People assuming ulterior motives for "no reason".

[Noba Loney]

Here's a type of scenario that has happened often enough to be a pattern. Let's say in online communication - it can happen face to face as well but is somewhat easier to manage.

1.
Someone proposes a theory or a solution to a problem.

2.
I see a possible flaw in the theory or solution and say something pointing to this. Because a) that's what I see, b) I'm interested in the accuracy and truth of the thing and c) if you want something that works it's obviously useful to know about problems with the current proposed version.

3.
The original poster at this point goes wildly off-track and pretty soon suggests I have some nefarious reason for wanting block their proposal or... something. The response makes "no sense", just, what the? Where the blazes did that come from? It's based on literally no evidence. Online all the actual words are there to see, but invariably that's not good enough.

Obviously there's some psychological / cognitive thing going on with this, which is why I put "no reason" in inverted commas. I won't say it's a thing that happens mainly with "NTs" but it's probably fair to say that it would be mostly non-autistic people.

I suppose it could be that being interested in accuracy and truth without a political end in mind is just completely incomprehensible to certain people and they have to imagine some wild theory. And no doubt there's sometimes an element of them not wanting to appear dumb or wrong. But I don't think that fully explains it.

Is any of this a recognised phenomenon? Can you relate? Tell me what you think / know.

Trouble shooting and finding solutions to technical problems is just something I do. I'm very good at it in some ways because I quickly take in and weigh a lot of available information and correlate it with what I know. This is often like a useless super power because the difficulty is then in communicating this reasoning, which can look almost like intuition.

I used to work technical support but it drove me crazy and I definitely ended up with burn-out if not PTSD from the work environment (open plan, lots of conversations going on) and sheer volume of phone calls. Also the communication itself with non-technical people was incredibly wearing. I had next to no idea about autism at that point, Aspergers was barely a thing, but of course it makes more sense now.

 

[BraidedPony]

Same thing used to happen to me all the time. People, especially NTs, will put their own motivations onto me. I will be given an explanation for my behavior that includes complicated sneaky plans that I wouldn't even know how to do if I wanted to!
Like,...you said XYZ so that I would think ABC and then you would look like the nice one and I would feel bad....that isn't even a real example, I just made it up because I swear I can't even remember these scenarios people come up with.
The most untrue/sneaky things I do is pretend to not be anxious and I hide my sensitivity.

 

[GadAbout]

Many of us with autism grew up taking on a lot of blame in the family arena, i.e., were family scapegoats. And if it wasn't the family unit, it was bullying in school, work, the community. This is the source of a lot of perceptual bias, even paranoia, which we can observe in each other but sometimes not in ourselves.

I recognize the tangents in threads you refer to and sometimes can divine the ulterior motives behind them.

It seems the best we can do is say "let's not derail this thread" and return to topic. This is like waving a red cape to a bull, for some, but if they become too vehement, moderators can intervene.

 

[Mia]

Many people, and I won't simply confine this to a neurotype, take exception to being criticized or found wrong.
They do not realize that it's the idea, or argument that is found lacking, not them. And they take it personally. Rather than considering the flaws in the statement or question or argument itself.
Maybe they become too invested in the idea itself, and if it's what they believe then it becomes caught up in who they are.

 

[Streetwise]

I wonder if im using the correct term self righteous?

 

[Aspychata]

l am going to chalk it up to human nature, ego, and communication styles which means Fcked Up if everybody can't agree on a common ground like lets resolve this without hidden motives and private agendas!

 

[rubicks52]

I do freelance editing for novels and I've noticed the same thing of people not want to hear what I have to say. Once I thought about it, I realized that I'm critiquing something they've spent hours upon hours working on, and that it would be natural that they would be a bit defensive. I had to change how I phrased my critiques to get better receptiveness from the author, and even then, some people just don't want to listen (even if they hired me, which seems like a waste of money on their part, but that's not my problem). But now I start off critiques with something along the lines of "You have a really good starts to your story. Here's something specific I like about it. Here's what you can do to make it even better and achieve its full potential".

