Psychology: Discussing "Misrepresentation"

[Jonn]

The two main aspects in my mind are:
1. "Innocent" misrepresentation.
2. Misrepresentation through design.

Over the decades, I have been surprised by the degree of misrepresentation that occurs in general "conversations".
Often there is little to no attempt to clarify the context involved in a statement made.
I see it at times as a form of the Rorschach Test, indicating the mindset of the person interpreting what has been said.

Then there is another situation where there is a deliberate attempt at perverting the message given.
I find it curious how some ppl can warp the message into something unrecognisable, usually as a form of a personal attack.
I find it curious how some ppl think they can get away with such obvious misrepresentation.

Further musing to follow.

 

[Knower of nothing]

It's a bit unavoidable isn't it? Most subjects that aren't hard science require interpretation, which is the process of taking in limited information and filling in the complexity using your own established narratives.
I'd be very surprised if there's people out there that regularly manage to communicate without misrepresenting and also while still contributing to the conversation. A decent amount of it is just to be expected. Though it is indeed unseemly when done deliberately for malicious reasons.

 

[Jonn]

It's a bit unavoidable isn't it? Most subjects that aren't hard science require interpretation, which is the process of taking in limited information and filling in the complexity using your own established narratives.

Agreed.
But...
THAT is where the clarification process comes into it.
Most ppl jump in without verifying they are on the same page.

 

[1ofakind]

Interesting! Being someone who needs clarification to understand because I WANT to understand, I had to learn the hard way that many people don't care about grasping concepts outside their own framework. I think being on the autism spectrum, I tend to conceptualize differently than the norm often. But have found my attempts to clarify or seek clarification can be misinterpreted as manipulation. This is very confusing for me.

 

[Judge]

2. Misrepresentation through design.
I find it curious how some ppl can warp the message into something unrecognisable, usually as a form of a personal attack.
I find it curious how some ppl think they can get away with such obvious misrepresentation.

Because there will always be large groups of people willing to buy into it, no matter how preposterous it may be. Most often projected as a precept. An instruction, or order intended as an authoritative rule of action - whether fact or fiction.

Three very unique perspectives which have elaborated on this element of social psychology:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

 

[Jonn]

Interesting! Being someone who needs clarification to understand because I WANT to understand, I had to learn the hard way that many people don't care about grasping concepts outside their own framework. I think being on the autism spectrum, I tend to conceptualize differently than the norm often. But have found my attempts to clarify or seek clarification can be misinterpreted as manipulation. This is very confusing for me.

The problem I have encountered is that if someone doesn't want to accept "your" explanation, no matter how reasonable, they won't.
It is a matter of "attitude" on their side.

Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but the lightbulb has got to want to change.

If someone thinks the worst of "you", there is nothing "you" can do about it.

I see myself as someone who has credibility due to presenting evidence and being verifiably Truthful.
My integrity is very important to me, and honesty translating to credibility is part of the "equation".

I find it difficult to understand why some ppl pay so little attention to their "credibility coinage".
Some of it may be the result of their age and their limited life experience.
Some of it may be a lack of a moral compass.

"Curious."

 

[Jonn]

Because there will always be large groups of people willing to buy into it, no matter how preposterous it may be. Most often projected as a precept. An instruction, or order intended as an authoritative rule of action - whether fact or fiction.

Agreed.
This is why the development of critical thinking skills is so important.
But few ppl seem to engage in this.
Perhaps I mix with the wrong communities.

It confuses me how some ppl blindly believe what is said to them.
I shouldn't be surprised since ppl on the spectrum are known for being very trusting.
I guess, after a lifetime of being scammed, the reality of life has been beaten into me.

 

[1ofakind]

The problem I have encountered is that if someone doesn't want to accept "your" explanation, no matter how reasonable, they won't.
It is a matter of "attitude" on their side.

Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but the lightbulb has got to want to change.

If someone thinks the worst of "you", there is nothing "you" can do about it.

I see myself as someone who has credibility due to presenting evidence and being verifiably Truthful.
My integrity is very important to me, and honesty translating to credibility is part of the "equation".

I find it difficult to understand why some ppl pay so little attention to their "credibility coinage".
Some of it may be the result of their age and their limited life experience.
Some of it may be a lack of a moral compass.

"Curious."

This is curious to me, too. Like you, credibility is very important to me. I strive to ensure what I say is accurate. Years ago, I straight out asked a friend why it did not bother her if she said something inaccurate. Without hesitation, she said she didn't worry about it nor care. Seems to me that some people care more about truth (Internal validation), but most people care more about social power and following norms (External validation).

 

[Jonn]

but most people care more about social power and following norms (External validation).

This has been my experience.
All too often, ppl seem to be more interested in groupthink at the cost of their individuality.
Yes, they seem to be seeking "External Validation," an "External Locus of Identity".
Personally speaking, I find this anti-autistic.

Ok. But external locus of identity ?​

It’s a concept of human behaviour where one’s actions and identity are shaped up by external factors. The person’s identity being controlled by others.

The person constantly looking for something to give shape to his ideas, in order to match others expectations and views.

https://medium.com/@parikansh.ahluwalia/locus-of-identity-54ca2b25bc0d
Some/many ppl engage in a debating mentality rather than a discussion mindset.
I have been in many situations where, despite requesting a non-narrative conversation, the ppl involved lacked the discipline or simply refused to do so.
All too often, the "discussion" turned into a self-serving group pile-on.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxnrX0fOiMQB7Yj62rjVgv8bO31xD22NwH

 

[1ofakind]

Wow, I really appreciate your thoughts. When you said that you find the external locus of identity as being anti-autistic, that really rang true for me. I can also see where a debating mindset would shut down informative discussions for self-serving group pile-ons because the goal is to 'win' not grow. I read somewhere (Maybe one of Temple Grandin's books) that some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs came from autistic minds. Yet, to me, this world seems to stifle individualized thinking for a more cult-like following. Generally speaking, it does seem very anti-autistic despite the potential for growth for everyone.

