deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“That makes one of us.”
Start with first principles - who is saying this, and are they correct?
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s correct to say that I “have” to be right, I’m open to being wrong, in this case I’m usually not
Having the last word is the most nonsensical one to me, since it’s often unclear when anyone’s word would end up being the last word or not depending on if another word is spoken afterward
There is a very apt series of shorts for your behaviour (just that we can see in the post and comments of course):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyHX8K1yfY& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxSa-C92Wno&
It is ok to know someone isn’t 100% correct and not call them out for it. It is a huge social skill not to be right all of the time, but to validate other peoples’ feelings and pursuit of learning new things. In short, just be quiet and don’t say anything like 75% of the time if you know someone is wrong.
Lol that’s hilarious, thanks for this. Very funny skits that capture a particular kind of Redditor (maybe the average as the name implies?). I don’t feel like this really accurately represents my situation though, since this guy is just douchey and pretentious/arrogant about everything, and nitpicks and corrects people over every small and trivial detail.
At least from my point of view, I’m not the one that starts arguments or argues over things unless it’s particularly important, and even then I try to let it go unless I’m being actively confronted by it.
It probably makes a difference to know that only one person has ever said these things to me. I’ve just looked into the phenomenon happening with other people as well (on Reddit 😆), and often it is just a single person in their life who does it. So it seems like either this one person is unreasonable, or the problem manifests only with them somehow.
I guess working from the position that I have reason to believe I’m in the right (not in the sense of “trying” to be right all the time, but about being genuinely stuck in a position where no matter what I do, I’ll be accused of these things anyway), it stumps me and makes me feel that even the most rational reply I could give would be met with “I have an answer for everything”… if they don’t like the fact that I’m answering them, what answer could possibly suffice? I don’t see what I’m supposed to do there.
If conversations with this one person are frequently reaching the point where things like that are being said, it seems pretty clear cut: you should honestly just avoid any of the topics that have resulted in debates with this person.
It doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t talk to them about other things or that you can’t be friends (although it might).
Not every relationship has to allow for talking about all topics.
Sometimes being right isn’t actually important and can actually be counterproductive with certain people/topics.
On the chance that you’re a fellow neurodivergent, I’m going to share something I discovered after moving back in with my mom. We neurodivergents think of information like one might think of rock collecting. We collect information, compare its shininess and smoothness to other pieces of information, roll it over in our hands. We’re eager to show information to people, and eager when someone shows us a new piece of information. Anyone enlightening us has our full attention and enthusiasm. And when we get corrected? That is the smoothest, shiniest stone. We collect that voraciously.
But 1) not everyone shares our information-collecting obsession. And 2) everyone has a weakness to their own special kind of rock – their own, private kryptonite. And we neurodivergents tend to ignore the pain when we pick up our own kryptonite because we figure “information is always good (even if it hurts).”
But it’s not good to expose a person to the information that is their kryptonite. Even our fellow neurodivergents, who will be begging us, “please, bring it closer! Knowledge is power! I must grow!”
As a neurodivergent, you must learn which rocks are kryptonite to which people. You must learn to withhold extremely relevant information in the exact conversations when it’s most pertinent – and do so precisely because its pertinence is why it’s kryptonite to the person. And you must learn to do so even with fellow neurodivergents.
Acceptable:
- ✅ - the social behavior of bonobos
- ✅ - the Flynn Effect
- ✅ - the origin of the name of various open source software projects
- ✅ - the economic argument against slavery (that’s Roman history)
- ✅ - the fact that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was actually justified, and the whole story was twisted by corporate propaganda
Unacceptable:
- 🚫 - “Tucker Carlson has been caught lying” >> [this logic here] >> “Tucker Carlson is probably not trustworthy, going forward.” (people hate hearing about that logical bridge!)
- 🚫 - the damage that you see a person’s religion of choice doing to their psyche (people really hate that)
- 🚫 - most of the situations in which someone’s beliefs are incorrect
If you want to discuss the “unacceptable” topics with people, you must look up street epistemology. But keep in mind as you learn it: discussing these topics productively will actually be painful for you if you’re a neurodivergent. As you perform street epistemology, you will be asking questions, and the person answering you will be espousing an unbearable symphony of incorrect beliefs.
And you will have to hold back your urge to say, “well, actually” dozens of times a minute, maintaining an outwardly calm appearance and somehow focusing on your next question in the middle of their blizzard of wrongness.
