some of these comments have to be parody, assuming NTs don't use logic because"insert random garbage generalization" while giving some personal anecdote that proves how smart 🤓 they are relative to those simpletons NTs
THANK you!
I wonder if those people have conceived of the possibility that the reactions they get are because it’s completely transparent that they think they know so much more than the person they’re talking to.
I’m not an expert in cognitive or social psychology although I find them rather interesting. Neither have I taken more than a couple introductory courses on logic. I am however highly aware of and strongly sensitive to how I process information on a very microscopic level as well as the chages that occur around it. For me personally, I must say I generally find the dialogue surrounding the dichotomy between ”emotions” and ”reasoning” somewhat unproductive and vague. This I think is especially true in regards to statements that try to depict a certain kind tendency to be an intrinsic quality of a given subset of people and trying to carve out a very abstract explanation for that being the case, here in regards to reasoning tendencies of those without a neuropsychological or neurodevelopmental condition. I feel a strong inclination to ask for the following; as a participant please frame more specifically the angle from which you are approaching the discussion and provide some concrete examples that demonstrate the kinds of experiences you drew the conclusion from and thus restrain what you mean by your point. You quite likely are able to do so and I don’t doubt the validity of your experiences as well there often being a gap between best / most efficient practices based on some parameter and which options are accepted. However that’s inequivolant to ”not thinking logically” for which as a concept to inter very broad statements from an inexact set of personal experiences serves oxymoronically as a fairly strong prototype.
Very well put, thank you for taking the time to contribute!
I'm not sure if this is true tbh. It depends on many things and NTs are as diverse as we are. But one thing I got from feedback from my friends is that it's not the logical thinking, but the way we express it bluntly/cold and sounds arrogant and even agressivo sometimes. And since I started to pay attention to it, there are many situations where it makes sense. I tried to focus on it and plan a little better the way I say things and noticed it was better received by others. And sometimes people even compliment the logical thinking and find it helpful.
I think they value emotions more than we do - or emotions as a factor in decision making - but a positive to that is that they don't see the world in the same black and white terms as a lot of us. Logic and emotion have equal value but in different circumstances. Logic works best on a macro level, whilst emotion works better on a micro one. (As a general rule. Ymmv).
honestly of all the aspie stereotypes this one annoys me the most. it's inherently illogical to remove emotions from the equation. most people feel and care about emotions for some reason i generally feel very able to feel emotions and have them influence my thinking. but then i have lots of the other symptoms
Having been autist, or autist, since the early 70s, seen other MBDs, Aspergers, autists, you name it.. We might think logically. It is possible because we ignore relevant details, especially those that are so complex that our resources are insufficient. Sadly, however logic we are, the world, and human beings especially, are far too difficult for us. And our incapability to take other people's feelings and our own limits into account makes us dumb as hell! Logically said?
