How to address Literalism/PLI/Context Blindness/Impaired Central Coherence?

[garnett]

Some interactions I've had recently have led me to read up a bit on a few psychological tendencies, namely:

• Literalism: This refers to the tendency to interpret language and situations in a very literal way, without recognising or understanding implied meanings, metaphors, or figurative language. In psychology, this is often noted in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
• Pragmatic Language Impairment: This refers to difficulties in the use of language in social contexts. Individuals with ASD often struggle with pragmatic language, which includes understanding implied meanings, using context to interpret language, and managing conversations appropriately.
• Context Blindness: This refers to the difficulty individuals with ASD have in using context to give meaning to information. This makes it challenging for them to understand implicit assumptions and non-literal language.
• Central Coherence: This is the theory that individuals with ASD tend to focus on details rather than the overall context or big picture. This detail-focused cognitive style can make it difficult for them to make intuitive leaps or understand implied meanings.

In a debating arena, how should these be tackled?

Also, how should someone be treated when they're feigning these tendencies to troll and derail a debate?

Even when genuine, they stifle debate, but when it's being used incessantly, for months and years, should its deleterious effect on the hosting group be tolerated as something about which nothing can be done?

Interested in people's thoughts.

 

[garnett]

If its abundantly clear that the person does not suffer these conditions and is pretending to have them in order to derail/troll then said person should be firstly be confronted about it and then ignored if continued.




As a society we make allowances* for people with physical and mental conditions quite often. Is it any different to make allowances for these people, certainly upto a point, or do we exclude people with these conditions from debates? Would it be fair to exclude groups of society from allowing their voices to be heard simply due to a condition they are unable to control?

*there is a better word than "allowances" but the correct word escapes me just now


What does stifle debate on here is when 2 people disagree and, instead of accepting there is a difference of opinion (where it's clear there is no 1 correct answer), the arguments then deteriorate into nitpicking over miniscule details e.g. a choice of a single word even when the overall meaning/intent is clear i.e. the meaning/intent is left to the side and the more important element of point scoring takes over.... for multiple pages


Yes, I am sure someone will come on, quote this post here and then say "oh the irony"

Some good points there. I completely agree that nobody should be excluded, but it would be weird to not allow anyone to reference the allowances (accommodations?). I can't think of any other disability where that's the case.

And the deterioration into nitpicking over particular words is very much the sort of thing I had in mind. I'd just point out that, often, there's always one person always desperate to dive down that sort of rabbit hole, and the only way it can be avoided is to just unduly concede their point.

I've always thought of this place as what it is really, a computer forum on the internet. It isn't the Oxford Union and therefore I don't expect much and feel that big impressive words aren't needed for the vast majority of the visitors to the site.

I'm not talking about this place specifically. It's more general than that. And I'm not sure what big or impressive words you're referring to, but I'm not sure the psychologists involved have used anything simpler we can use to discuss these tendencies, unfortunately.

 

[garnett]

I appreciate that you've clarified that you're not talking about OcUK specifically, but as I had written most of the below before I saw your reply to @Uther so I will keep it in. To be honest, I'm not sure how you would tackle this in wider society:

Given that this forum is connected to a computer hardware store and that the majority of members (I would assume) initially found their way here via the shop, it's no surprise that there's a higher percentage of people further along the autistic spectrum than the general population. I count myself in this as well, by the way, although I have no idea how far along the spectrum I fall as I've never had a diagnosis.

Then, when you filter the forum population further into the type of person interested in the topics discussed in SC, it will probably increase again (although I have plenty of experience with what you're describing in GD as well).

I think it's inevitable that the nitpicking of a specific word or phrase to the detriment of the wider debate is going to happen. Especially online, where tone of voice and body language are missing from the conversation. I've had it plenty of times when someone has interpreted what I've written almost the opposite way I intended. I think it's just the nature of the beast.

I'm sure there's also a psychological element of needing to win an argument that draws people to online spaces like SC. I'm often reminded of the "Come to bed… No, someone is wrong on the internet" meme, and I'm guilty of it myself.

