Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • P METHODOLOGY PRODUCES OPTIMUMS, THIS IS IDEAL By: Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon H

    P METHODOLOGY PRODUCES OPTIMUMS, THIS IS IDEAL

    By: Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes) (edited for clarity)

    1) Presentation of content creates a cost of consumption,

    2) Brands compete on that cost to the producer and discount to the consumer:

    3) P competence – creates the ability to generate functional output with P

    4) P craftsmanship – creates the ability to generate functional output with P that survives market competition

    Various markets will value differing aesthetics(interests, concerns, values), meaning different expressions of craftsmanship will survive in different markets.

    So the first barrier is the development of competence (be able to make it your own), and the second barrier is developing and executing appropriate craftsmanship for a specific market (be able to speak it into your audience).

    I do not know that any of us has cracked the code on a single way to bring P to every audience. We are still crafting our messages to audiences.

    Bill demonstrated this very effectively recently. He expressed a desire to elevate his craftsmanship in P and created an audience, a market, receptive to this expression of P.

    Others of us are going to have to slum it, speaking with less precision and using more colloquial language, in order to serve audiences receptive at that level.

    Both function to improve P as inputs can be pulled back in from all markets. And in my opinion all increases in craftsmanship, regardless of market, serve to benefit the overall widespread adoption of P methodology.Updated Feb 15, 2020, 3:31 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 15:31:00 UTC

  • Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:01 PM [B]etter way of saying it: There is one most parsimonous paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P-grammar’). There is no value in false paradigms. There is only value in different attempts to solve a problem within the most parsimonious paradigm. (Note: my position is that language is a system of measurement, and the p-grammars identify the paradigm, and that operationalism constitutions the universal grammar. That would mean the universe is always reducible to classical description.)

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—Rick Paris

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of magic(physical), idealism(verbal), and the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

    —“It is not false. The Universe is expanding, in that what is outside the current momentary paradigm is defined as the Unknown. There is always greater amounts of the Unknown shifting our perceived facts of what is known, as the Unknown is always greater < than the known. So,”No man steps into the same river twice.” is a metaphor for all physical experience. Paradigms are currently, and simply limited and only limited by belief. All paradigms are fictitious mental constructs. Attempting to measure the illogical, is useless and limited the human potential. Logic is very tedious and limits the strongest aspects of the human mind. Only the imagination (what is common sense) is the part of us that can penetrate the very fabric of the Unknown. The greatest of all human gifts is the imagination. It is the function behind all, and cannot be interpreted by logic alone .This is not based in an opinion, it is based in my own experience.”—Rick Paris —“Curt I think I can see/agree a little with Rick. By the very nature of biology, you will always have a body of diversity, not just in capacity, but also concerns. The big fallacy is mistaking diversity for equality and/or dismissability. There will always be a need for more peasants than kings… This doesn’t mean that worker bees should rule the give (all you get is drones if such happens)… At the same time, if the king doesn’t address with reciprocity the needs of the peasants, you leave a tinder wound and a jealous rage ready to eat the rich and a cultural cancer that no longer gives a shit. Homogeny is the cultural cream that will come to the surface given time and peace (consistent enforced reciprocity).”—Anne Summers

    This is a long standing debate, and it’s a matter of grammatical deficiency in our language, so we must state our meaning operationally to avoid sophistry. ONE Does existence persist independent of our perception? Yes. Does the universe demonstrate regularities independent of our perception? Yes. Do we define order as I did above as the intersection of periodicity and scale of resolution? Or do we define order as the regularities what we might potentially identify at various periodicities and scales? Or do we define order as dependent upon those periodicities and scales we can measure and reduce to analogy to experience? Or do we define order as dependent upon the periodicity and scale open to our perception at human scale? Or do we define order as those permutations of paradigms – networks of relations – that vary between humans despite relative invariance of human perception at human scale – such as the asian perception of the world as continuous motion(coherent world) or the european perception of the world as discreet objects (mechanistic world). TWO As for paradigms, this depends upon whether it is possible, when specifying both theory(search criteria), operations (measurement criteria) and limits (full accounting) whether we maintain progress toward the most parsimonious description or not. So, given human perception, human system of measurements, and human chosen time scale, when stating a theory, measurement, and limit, we appear to have successfully – at least in the ancient and modern worlds – slowly evolved greater precision and parsimony – in math, logic, and the sciences at least. And this is why it’s not clear than any of Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein are false at their levels of resolution. Instead it’s fairly obvious that we have just been increasing the precision of the general theory we call description of the regularities observable directly or instrumental in the universe. So if one’s definition is IDEAL then yes, theories are frequently falsified. But if one’s definition is testimonial then it certainly appears that we are continuously increasing precision and that the number of false theories is rapidly decreasing. So, when you attempt to refute my definition, description, and proposition which definition of order are you using?

  • Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:01 PM [B]etter way of saying it: There is one most parsimonous paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P-grammar’). There is no value in false paradigms. There is only value in different attempts to solve a problem within the most parsimonious paradigm. (Note: my position is that language is a system of measurement, and the p-grammars identify the paradigm, and that operationalism constitutions the universal grammar. That would mean the universe is always reducible to classical description.)

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—Rick Paris

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of magic(physical), idealism(verbal), and the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

    —“It is not false. The Universe is expanding, in that what is outside the current momentary paradigm is defined as the Unknown. There is always greater amounts of the Unknown shifting our perceived facts of what is known, as the Unknown is always greater < than the known. So,”No man steps into the same river twice.” is a metaphor for all physical experience. Paradigms are currently, and simply limited and only limited by belief. All paradigms are fictitious mental constructs. Attempting to measure the illogical, is useless and limited the human potential. Logic is very tedious and limits the strongest aspects of the human mind. Only the imagination (what is common sense) is the part of us that can penetrate the very fabric of the Unknown. The greatest of all human gifts is the imagination. It is the function behind all, and cannot be interpreted by logic alone .This is not based in an opinion, it is based in my own experience.”—Rick Paris —“Curt I think I can see/agree a little with Rick. By the very nature of biology, you will always have a body of diversity, not just in capacity, but also concerns. The big fallacy is mistaking diversity for equality and/or dismissability. There will always be a need for more peasants than kings… This doesn’t mean that worker bees should rule the give (all you get is drones if such happens)… At the same time, if the king doesn’t address with reciprocity the needs of the peasants, you leave a tinder wound and a jealous rage ready to eat the rich and a cultural cancer that no longer gives a shit. Homogeny is the cultural cream that will come to the surface given time and peace (consistent enforced reciprocity).”—Anne Summers

    This is a long standing debate, and it’s a matter of grammatical deficiency in our language, so we must state our meaning operationally to avoid sophistry. ONE Does existence persist independent of our perception? Yes. Does the universe demonstrate regularities independent of our perception? Yes. Do we define order as I did above as the intersection of periodicity and scale of resolution? Or do we define order as the regularities what we might potentially identify at various periodicities and scales? Or do we define order as dependent upon those periodicities and scales we can measure and reduce to analogy to experience? Or do we define order as dependent upon the periodicity and scale open to our perception at human scale? Or do we define order as those permutations of paradigms – networks of relations – that vary between humans despite relative invariance of human perception at human scale – such as the asian perception of the world as continuous motion(coherent world) or the european perception of the world as discreet objects (mechanistic world). TWO As for paradigms, this depends upon whether it is possible, when specifying both theory(search criteria), operations (measurement criteria) and limits (full accounting) whether we maintain progress toward the most parsimonious description or not. So, given human perception, human system of measurements, and human chosen time scale, when stating a theory, measurement, and limit, we appear to have successfully – at least in the ancient and modern worlds – slowly evolved greater precision and parsimony – in math, logic, and the sciences at least. And this is why it’s not clear than any of Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein are false at their levels of resolution. Instead it’s fairly obvious that we have just been increasing the precision of the general theory we call description of the regularities observable directly or instrumental in the universe. So if one’s definition is IDEAL then yes, theories are frequently falsified. But if one’s definition is testimonial then it certainly appears that we are continuously increasing precision and that the number of false theories is rapidly decreasing. So, when you attempt to refute my definition, description, and proposition which definition of order are you using?