 

[Noba Loney]

Many people, and I won's simply confine this to a neurotype, take exception to being criticized or found wrong.

Absolutely. I recognise this is an element. I also don't like appearing dumb and wrong. However, my commitment and compulsion towards objectivity takes priority and I don't default to outright dishonesty, projection and attack as far as I'm aware.

I don't think I'm lacking in tact most of the time, but I have found that excessive attempts at tact or approaching things gently can also have drawbacks. i.e. you're easier to dismiss and if it is something relatively important overall can ultimately take longer to resolve with more energy expensed. So, sometimes screw excessive "tact" ;-)

 

[Noba Loney]

The most untrue/sneaky things I do is pretend to not be anxious and I hide my sensitivity.

Yes, "masking" is a kind of dishonesty, but a necessary one if people are expecting communication. I used to have this kind of frenemy who occasionally mocked me in front of other friends for "trying to look clever" or something, which was way off the mark in terms of motivation. If you perceive some unease or artficial effort that's a result of real difficulty in navigating and contributing to any degree in a busy, confusing social situation, especially with other stimuli going on. I could drop the "pretense" but then there would be no communication at all. As it happens that's more and more often where I'm at.

 

[Mia]

I don't think I'm lacking in tact most of the time, but I have found that excessive attempts at tact or approaching things gently can also have drawbacks. i.e. you're easier to dismiss and if it is something relatively important overall can ultimately take longer to resolve with more energy expensed. So, sometimes screw excessive "tact" ;-)

That may be true, in that a rational voice is often overlooked. Yet, a slower approach with tact might be less destructive that an aggressive one. It will cause less damage to the opponent and perhaps slowly insinuate itself in a calm manner. At least in the way of an idea.

But this is the internet, where radical voices predominate. It may take less energy to simply come at someone with a verbal hammer than to take the time to attempt to treat them humanely. Recognizing someone's individuality is part of human interaction, yet not so much so inside the anonymity of the web.

 

[Noba Loney]

Many of us with autism grew up taking on a lot of blame in the family arena, i.e., were family scapegoats. And if it wasn't the family unit, it was bullying in school, work, the community. This is the source of a lot of perceptual bias, even paranoia, which we can observe in each other but sometimes not in ourselves.

This kind of history is very likely part of why I'm a bit sensitive to being so wildly misinterpreted.

I think I can say that in the sort of situation I describe the major paranoia and perceptual bias is on the part of the other party because I can say that what they imagine my motivation to be is just stuff that had not and likely would never occur to me.

 

[Noba Loney]

That may be true, in that a rational voice is often overlooked. Yet, a slower approach with tact might be less destructive that an aggressive one. It will cause less damage to the opponent and perhaps slowly insinuate itself in a calm manner. At least in the way of an idea.

I mean, yes. You are right. But if I think about it, there are times where being as supportive and non-confrontational as I can imagine has still "resulted" in an irrational backlash. In other words sometimes they are just going to be like that and I've only put myself at a disadvantage and become a target.

 

[Tom]

You can avoid all that if your comment to all ideas is 'That's brilliant JD!'. (Using their specific initials of course.)

 

[Noba Loney]

That's brilliant T!

*Privately mulls over reasons why Ts suggestion could be problematic*

 

[Mia]

In other words sometimes they are just going to be like that and I've only put myself at a disadvantage and become a target.

True. That's happened to me quite often. There has to be a lot of give and take and people without hidden agendas/ulterior motives, that suddenly show themselves. I tend to fall for that, but less and less so.

I think the winning, involves some fragility of ego. And in the end being right is less important if you cause some sort of damage to the other person. Because that kind of victory seems not of practical relevance for some, more theoretical when they don't learn from it.

 

[Noba Loney]

You can avoid all that if your comment to all ideas is 'That's brilliant JD!'. (Using their specific initials of course.)

