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.
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):
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.
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
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.
Start with first principles - who is saying this, and are they correct?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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:
Unacceptable:
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.
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.
Yeeeeaaaaah… I can see that. All of it.
That does sound tiring, man. Sorry you’ve found yourself in such a situation.
But also… what’s one random, interesting thing you learned from the group? (sorry)