Huh… Didn’t know that. But it explains so much.
As a neurodivergent, you must learn which rocks are kryptonite to which people. You must learn to withhold extremely relevant information in the exact conversations when it’s most pertinent
One of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.
I know, right? It’s so uncomfortable!
Indeed. Almost every single day, I find myself stopping myself from blurting out a “shiny rock” to share. It’s disheartening sometimes.
I mean, the real answer is for us to get around people who are tolerant of neurodivergents. Then our shiny rocks would be allowed. But it’s hard for anyone to choose their social circles.
I hang out in a space full of neurodivergent people who are constantly sharing their shiny rocks. In the first few years it was pretty awesome, I was learning a lot. Lots of practical things relating to the scene.
Now it’s become this thing where I can see it happening almost before it starts. And it’s exhausting in part because I know the information now. But more so, it’s exhausting because it’s so clear how it’s shallow social interaction. It’s not the deeper discussion or human connection I’m after.
The nature of the space, the scene, means there will be lots of people like that all the time. Sharing their shiny rocks instead of themselves.
It’s not so bad one on one, at all, I can manage it and I can help encourage them. But when there is a gaggle of people exchanging all their shiny rocks I just don’t know what to do.
Like you said, it’s hard to pick your social circles. And my tolerance and understanding here seems to draw more rock collectors near. And their piles of rocks push others way from my circles.
I don’t know you, or the people you’re talking to, but once you’re at the “you always have to be right about everything” point, the conversation is adversarial, and it’s mostly a moot point where it goes from here. The goal shouldn’t be “winning” the conversation at that point, the goal should be never getting there in the first place.
I do know people who act completely disinterested in any conversation that isn’t about them lecturing one or more people about something. If this is how you come across, that could be very irritating to people. They don’t want to feel inferior to their conversation partner, they want to have a discussion, not receive a lecture.
So back to the start. The goal should be figuring out how to stop the conversation from getting to that point in the first place, and since you have no control over how other people act, you’ll need to start paying closer attention to what you are saying, how you are saying it, and how to start engaging with people in topics that they are more knowledgeable about.
As they say, if you’re the smartest person in the room, then you’re in the wrong room.
Dude, what stakes are there in this conversation? If someone says red M&Ms tastes better, do you argue with them? Ideally not.
Not every statement has to be a debate.
If you’re finding people don’t want to hang out with you… This is why.
deleted by creator
Smile, wag a finger in good humor, and walk away.
Letting them have the last word by leaving. Well unless you are their parental figure in which case it’s I’m your X I’m legally required to have the last word.
Take the Keane Reeves approach to having a relaxed life - don’t have any arguments, to paraphrase him “Two plus two equals five? OK great, have a nice day, see you around!”
When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.
deleted by creator
Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.
Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).
There are basically two main possibilities:
- They’re unreasonable.
- You’re unreasonable.
If it’s the first one, it doesn’t really matter how you respond. The best policy is to avoid dealing with people like that as much as possible.
If it’s the second one then you should work on trying to fix it. That’s the best way to respond.
deleted by creator
Being right feels good no? Imagine being told your wrong all the time by the same person. Thats how they feel. Unless its a matter of life or limb, just let people be wrong sometimes.
There’s nothing wrong with being right all the time, but relationships need more than just the exchange of facts. If all people know you for is the guy who is right all the time (or needs to be right all the time), then maybe you’re neglecting the other aspects of those relationships. There needs to be other things people remember you for.
Just because you are right, doesn’t mean you are relevant or the other person is wrong.
-
your both unreasonable.
-
your both reasonable but having communication issues.
s/your/you’re/
I think he meant “your both unreasonable personalities”
-
Is it valid criticism? Do you focus more on winning the argument than finding the truth?
deleted by creator
You don’t know what the true truth is, no one does; you only have your own. You need the truth of others to focus your views closer to the real truth. Say you already know what the truth is closes you off to the possibility of growth regardless of what you say, and makes it pointless to have a debate.
As a hypothetical then. Costco hands out “freebies”. Who pays for the freebies?
The members, Costco, the businesses manufacturing the items being sampled, or a combination of these?
Or would you claim Costco pays for this completely, and that the money that pays for this is completely unrelated to the members, the money just comes from somewhere?
…I encountered someone who made the latter claim. Perhaps the truth is some other third option I have not considered (which I would appreciate you pointing out, I need more practice thinking outside the box), but I highly doubt there is some money box that pays for customer “freebies” that isn’t somehow funded from customer revenue.
but I highly doubt there is some money box that pays for customer “freebies” that isn’t somehow funded from customer revenue.
Marketing budgets funded by venture capitalists who made the wrong bet
Yeah, possibly. Not sure how often they are involved with funding Costco samples haha.
(And there are definitely no VC involved in the discussion I had with the person, as we were discussing small family owned businesses that only have one location)
So lets make it simpler. Coke spends more on marketing than it does production. Does this make coke more expensive for the average joe? No it makes it cheaper. Why? Because they can sell more coke, and selling larger quantities of things can mean better pricing by either production scale or better deals on ingredients. Back to Costco, samples are a rounding error level of cost for massive gains in sales.
And where did the money come from in the first place? I get that advertising increases sales (literally why anyone would do samples), but it’s not like that money isn’t from previous sales.
Efficiency, its not a closed ecosystem. The world is not static like an econ 101 textbook question. There is so many factors like credits, seasonal pushes during peak supply, producers offers for floor space. A lot of factors go into pricing a product, the amount sampling is not really one of them, thats just to push sales and is done at a completely different level of management.
deleted by creator
There has been one constant in my life: the older I get the more I understand that few things are objectively true/scientifically proven and (while I do hope that number grows) the more I realize the importance of being comfortable with uncertainty. Not only uncertainty about particular facts, but about my positions on stuff being right.
You really only need to state your case once and then don’t belabor it. People are not going to always agree with you, but it’s not because you haven’t sufficiently and thoroughly overwhelmed them with facts and logic.
Let me ask you, how often are you wrong? And of those, how often do you admit it and quit talking? How often do you admit it to yourself but keep the fight going? How often do you make excuses?
Whether you answer me or not doesn’t matter, you need to truly, honestly answer it for yourself. Think about it. A person who can’t admit they’re wrong is done learning, a person who is done learning is done growing, and a person who is done growing is dead already.
Considering they’re asking us how to win at such a dialogue, I’ve got to say, probably.
Somewhat related…
For people that say they do stupid stuff simply because they have the right to, I say this in return:
“Well I have the right to wipe my ass with a pinecone, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”
Say nothing. You just beat their argument. Also, relax, let people be wrong. It’s kind of funny when people come up to you weeks or months later and admit you were right. If you’re right most of the time, but don’t argue about it, it kind of fucks with people after a while.
deleted by creator
“Really?” “What makes you say that?”
Take their concerns seriously, but not necessarily literally.
Maybe they’re accurately describing something you do. Maybe not.
Do you try to continue conversations when the other person is trying to disengage? That’s an actual thing that many people do; maybe that includes you. Try different approaches, like “Hmm, I still disagree, but I don’t need to continue talking about this either” — or just noticing whether it’s really important to you to press the subject, and whether the other person is receptive.
Pay attention to the other person’s discomfort there. Even if you’re right and even if it’s important, if someone is tired of hearing your opinion, they’re not going to change their mind.
Even if they’re not accurately describing you, they’re still describing what you seem like to them, at that moment. They may be insecure about their own understanding or judgment, and feel like you have more power than them in the situation, and that you’re using it poorly. (But the one thing not to do to an insecure person is to call them insecure.)
One thing they’re almost certainly not trying to do, is to escalate the argument to the meta-level of arguing about how good or bad you are at arguing.
If it’s a loved one, maybe they don’t want an argument; maybe they want a hug. (Ask.)
Yep, 90+% of any conversation is about how you’re making the other person feel, not about any actual content of the words being said.
And if anyone just read that and thought “bullshit, that’s stupid and illogical,” I have some bad news for you about how brains work. (Also: I used to think like that too.)
Our ancestors used their mouths to make emotional noises long before they used their mouths to express logical propositions.
We can never do just one thing with language. Every time we’re making a factual statement, we’re also saying something about our mood, and our relationship to our audience, and so on. That’s just part of what language does.
Maybe you don’t always have to be right? Is this coming from people just trying to have a casual conversation? When I’m in that situation I usually just say something basic like “oh interesting!” then move the conversation in a different direction.
oh interesting!
