Neurotypicals mutually accepting apparently contradicting thoughts

[Progster]

The idea is someone having something you don't have and claiming that it's because she is a tomboy.

So something like: she has an engineering degree because she is a tomboy.

 

[Myrtonos]

More like knowing something that you don't because she's a tomboy or hoving power over you because she's a tomboy.

 

[Kalinychta]

Are you talking about non sequiturs? She’s a tomboy, therefore she has power over you. You’re talking about faulty, illogical connections and conclusions here, is that it?

A lot of people do that, both autistic and non.

 

[Myrtonos]

Are you talking about non sequiturs? She’s a tomboy, therefore she has power over you. You’re talking about faulty, illogical connections and conclusions here, is that it?

The thing is that @Progster is apparently a tomboy, so how could another woman being a tomboy give her power over another tomboy?

 

[tree]

The thing is that @Progster is apparently a tomboy, so how could another woman being a tomboy give her power over another tomboy?

Who says it does?

How does that relate to the thread topic of maintaining contradictory thoughts?

 

[Myrtonos]

Well, it feels like being a tomboy is both a reason for that power and not a reason for that power.

 

[tree]

Well, it feels like being a tomboy is both a reason for that power and not a reason for that power.

That is your reasoning.

What is the reasoning of this imaginary person who hypothetically said that
being a tomboy gives powers?

 

[Myrtonos]

She mutually accepts these mutually contradicting thoughts:
*I know that because I'm a tomboy
*You are a tomboy
*You don't know that

 

[tree]

She mutually accepts these mutually contradicting thoughts:
*I know that because I'm a tomboy
*You are a tomboy
*You don't know that

OK. That illustrates an imaginary person ascribing knowledge
to herself based on a personality characteristic, but denying that another
person has the same knowledge even though possessing the same
personality characteristic.

So the point of that seems to be that some imaginary person might
think that way. Why does that matter?

 

[Progster]

The thing is that @Progster is apparently a tomboy, so how could another woman being a tomboy give her power over another tomboy?

What do you mean by 'power?' A specific, real life example is needed here.

It is indeed illogical to say that a person might claim to have some kind of power over me, and give the reason for that as being that they are a tomboy. But such thing has never happened, not is it ever likely to happen. It is implausible, unlikely in the real world, and not a good example to illustrate your point. If you need to find an example to illustrate a point, it needs to be a real, concrete, specific and plausible one, not an unlikely imaginary one.

 

[Myrtonos]

Well, how about the idea that it's forbidden to steal goods because the law says so but it is acceptable to make copyrighted material available online free of charge whatever the law may say?

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Well, how about the idea that it's forbidden to steal goods because the law says so but it is acceptable to make copyrighted material available online free of charge whatever the law may say?

So what you are saying here is that:
- It is illegal to steal
- Posting copyrighted material online for free (e.g. piracy) is stealing and illegal
- People do it anyway and it is considered socially acceptable
- This is contradictory thinking
Is that your thought process? Just trying to make sure I understand you correctly.

Anyway, most people know that posting or downloading copyrighted materials for free is illegal (of cource many people don't even know that at all) but it is considered such a minor crime and so difficult to enforce that some people simply don't care. They are not thinking "all stealing is awful but this stealing is ok" they are thinking "some types of stealing is awful but this type is ok". There's nothing contradictory about this.

It's normal for things which are technically illegal to be socially acceptable among particular demographics. So I'm not sure what your point is... that NT think in shades of grey while black and white is more common with autistic people?

 

[Progster]

Well, how about the idea that it's forbidden to steal goods because the law says so but it is acceptable to make copyrighted material available online free of charge whatever the law may say?

This is a much better example than your previous one, a real world concrete example, and I do see your point: stealing is illegal and uploading copyrighted materials is illegal, but uploading copyrighted material seems to be tolerated or accepted by most people, whereas stealing a physical item is generally not tolerated. A person who condemns stealing a physical item may think it's ok to upload copyrighted materials, and that seems like a contradiction. And you do have a point. Unfortunately, it's human nature that not all people will follow the rules of any given society. You will always get people, a few people, who who steal physical property, and you will always get people, a lot more people, perhaps even most people, who will illegally upload and download copyrighted materials. As someone said on the other forum, people will often cherry-pick which moral values to have, or which rules to follow, according to their own needs and advantage.

 

[Myrtonos]

Stealing a physical item and even discrimination are treated as if anything the law says is wrong is wrong, even by people who know that the law says that copyright violations are wrong but find those violations acceptable or even justifiable.

 

[Myrtonos]

Anyway, most people know that posting or downloading copyrighted materials for free is illegal (of cource many people don't even know that at all) but it is considered such a minor crime and so difficult to enforce that some people simply don't care. They are not thinking "all stealing is awful but this stealing is ok" they are thinking "some types of stealing is awful but this type is ok". There's nothing contradictory about this.

But they might look at theft of physical items as if all theft is awful.

 

[tree]

Why bother to post a thread on this topic, if
you already have your opinion?

"...they might look at theft of physical items as if all theft is awful" is
an example of the premise of the thread, that some people may be
capable of accepting apparently contradicting thoughts.

What can be gained by continuing to discuss this?

 

[Myrtonos]

Another example is thinking Engilsh is good enough for anyone but treating schoolchildren as if English is not good enough for anyone.

 

[tree]

Another example is thinking Engilsh is good enough for anyone but treating schoolchildren as if English is not good enough for anyone.

What does that mean?
Where do you see examples of that?

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

People can hold absolute core beliefs which are completely contradictory.

For example, a person may believe in "forgive those who trespass" but at the same time believe in the justice of shooting someone who stepped on their lawn without ever feeling a moment of remorse.

I'm not convinced this is a simply an NT phenomenon, but it certainly is a phenomenon. Many of the beliefs are polar opposites when compared next to each other, but equally as strong when compartmentalized. I can't speak for all autistic people, but I do find that I don't have these sorts of values, but this is very atypical and even strange to other people in my experience.

 

[HidinginPlainSight]

Cognitive dissonance becomes much more pronounced when people are able to de-personalize a situation. For example, a person may say that they love all animals and that any harm that comes to them is wrong, many can say this while eating a hamburger never thinking about how they contributed to the harm of that particular animal.