  • The Choice of Gods

    Feb 13, 2020, 11:20 AM [E]uropeans are the gods among men, and first among men. Not because we are yet gods ourselves. But because we think, speak, write, work, create, and spread the evidence of God’s words, his hands, and his will in the language of god’s words, hands, and will: Mathematics (geometry), Science, and Natural Law of Sovereign Men. For gods must be Sovereign, Omniscient and Omnipotent. And only Sovereign men may transcend into peerage with gods. And that’s why European man has almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death by mastery of god’s word, written in god’s hand – against other’s false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies. And if European man did not drag a people out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, diseases, suffering and early death using god’s words, then those people are suffering because God punishes them for their false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies. And for all people, we are challenged to choose which god is the true god: an impersonal god who tests our ability to achieve sovereignty, omniscience and omniscience by learning his words, hands, and will; a god with whom we trade as allies; or a god who we obey as slaves. Will you transcend into gods, remain a client, or obey as a slave?

    (That is about the net of it.)

  • The Choice of Gods

    Feb 13, 2020, 11:20 AM [E]uropeans are the gods among men, and first among men. Not because we are yet gods ourselves. But because we think, speak, write, work, create, and spread the evidence of God’s words, his hands, and his will in the language of god’s words, hands, and will: Mathematics (geometry), Science, and Natural Law of Sovereign Men. For gods must be Sovereign, Omniscient and Omnipotent. And only Sovereign men may transcend into peerage with gods. And that’s why European man has almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death by mastery of god’s word, written in god’s hand – against other’s false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies. And if European man did not drag a people out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, diseases, suffering and early death using god’s words, then those people are suffering because God punishes them for their false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies. And for all people, we are challenged to choose which god is the true god: an impersonal god who tests our ability to achieve sovereignty, omniscience and omniscience by learning his words, hands, and will; a god with whom we trade as allies; or a god who we obey as slaves. Will you transcend into gods, remain a client, or obey as a slave?

    (That is about the net of it.)

  • TALKING YOU OUT OF LIBERTARIANISM by Brandon Hayes —“I’ve frankly been leaning

    TALKING YOU OUT OF LIBERTARIANISM

    by Brandon Hayes

    —“I’ve frankly been leaning towards Libertarianism…Talk me out of it?”—Connie

    Good morning Connie, talk you out of Libertarianism you say… 🙂

    Perhaps we can just go to the root of it.

    The libertarians don’t have a plan for your protection. They rely on the NAP; which relies on people being relatively advanced (moral); people aren’t. So, you’d be relying on the same mechanisms of power and protection that we have now. Meaning the power distance remains large and chances of miscarriage of justice remains high.

    The only way to ensure a sovereign nation (a libertarian nation even) is through a militia of sovereign men. P is the only political group looking to decrease power distance and increase robustness of fellow its men; we insist every man is a sheriff (part of the militia, a craftsman, a father, etc)[resiliency, ownership, and mastery].

    See, it’s not so much that you ought be thinking “I’d like to be a libertarian” (be able to live freely without others imposing cost and have everyone obey the NAP [they won’t]) BUT, it’s more that you should be thinking “I want MY MEN to be Propertarians”; otherwise the choice to live a life free from imposition of cost (like a libertarian believes she ought) ceases to exist.

    {hope that helps; I can answer questions}

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 09:47:00 UTC

  • IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond I ofte

    IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT?

    by Ryan Drummond

    I often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically.

    Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s.

    So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc.

    He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”.

    This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it.

    This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached.

    One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness).

    During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard.

    The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong).

    Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians.

    So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper.

    Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population.

    P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more.

    Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today.

    Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning.

    You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way.

    But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark.

    But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts.

    I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from.

    That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately.

    If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 15:42:00 UTC

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

  • WOMEN USING P AGAINST GSRRM by James Dmitro Makienko My wife is an aspie, and sh

    WOMEN USING P AGAINST GSRRM

    by James Dmitro Makienko

    My wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts.

    Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use.

    She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM.

    Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 14:38:00 UTC