That's true though, even if meant half in jest.

It avoids all that trouble (by preemptively letting someone 'win' in case a competitive agenda is involved or takes over), but takes away the interesting / fun part of solving problems and trying to find some truth.

 

[Noba Loney]

I think the winning, involves some fragility of ego. And in the end being right is less important if you cause some sort of damage to the other person. Because that kind of victory seems not of practical relevance for some, more theoretical when they don't learn from it.

OK, yes. I don't know if you're hinting but perhaps I'm not entirely blameless in wanting to 'win'. I mean, I do try and watch for that. A lot of these situations are not zero-sum, though and winning can be defined in different ways. Certainly never want to set out to hurt anyone unless they go on the attack first and won't take a warning. I can't renounce verbal violence entirely given how harsh so many areas of conversation are these days.

 

[unperson]

They SHOOT the messenger in this world, which is how one can end up being a scapegoat, but it's hard to resist noting the flaws in concepts. You have to choose your battles I suppose. Do you really care enough to take the blowback?

 

[Rasputin]

Here's a type of scenario that has happened often enough to be a pattern. Let's say in online communication - it can happen face to face as well but is somewhat easier to manage.

1.
Someone proposes a theory or a solution to a problem.

2.
I see a possible flaw in the theory or solution and say something pointing to this. Because a) that's what I see, b) I'm interested in the accuracy and truth of the thing and c) if you want something that works it's obviously useful to know about problems with the current proposed version.

3.
The original poster at this point goes wildly off-track and pretty soon suggests I have some nefarious reason for wanting block their proposal or... something. The response makes "no sense", just, what the? Where the blazes did that come from? It's based on literally no evidence. Online all the actual words are there to see, but invariably that's not good enough.

Obviously there's some psychological / cognitive thing going on with this, which is why I put "no reason" in inverted commas. I won't say it's a thing that happens mainly with "NTs" but it's probably fair to say that it would be mostly non-autistic people.

I suppose it could be that being interested in accuracy and truth without a political end in mind is just completely incomprehensible to certain people and they have to imagine some wild theory. And no doubt there's sometimes an element of them not wanting to appear dumb or wrong. But I don't think that fully explains it.

Is any of this a recognised phenomenon? Can you relate? Tell me what you think / know.

Trouble shooting and finding solutions to technical problems is just something I do. I'm very good at it in some ways because I quickly take in and weigh a lot of available information and correlate it with what I know. This is often like a useless super power because the difficulty is then in communicating this reasoning, which can look almost like intuition.

I used to work technical support but it drove me crazy and I definitely ended up with burn-out if not PTSD from the work environment (open plan, lots of conversations going on) and sheer volume of phone calls. Also the communication itself with non-technical people was incredibly wearing. I had next to no idea about autism at that point, Aspergers was barely a thing, but of course it makes more sense now.

I have had this scenario happen, and I think the reason the other person reacts negatively is because their faulty logic is exposed for all to see. This is particularly bad if the other person is considered to be an expert in their field. The problem is with their own ego, more than with you. Having said that, I have learned to expect this result and will try to explain where their logic fails in a private message.

Even if you go out of your way to spare the other person embarrassment, they may still hold you in contempt. So one additional consideration is whether or not you have a vested interest or are obligated to comment. If there are no implications for you in what is being proposed and you merely want to comment, say something like "have you considered how (some variable) might affect the relationship/phenomenon? Then if you are asked to explain you can do so at their request

 

[SolarPoweredNightOwl]

Obviously there's some psychological / cognitive thing going on with this, which is why I put "no reason" in inverted commas. I won't say it's a thing that happens mainly with "NTs" but it's probably fair to say that it would be mostly non-autistic people.

It's not cognitive. It's psychological (others have covered it already) and social. Particularly in a professional group setting, you can be perceived as trying to undermine someone, or one-up them.