 

[Jonn]

I can also see where a debating mindset would shut down informative discussions for self-serving group pile-ons because the goal is to 'win' not grow.

To me, this is a very immature way to live "your" life, but unfortunately, it seems to be the default position most ppl take in society in general.

 

[MNAus]

Personally speaking, I find this anti-autistic.

That's tricky. There's no doubt in mind mind that it penalises those on the spectrum, but anti? I think it's just ahow social pecking order works. I'm glad to not be a part of it, it looks horribly tiring and depressing. But, intentional or not is perhaps a moot point given how it's experienced either way.

In my life I've had a few goes at joining in with this dynamic, and failed spectacularly every single time. I'm just not equipped for it. So now I've made peace with it, somewhat, and avoid the situation. Twitter, for example, is just toxic to me and always was. The social interactions on there are more complex than a mason's handshake. That's a big shame because my profession has a lot of people on there in fast moving conversations. People always ask why I'm not on there, but any attempt to join will inevitably result in me using a term wrongly, or some other heinous faux pas, and people won't hesitate to let me know how badly I've offended them. That tends to set my brain onto 110% as I try to work out what happened. The end result is either anger as I realise they were being unfair, or exhaustion from not understanding why I can't understand.

I have always been terrible at clique behaviours. I recall my first day at school, where two kids were sat there making hand shapes, saying which ones were right, and wrong. I tried to work out the pattern, sat down and joined in with one. They gave me a sneering look like I was the dumbest kid ever. It took me until my adult life to realise that the dynamic was a social one, and I couldn't win. That was the point.

 

[Jonn]

In my life I've had a few goes at joining in with this dynamic, and failed spectacularly every single time. I'm just not equipped for it.

As most of on the spectrum would, I dare say.
*I* am not equipped to be an effective group thinker either.

People always ask why I'm not on there, but any attempt to join will inevitably result in me using a term wrongly, or some other heinous faux pas,

Most of the autistic ppl I have seen who engage in groupthink are spectacularly awful with their arguments because it is usually not inherently genuine. They are essentially playing a role when they adopt someone else's narrative.

Being true to oneself allows for a cohesive, integrated understanding of one's position.
It amuses me when group-thinkers tie themselves in knots trying to justify their faux arguments.

It took me until my adult life to realise that the dynamic was a social one, and I couldn't win. That was the point.

Could you explain this?

 

[MNAus]

Could you explain this?

Sure. I took the discussion at face value. It didn't occur to me that they were making things up (less relevant) to form a social bond (more relevant) that I was to be excluded from (more relevant still, for me at least). It was that dynamic of placing reason (or fairness, or rules, etc) second to fitting in. There have been many, many times when people argued in bad faith, formed cliques, etc. where this dynamic was at work and I took the wrong approach and argued from reason, and got pretty down at the fallout. Was I so wrong all the time? It didn't feel like it on the inside, but outside it sure looked like it. Especially because I became frustrated.

Despite it causing plenty of issues, I'm still pretty happy I don't have to operate in that space where, for example, social jostling would need me to take up positions I don't actually have (and maybe not even be aware of it). It strikes me as a frightening thing to experience, but I guess it brings comfort to some. At least now I can get the tools out the bag, operate in this space to some (admittedly not great) degree, and head home for a shower to wash it all off. It has an energy cost, to an extent from navigating but mostly in remaining buoyant when I inevitably mess things up and get the social cold shoulder or worse.

So yeah, Twitter is the perfect example. It's just not worth my "spoons" to deal with my good intent for a nice chat being purposefully misconstrued as malice in some game of 10d-social-manouvering chess. I don't know how to avoid that, I never will. It's just a skill I don't have and, for the first time in my life, I really don't care

 

[Jonn]

social jostling would need me to take up positions I don't actually have (and maybe not even be aware of it). It strikes me as a frightening thing to experience, but I guess it brings comfort to some. At least now I can get the tools out the bag, operate in this space to some (admittedly not great) degree, and head home for a shower to wash it all off. It has an energy cost, to an extent from navigating but mostly in remaining buoyant when I inevitably mess things up and get the social cold shoulder or worse.

The "cost" to me now is the damage done to my integrity which I won't do in situations like that, but I understand your position.
After all, I am retired, a recluse, and don't have to worry about fitting in any longer. Yay me.

I have never worn a "mask".
I embraced my uniqueness and simply dealt with the consequences.
Luckily, I had some good, understanding ppl around me when I was younger.
I got lucky here.

 

[Jonn]

So yeah, Twitter is the perfect example. It's just not worth my "spoons" to deal with my good intent for a nice chat being purposefully misconstrued as malice in some game of 10d-social-manouvering chess. I don't know how to avoid that, I never will. It's just a skill I don't have and, for the first time in my life, I really don't care

To use a cliche: "I'm too old for that."
Not only do I find social oneupmanship amusing and anti-intellectual, but I also find it humiliating to the ppl who engage in such immature pursuits. It is cringe-worthy, and I feel embarrassed for them.

It is their level of enlightenment.
What can you do?