Stephen Horne
2010-05-20 07:19:02 UTC
I've been wondering about autism and sophistry, and accusations
thereof. In particular, is there a perception that autistics are prone
to using deceptive arguments?
The reason I was wondering is that autistic communication is often
seen as pedantic, long-winded, overly technical and complex, overly
formal etc. While "sophistry" refers to any deceptive argument, when
someone says "sophistry" I tend to think of the kind of long-winded
overly-complex argument deliberately constructed to look clever and
convincing, but to be difficult to parse and critically evaluate.
It's easy to think such an argument could only fool the gullible or
those who want to believe anyway - but that disregards some fairly
basic psychology. When people have an idea that seems to work, on the
whole they just run with it. Serious examination of the idea usually
only happens when people have some reason for doubt. It's a kind of
economics thing really - we don't have the time to thoroughly analyse
every idea we're exposed to, so we have to take a lot on trust.
But obviously people are aware that deceptiveness is a fact of life,
and react to (generally very unreliably) warning signs.
The problem is that a valid argument can superficially look very much
like that kind of sophistry. In fact another common kind of sophistry
is to make an accusation of sophistry - once the idea is planted, many
people won't bother thinking through an argument for themselves - the
superficial appearance is "confirmation" enough.
Arguing after the fact is likely to be problematic - adding even more
verbiage, even more complexity, and an even greater chance that
readers will be swayed by the superficial appearance rather than the
logic. The obvious pre-emptive strategy is to keep arguments simple,
straightforward, direct and easy to understand. But that may be easier
said than done.
OK - so that's my line of thought, but is there any *real* perception
of autists as being prone to sophistry?
Googling mostly leads to "discussions" of autism issues. But while I
found quite a few accusations, that doesn't mean much. There were
certainly accusations by autistics, as well as of autistics.
So - any thoughts? Personal experiences? References to anything more
formal?
thereof. In particular, is there a perception that autistics are prone
to using deceptive arguments?
The reason I was wondering is that autistic communication is often
seen as pedantic, long-winded, overly technical and complex, overly
formal etc. While "sophistry" refers to any deceptive argument, when
someone says "sophistry" I tend to think of the kind of long-winded
overly-complex argument deliberately constructed to look clever and
convincing, but to be difficult to parse and critically evaluate.
It's easy to think such an argument could only fool the gullible or
those who want to believe anyway - but that disregards some fairly
basic psychology. When people have an idea that seems to work, on the
whole they just run with it. Serious examination of the idea usually
only happens when people have some reason for doubt. It's a kind of
economics thing really - we don't have the time to thoroughly analyse
every idea we're exposed to, so we have to take a lot on trust.
But obviously people are aware that deceptiveness is a fact of life,
and react to (generally very unreliably) warning signs.
The problem is that a valid argument can superficially look very much
like that kind of sophistry. In fact another common kind of sophistry
is to make an accusation of sophistry - once the idea is planted, many
people won't bother thinking through an argument for themselves - the
superficial appearance is "confirmation" enough.
Arguing after the fact is likely to be problematic - adding even more
verbiage, even more complexity, and an even greater chance that
readers will be swayed by the superficial appearance rather than the
logic. The obvious pre-emptive strategy is to keep arguments simple,
straightforward, direct and easy to understand. But that may be easier
said than done.
OK - so that's my line of thought, but is there any *real* perception
of autists as being prone to sophistry?
Googling mostly leads to "discussions" of autism issues. But while I
found quite a few accusations, that doesn't mean much. There were
certainly accusations by autistics, as well as of autistics.
So - any thoughts? Personal experiences? References to anything more
formal?