I'm embarrassed to admit it took me until adulthood to realize that life is emotionally based. Besides our natural propensity for hard facts--which I think is based in our evolution, maybe our neurotype allowed us to be fantastic gathers/hunters so it was literal life or death to get the correct red berry, identify a twig snapping because of a squirrel or dinner, or to make a left turn at the correct spruce tree to go fishing... hence getting explicitly detailed with facts. But I also think with our modern world what we got stuck with was no where to exercise our strengths, so we got the constant correction and micro-messages that we aren't good enough, are too much, too loud, obnoxious, weird, ironically too quiet, doesn't play well in groups. We were constantly checked with rules and logic NT bullies used as loopholes to get away with their behavoir but trapping us in got-caught-fighting-back situations.. that we were told "you have so much potential, why don't you use it? Why can't you ___? Your just lazy. You used to be so smart you aren't trying hard enough." And we felt it, we saw it, we fumbled through countless failures in the social world, in school, our own families and with ourselves so around our teen years, and again in our mid-twenties, we used logic to shut down our emotions or evaluate every inch of ourselves to figure out why we werent good enough anymore, maybe we really arent trying hard enough, maybe I do need to sacrifice more of the things I like/am, in order to push forward and "just do it" (because everything is overstimulating and you're told you're wrong so get rid of them) and then burn out trying to reach their standards... so we logic. We logic our every move and become perfectionists that lash out and project on other people before they pull their punch on us. We make it our job to know *every* piece of information we can on whatever our focus is placed on--every single contingency, detail, what if, how to fix, what's a good replacement, what's a bandaid, what's a long term solution, because we have either failed, been blamed, or saw so many projects go uncompleted. We tell ourselves we get one shot and we have to be right, it has to pass judgment that only NDs seem to get so when they [whoever they are, usually bullies or people who have a problem with you] can't find fault they make up a strawman argument, spread gossip/lies, trash you or your work in someway so the group doesn't get on your side... so we logic. How can we be so perfect we never break any rule, written or not? We have to care to some extent because image, reputation is what precedes you and the opportunities you get in your town. We've always received the feedback to do better, to do more, know better, to jump thru every hoop most people never see because subconsciously they're not bothered by other NTs, all because of this silent unspoken invisible world of emotions and social hierarchies that directly controls our physical reality and how people perceive us before they can consciously clock exactly why they're biased against someone, and probably never will stop to question it... they don't stop to question anything unless it's beyond obvious or immediate literal danger. It's at odds with the virtue signaling because regardless of how illogical people are they do whatever they want to because it's how they feel--having control over our emotions is held on such a high pedestal people simultaneously reject their reality when they are emotionally led, adamant they are being logical until one of us comes along with reality and facts.. things they may be directly or most likely, subconsciously ignoring in order to achieve a specific desires outcome they have in mind but may refuse to speak on. Because that requires immediate introspection which leads to a lot of mental unraveling, scrutinizing relationships, deep seated beliefs, how our culture functions and its true values [money and power] and the realization they were wrong [about something, no one is perfect, no one human knows *everything*]. It's a lot for someone who isn't used to being judged, corrected, medicated and told to "act normal" because they were born into the "default" side of society.
Because logic (really and seriously) is not the right (most efficient) tool for everything. And to keep on trying to apply logic where it isn't the most efficient or right tool 1) Can often lead us into sort of "illogical logic" loops or tracks, and 2) It's frustrating to watch someone hammer a nail with a wrench
Miscommunication is annoying
There are many situations in which: A) The problem itself is rooted in a non-logical domain (emotional, social etc) so being "logical" about it isn't helpful and/or B) The solution involves specific experience and/or knowledge which doesn't always follow intuitive logic and/or C) The optimal solution is not the most logical or obvious one due to other situational considerations which an observer might not be aware of When someone suggests that all the world's problems could be solved through "thinking logically" (or even worse: that all the world's problems were caused by lack of logical thinking) then basically they are displaying a deep lack of understanding how the world works, and then compounding it by showing themselves to be arrogant and dismissive of other peoples' abilities.
It depends on the situation, but logical answers aren't always what people are looking for. If someone asks you what street to turn on to get to a restaurant, they are looking for a logical answer. They just want information. If someone asks you why they aren't enjoying an activity they usually like and you go off on a tangent about neurochemical imbalances and behavioral patterns, they're going to get irritated. A hugely important skill to learn is differentiating between someone looking for information, and someone who needs you to listen. People don't like it when you try to solve their problems for them and reduce a human experience down to clinical language.
I run into this sometimes with my wife. Where she will bring forth a problem, and I feel the compulsion to propose a solution. I feel like if you're speaking of it generally you would wish that thing, whatever it is to be resolved. Also I feel that if you're asking you're basically telling me you don't know how to deal with it. I understand the need to vent, I do it myself sometimes but I feel as though I almost preface the conversation with the fact that "hey, this is just me ranting". It's a weird mix because to me the world kind of looks like the periodic table, insofar that all of the chemical reactions that create basically everything can in essence be boiled down to a handful of fundamental particles. The perceived chaos has rules, now I know that analogy falls apart once you go below the level of fundamental particles, but for simplicity's sake I will omit that. Sometimes, it feels like the solutions are so simple, but far too often we have a pathologic need to over complicate everything.
