Neurotypicals mutually accepting apparently contradicting thoughts

[Myrtonos]

For example, if their reason for (not) saying, doing or believing something mutually contradicts with some (other) belief of theirs. Another example is mutually accepting that all men are mortal and Apollo is a man, given that Apollo is immortal.
They can accept that A equals B and B equals C without a sense that A equals C.
Some examples of this were given in this thread, a dislike of explaining things to someone that logically follow from other things they already know.

 

[Kalinychta]

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you explain a bit more?

 

[Myrtonos]

I don't understand why what I wrote above isn't enough!

 

[Thinx]

I think the neurotypical in the example was being pedantic about the words thing or thingy and wanting the person to be precise. It's a teacher thing. They knew what he meant, they were trying to get him to say it clearly. But this rarely works on Aspies, the NT would need to say, using the term thingy is vague, please can you use precise terms in conversation, start practising by being precise on this.

 

[Myrtonos]

In that example, it works better if the aspie tries to get the N.T to say it clearly than the other way round.

 

[tree]

For example, if their reason for (not) saying, doing or believing something mutually contradicts with some (other) belief of theirs. Another example is mutually accepting that all men are mortal and Apollo is a man, given that Apollo is immortal.

Apollo being immortal is a mythological idea.
Ordinary human mortals can be named Apollo.

What are you trying to say?
That you have encountered people who hold contradictory ideas?
And that more of these people are neurotypical than otherwise?

 

[GadAbout]

If a person isn't good at explaining in very precise ways, they will rarely express themselves better upon being asked to do so.

Sometimes it's okay to not achieve complete understanding or agreement.

 

[Tom]

I think you have an error in your example. In Greek mythology at the time when many people believed in the god Apollo, they did not think he was a man, though they might have thought he could take human form.

You might be confusing their gods with their heroes who might be given special abilities but were mortal, like Achilles.

 

[Kalinychta]

I don't understand why what I wrote above isn't enough!

Because it doesn’t make sense. As for the link to the thread you posted: the teacher did know what the student was talking about; there was clearly a reason behind her feigned ignorance (e.g. the student has had ongoing problems with speaking clearly, she was making some kind of larger point, she was just being a jerk, etc.). I suspect there’s more to the story.

 

[Myrtonos]

Apollo being immortal is a mythological idea.
Ordinary human mortals can be named Apollo.

What are you trying to say?
That you have encountered people who hold contradictory ideas?
And that more of these people are neurotypical than otherwise?

I have encountered people who hold contradictory ideas, those people being neurotypical (as far as I know).
You may have heard that Socrates being mortal follows from all men being mortal and Socrates being a man, this is deductive reasoning.

If a person isn't good at explaining in very precise ways, they will rarely express themselves better upon being asked to do so.

In my experience, it seems that even people who are good at explaining in a precise way still don't explain precisely enough, as if they see no point because they expect me to magically know what they mean.

I think you have an error in your example. In Greek mythology at the time when many people believed in the god Apollo, they did not think he was a man, though they might have thought he could take human form.

You might be confusing their gods with their heroes who might be given special abilities but were mortal, like Achilles.

Not at all, it is simple logical deduction: All men are mortal, Achilles is a man, therefore Achilles is mortal.

Because it doesn’t make sense. As for the link to the thread you posted: the teacher did know what the student was talking about; there was clearly a reason behind her feigned ignorance (e.g. the student has had ongoing problems with speaking clearly, she was making some kind of larger point, she was just being a jerk, etc.). I suspect there’s more to the story.

There are other examples in that thread, given by Miss Chief.

 

[tree]

@Myrtonos
"In my experience, it seems that even people who are good at explaining in a precise way still don't explain precisely enough, as if they see no point because they expect me to magically know what they mean."

The similarity between this and Post #3 is striking.

You complain of other people not being precise,
while at the same time expect others to decipher
your posts.

 

[Myrtonos]

Progster - Suppose someone claimed she is higher/better than you because she is a tomboy, or gives that as the reason why she knows something (better than you) or why she has power over you.

 

[Progster]

Progster - Suppose someone claimed she is higher/better than you because she is a tomboy, or gives that as the reason why she knows something (better than you) or why she has power over you.

...then? I feel that that this sentence should end with a question, but there is no question.

 

[tree]

Progster - Suppose someone claimed she is higher/better than you because she is a tomboy, or gives that as the reason why she knows something (better than you) or why she has power over you.

How does this relate to the thread premise that some people
seem to maintain contradictory beliefs?

 

[Kalinychta]

I’m still not completely clear on what this thread is even about. Myrtonos seems to be suggesting that people who are not autistic can’t make the most basic of connections?

Many autistic people have trouble with theory of mind. We sometimes don’t understand why people don’t know what we know. When I asked Myrtonos to explain his original post, he said he didn’t understand why he needed to explain it again. He knows what he means, so he doesn’t seem to understand why we don’t know what he means. Sounds like theory of mind to me. Maybe this is what’s truly behind the thread.

 

[Myrtonos]

How does this relate to the thread premise that some people
seem to maintain contradictory beliefs?

Well, it is something similar. And @Progster, I'm not sure what that question should be. Can someone other than you being a tomboy, in all honesty, mean she has something you don't?

...seems to be suggesting that people who are not autistic can’t make the most basic of connections?

Yep, many, especially laypeople can't make seemingly basic connections, and other on the spectrum also complain about neurotypicals failing to see something that should be obvious. Take Temple Grandin's frustration with neurotypicals failing to get a picture she thought would be crystal clear.
Say a neurotypical person knows perfectly well that Anja Melissa needs to play with loom bands to stay calm, or at least has a reason to believe that, and they want her to stay calm but still tells her not to loom.

 

[tree]

"Suppose someone claimed she is higher/better than you because she is a tomboy, or gives that as the reason why she knows something (better than you) or why she has power over you."

How exactly are those similar to the example given in the first post?

What do you mean when you say "tomboy"?

Has this particular situation ever happened to you?
Or to anyone you know?

 

[Progster]

Can someone other than you being a tomboy, in all honesty, mean she has something you don't?

I still don't understand this.
I think you need a comma after 'you', that would make more sense. Also, 'claim' instead of 'mean':
'Can someone other than you, being a tomboy, in all honesty, claim she has something you don't?'
I still can't answer the question, it's too vague. The answer would depend on the specific thing she claims to have that I don't have.'

 

[Myrtonos]

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

 

[tree]

That doesn't amount to holding contradictory thoughts.