It doesn't help when a certain poster has been arguing for years over a particular topic using their own definition of a word that absolutely no one else recognises (naming no names). It just causes unnecessary confusion and conflict. In those instances, nitpicking can be necessary because the definition of words matters, and it helps if everyone agrees on those definitions before discussing the topic. In this particular instance, all it means is that I no longer take anything that particular member says seriously. I have no respect for them and pretty much discount their posts the minute I see their username.

You say that the only way to avoid going down the rabbit hole is to unduly concede their point. I think you can either a) simply ignore them and continue the discussion with other more constructive members or b) state that you're not going to engage with that style of discussion but, for the record, you explicitly do not concede the point.

The problem with a) is that you might feel you are conceding the point by default through a lack of acknowledgement or interaction, but I think this comes back to wanting to win an argument. It probably says as much about you/me/us as it does about the nitpicker if we can't ignore it and let it go.

Thanks. Good post. I think, for me, it's less about a fixation on single words, and more an insistance you show them where what you've summarised about the implicit content in a sequence of posts is written in black and white in one place, exactly as you've stated.

It's obvious to everyone with an average ability in terms of Pragmatic Language Comprehension, Context Blindness, and Central Coherence but unduly onerous to spell out to the one person not able to kerp up on those fronts.

@Freakbro and @potatolord - please can you remove forum names from your posts, because threads featuring progressive views don't get the leeway other threads get, and this will just get shut down.

 

[garnett]

This whole thing is just some BS by @garnett because he got his post deleted yesterday after he decided to go off on a rant for being called out on quoting another poster and just made up a positon for them.

Is this really "Intelligent debate of newsworthy issues." nope, it's just @garnett being miffed because the mods deleted his post which added nothing.

Similarly, we could say:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some interactions I've had recently have led me to read up a bit on a few psychological tendencies, namely:

• Hallucinations: This refers to the tendency to believe something else has been said, without recognising or understanding different perspective. In psychology, this is often noted in individuals with Schizophrenia.
• Pragmatic Language Impairment: This refers to difficulties in the use of language in social contexts. Individuals with schizophrenia often struggle other points of view etc..
• etc..

In a debating arena, how should these be tackled?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously that would be a ridiculous thing to do.

If you're making up positions for others, especially if you're doing so even after they've clearly stated that their position is X not Y, then you're not doing anything fancy, there's no "context blindness", you're just making up a straw man to attack because you can't debate the actual point they raised.

To try and turn it into doing some psychological diagnosis or citing disabilities is frankly quite pathetic.

Why not accept that people have different views, you're not going to like everyone's style of debate but if you're unable to play the ball rather than the man then don't engage... no one is forcing you to after all.

Ugh - It's like a full-house bingo card of everything on the list.

 

[garnett]

Sure it is... I mean you could do one of two things here:

1) Ignore/don't engage if you keep on getting mad.

2) Try to engage with the arguments made instead of just throwing in your little emotive rants/tantrums.

Alternatively, I guess just stay mad that others have different political views and their opinions must be wrong/bad etc.. and keep dowie in your head rent-free.

That reminds me. I left off the inability to gauge emotion. Nobody's mad, champ.

 

[garnett]

I go no idea what this thread is on about.

Can anyone summarise what the OP is on about, maybe in a short paragraph?

I wanted to discuss problems some people have with normal interpretation of language and ideas, and also people who (in pretty bad taste) ape those behaviours for a form of obtuse trolling.

Dowie seems to have decided it's time to make a thread all about him again.

Coming out and doesnt know hes on a pc forum and not the oxford union.

Wow. Is that some 90s school ground homophobia, you're still rocking there?

 

[garnett]

No you didn't, you tried a long-ass-winded way of squirming out of some nonsense you posted recently and didn't think you'd get called out on it.

You made a tit of yourself, at least own it.

Also lol at dowie's recent discovery of AI image creators

You seem to have some very strong yet very misguided opinions...

Tell me more.