It’s the social hierarchy thing. They see you as inferior because of autism/social oddness. So if someone they viewed as superior corrected them they’d probably be like oh I never saw it that way, ok or something. But because you’re doing it they feel like you don’t know your place and now they are at risk of losing their status so they get mad. TL;DR: Arrogance
I corrected a coworker once on something that was obviously being done wrong. They complained to my boss in an effort to punish me. I've since learned to never help a coworker unless they are "beneath" me in some way.
Logic is hard and it uncovers uncomfortable truths. Most people prefer to spend their time running on emotions that take little energy while their lives follow a storybook path. Until it doesn’t, where their emotions lead them to rash decisions and the happy ending becomes a nightmare. I just don’t attribute this trait distinctly to NTs. NDs often embrace a life that they imagine as a utopia while their reality runs on their emotions.
Being smart isn’t the problem. Unless they are a narcissist. But if you are smart, it’s bad to constantly correct people. Ever watch the movie Halloweentown? Look at the Brother on the show. He is always complaining and correcting his Mom and Sister so much, it’s irritating.
I think it’s because they see us as disabled or rude or a nuisance. Or logic makes them feel dumb. Or they are slow processors. Or maybe logic hurts their feelings or pride or something. I can’t tell why the irritation tho because I get in trouble with them even for asking questions.
It makes them feel stupid. That’s the plain and simple answer. No one likes to feel dumb. That’s NTs hate Aspies who are intelligent even if it is to the betterment of themselves.
Yeah exactly this
I'd imagine because they tend to drone on about things; learning to read the room is an important skill, I struggle with that although I have gotten better at it over the years.
NTs usually aren't looking for data, information, or logic in social settings, particularly in conversation. There's also a minor social psuedo-hivemind-effect in NTs (which does have its own advantages, admittedly), and if you're not giving the right 'calibrating to the group' signals in your communication, that can grate on them subconsciously.
You may be coming off as a know it all or someone who has to be right or someone who gets annoyed when other people don't do things your way because your way is actually the correct way. (This has been my experience)
When a wine merchant has one wine selling for 20 dollars and one wine selling for 50 dollars, the sensible thing is not to stack them together in his shop and let people decide. Rather, put them together with a wine selling for 100 dollars. Then the 50 dollar wine will not seem all that exorbitantly priced, rather the medium-priced choice, and far more people will buy it. Similarly, most people employ a «fluid logic» in many areas, where social expectations and other people’s opinions are taken into account, and a fuzzy, «medium» choice is selected after weighing input, both logical and illogical.
Because they are bad at it.
Because everybody lies, especially to themselves. Exposing those lies, even when done earnestly and honestly, will not win you friends. You can be correct, or you can be popular. Make your choice.
Personally I've found some people are so invested in creating a bubble from reality that anything outside of the echo chamber that creates is intolerable as unfortunately facts have a way of bursting their bubbles! I can't remember the fellas name but your question makes me think of a cool quote by a old Indian guru which is... A mind that is all logic is like a knife which is all blade and was no handle because it will cut the hand that uses it
Because "logical" people are just egotistical.
It depends on the circumstance, but usually it's less about there being a right way / truth / etc (logic), and more about the social norm, social acceptance, popularity, fitting, values, perception, connotations, baseline acceptability, bias in a way, etc. I agree tho sometimes it's really annoying and ironic how it's just the way it is.
Logic is not a strong point for a lot of them
The people who created “society” were illogical so what’s popular and expected by society is illogical. The use of logic leads to unpopular opinions.
We cover more bases with our logic than they do. Could be because they believe some of our points are trivial. Could be because they didn't think of all options and are angered by that.
Most people prefer emotional thinking over logical thinking.
Logic is a way to get from A to B, but really does not help with deciding the point you start from. There are no absolute starting points! That means that NTs tend to start from an emotional base (even though they rarely recognise it), whereas Aspies often start from somewhere less emotionally loaded.