That was never five minutes just now! Oh, come on!
I’m afraid it was. Good day!
There’s your problem right there. You are (by your own tacit and explicit admission) perfect. Perfection intimidates people. I’m sure it was readily apparent to your interviewers and former bosses - it is arduous to veil perfection. They each knew that, by employing or retaining you, they would be effectively sabotaging their own career. After all, how could they compete? Perhaps future interviews could be conducted in writing. In that manner you would have more opportunity to sprinkle in calculated lingustic and syntactic misuses in order to forstall their discovery of your intrinsic superiority - much as you do here, obviously for our benefit. Ameliorating their discomposure would engender a waxing of the prospects for engagement of your services.
I know. That’s why I used all those big words in my reply.
Excellent post Blaster Master.
Its okay to be wrong. Fact is, for most random stuff that’s outside of a person’s daily job or PHD in X, most people are probably about as wrong about something as right when you get down to the details.
Don’t get me wrong. I like a good arguement on the internet, even if it gets a bit nasty. In real life I don’t mind the occassional friendly arguement if both sides can actually see the other’s point of view and logic even if they don’t agree with it.
Two things. Why argue about stuff that doesn’t really matter? If Bob tells you to do X and you KNOW X will fuck up your computer, then it might be a time to stand your ground. If you or Bob are in a fight about which politician would be a better president, why are you doing that? Unless you enjoy the fighting (and hopefully Bob as well).
And the KNOW thing brings up a another point. How well do you think you really KNOW what you think you know and are willing to raise a fuss about it? Would you bet your life on it? Your job? A $100? $5000 dollars?
If you aren’t willing to pay a significant price for being wrong, then maybe you don’t know it as well as you think you do. Which, for second reason, doesn’t make it work argueing about.
Yes, but that’s not just saying, “No, it isn’t!”
Irl, many people I’ve known who say things like, “I can’t just let someone else think they’re right when I know they’re wrong,” are actually extremely self involved jerks. Simply put. YMMV
I don’t know you. I only know your posts.
This post can apply to numerous Dopers, BTW.
.
In my experience, people who are argumentative, including myself when it was more of a problem (it’s still somewhat of a problem), are self-centered. The world has to run their way, because that’s just the way things should work. Why can’t everyone agree with me, when I’m obviously right about everything?
I was just dealing with someone who blatantly said that my points about the merits of not giving cops information and actually using the 5th Amendment actually implied that I just want to get away with everything. He insisted that the implication was there, and tried to refuse to let me state what my actual point was. He’s a self-centered jerk.
I can’t believe you missed the opportunity to link The Pit.
8/10, good concept, didn’t stick the landing.
This is totally unrelated to your question, but I was wondering… what if there were a message board troll who was pleasant and agreed with everybody? How boring would that be?
Your attempts to conceal your argumentative nature probably don’t work as well as you think. You may also not be as intelligent as you think you are.
Oh, and I throw this out.
You know what made my EX become my EX?
Her argueing about shit that didn’t matter. Or more specifically, insisting on it. I could try to ignore it. I could try to just leave the scene. I could try to reason with her.
None of that worked. If she wanted to fight/argue then it was going to happen.
Even a Saint can only put up with that shit for so long.
I’m sorry, but why are we having an arguement because I decided to mustard and onions on my basic run of the mill ham sandwich, which I’ve put on 99.99 percent of every fucking sandwich I’ve eaten since Nixon was president?
That crap gets old. If you like to argue OP, you might wanna consider the ramifications when it comes to long term relationships.
I can’t continue arguing unless you pay for another five minutes.
I know, right?
Somebody already mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, that could be an explanation. If someone starts a post with “As you all know”, I would expect them to be quite self-centered and argumentative. And finally, you might just be a polarity responder or extreme mismatcher: https://training.tonyrobbins.com/are-you-a-matcher-or-a-mismatcher/
You’re right.
Reading up on it, I’m somewhat surprised that irritability can be a symptom of both the up and down phases. Is it more typical of one of them, though?
There are so many ways a person can be a cuntankerous type.
Thanks. 
Exactly. And, the funny thing is, once I realized this, it went from being infuriating to being amusing when I was wrong about silly stuff. Imagine the stereotypical “nerdrage” over some minutiae in, say, a favorite show or movie or whatever. Clearly if two people are arguing over two things that are mutually exclusive, one of them HAS to be wrong.
In fact, I had a very nerdy “argument” last week with a random guy that would have infuriated me in the past about voice actors in the JLU cartoon (hey, I said it was very nerdy). I had a very specific memory of episodes that Mark Hamil had done, he hadn’t seen it recently, but had recently interviewed another actor on the show (the voice of Wonder Woman) who contradicted my recollection. We both had good reason to have our opinions, he looked it up, and it turned out I was right and that, in fact, she was incorrect when he interviewed her or his interpretation of what she said was wrong. In the past, I’d have been nervous when he was looking it up, ready to be upset if I was proven wrong, or gloat if I was right. In this case, it was just amusing to both of us that the voice actor was incorrect, and he was glad to have that correction. What would have been an unpleasant experience in the past became a very enjoyable one instead.
Two things. Why argue about stuff that doesn’t really matter? If Bob tells you to do X and you KNOW X will fuck up your computer, then it might be a time to stand your ground. If you or Bob are in a fight about which politician would be a better president, why are you doing that? Unless you enjoy the fighting (and hopefully Bob as well).
[/quote]
The point I would make here, is, if one is willing to be wrong, then even if I’m quite certain X will fuck up my computer, standing my ground doesn’t mean refusing to hear the other person’s argument, it just means having a higher standard of evidence before I change my opinion. For instance, I actually do computers for a living. When someone who doesn’t tells me to do something to mine because they read about it on facebook or a friend told them, I’m going to demand something more substantial to back up their claim. If it’s a coworker or friend that I know knows their stuff, possibly even better than me in that particular area, I’m going to give their argument more credit.
After all, no matter how much I know about a subject, it’s still possible I’m wrong. And, as the cliched expression goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
But still, the thing is… overwhelmingly, there’s extremely little at stake in being wrong, particularly about the kind of stuff that most people would argue about. Yes, obviously if you’re the last line of defense against a nuclear holocaust and you have to decide if that signal is an incoming nuke and warn the president to retaliate or decide if it’s just a false positive, there’s a lot of risk at being wrong. But compared to that, how much does it matter being wrong about something like sports trivia? The WORST case if you are slightly embarrassed, really, you only even get embarrassed if you actually stake your competence on it.
But even in that, I think people who have that sort of fear of being wrong don’t have it in a rational way. It’s not unlike people who are unwilling to approach someone and ask her out because of the fear of rejection, even though, rationally, there’s nothing to lose in a stranger says no, as you’ll never see her again, and there’s still the possibility she’ll say yes. As much as we’d like to think that humans are rational creatures, after all, it’s our ability to reason that sets us aside from other animals, we’re still heavily driven and influenced by irrational motivations.
Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
Not necessarily. I could be arguing on my own time.
And it costs extra.
All kidding aside, I’ve been considered argumentative.
I don’t think I am because I don’t argue just to argue. However, it bothers me when people are wrong because to my mind, they’ve made an error of logic or facts. I hate wrong facts.