Out of curiosity, do you have a specific goal or outcome in mind in this exchange? I have tried to determine what your and your sparring partner's objectives are, and I admit it is difficult to discern.

>Out of curiosity, do you have a specific goal or outcome in mind in this exchange? I have tried to determine what your and your sparring partner's objectives are, and I admit it is difficult to discern.

Thank you for asking!

I'm most curious in figuring out ways to bridge the communication gap that is manifesting in this discussion.

The gap is as follows: multiple people have objected to the remark of /user/ninetyninenine, in which they stated that, in their view, willfully mis-grading a paper is a fireable offense for a teacher.

I don't find this opinion problematic or exceptional; and I believe that, if stated in this form, it would not cause a stir.

The way it was written is, in my view, very empathetic. Most people don't consider the livelihood of someone's family when they say "they should get fired for that".

Yet the objections to that comment seem to perceive the opposite — lack of empathy, and went to great length attacking both the opinion and the person who made it.

This reaction to the form of the comment over substance is something that I'm interested in combating.

The conversation with my "sparring partner" in this thread started with a point where me and the person I'm responding to see things differently: they perceived condescension in what I say, and don't appear to see any issue with the "few sentences" of the comment I wrote an "essay" in response to.

Notably, they said they agree with much of the substance of my comment, but find the tone objectionable.

I believe that their perception of my tone can be attributed to the Double Empathy problem¹, and that the same issue underlies the objections to the point user/ninetyninenine made.

I pose the following questions:

1. Is it possible to demonstrate the line between emotional reaction to the form of the comment and its substance — and persuade people to stick to the substance?

2. Can the Double Empathy problem be overcome by explaining how we think and express opinions (and, by that, helping others avoid misinterpreting or misattributing emotions)?

I believe that this conversation helps us all explore these two questions, even if it doesn't yield a conclusive answer to either.

Additionally, I hope this discussion brings attention to neurodivergence in general, and autistic traits in communication in particular, hoping to make people who disagree with our tone hear it differently.

Which is why I'm curious to hear the thoughts of my "sparring partner", as you called them.

I don't see the conversation as a sparring match, or a debate to be won; it's an exchange of ideas where, hopefully, everyone involved leaves with more than they came in with.

Ultimately, that is the goal — in this conversation, as well as all the others I take part in.

Thank you again for asking, glad to answer any other questions!

____

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem