Theme: Deception

(from elsewhere)

(Note: this fellow, is calling me a pompous, illiterate, autist. -And I’m offended by the false accusation of illiteracy- But the truthful criticism of my ‘research through prosecution’ is that it’s a violation of reciprocity that we currently assume in our culture of discourse and debate. I use people to conduct tests. Usually against their will. And the reason is that it’s the only way to get demonstrated behavior rather than reported behavior. Anyway, my immorality in pursuit of moral ends aside, and the continued success of this admittedly duplicitous investigatory technique aside, this serves as a record of my technique:

1 – Look for opportunity to test arguments

2 – Construct a ‘truthful’ criticism that will bait an argument.

3 – If you get an engagement in the argument you have found someone intellectually honest enough to continue investigation with.

4 – Most commonly you will be subject to attacks rather than the argument. Most people are not intellectually honest. Nor do they possess sufficient agency to question their own frames.

5 – Prosecute the individual’s argument by attempting to force the other person to draw his own honest, correct, and position-changing conclusion. (This is the hard part. Don’t tell them the answer. Get them to draw it themselves.)

5a – Answer any ridicule with (truthful) accusation of his incentives. The purpose here is to neutralize the adhom’s, and exhaust the emotion.

5b – Return to the central question by repeating it. We succeed and inform through repetition in ways that even the most well reasoned statements cannot. In addition, the argument doesn’t get lost or distracted from. And moreover, those following the argument are educated through repetition. You will find that repetition succeeds where no other method can. I suggest reprahsing the central argument very slightly each time if you can do so creatively. (which is an art in itself).

5c – Try to connect it with the moral responsibility for preservation of the informational commons. Insinuate his immorality and if possible, ask why the individual is immoral for not doing due diligence in preservation of the informational commons. OR Try to connect it with why he needs to appeal to false authority rathe than simply providing institutional means for voluntary exchanges.

6 – just keep iterating (5) above until the emotion is exhausted and his attempts at avoidance are exhausted. It does not matter what conclusion he comes to in the moment. What matters is whether you have influence him a little – or the audience. People are just vehicles for educating the audience, and discovering candidates who themselves might be able to conduct operational arguments.

)

===

….Interesting that you would call me illiterate.

Pompous (actually it’s arrogant), Autism (actually it’s the practice of deflationary truth), and Parasitic (taking advantage of other’s conversations to run experiments) are all true.

The theory remains: book choices (like cites) function as ability, personality, moral, and evolutionary strategy surveys in ways that self reporting does not. (it is hard to argue with this as evidence of demonstrated preference)

The central argument remains: of all the books one would choose why does one choose a higher proportion of those that justify postwar moralizing, rather than prewar struggle? (demonstrated preference, paradigm adherence)

If you want to attack the argument that’s very different from attacking the arguer. If attacking the argument is beyond you (this is how I taunt the persistence of the argument) then thats moral, but by attacking the arguer, that’s immoral.

If your philosophical position (mine) seeks to test the costs of and means of policing the commons against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, and deceit; and if your effort in developing your philosophical position requires testing..

You see, while debate consists of reciprocal exchanges in pursuit of reciprocal meaning, I do not pursue the act of *prosecution* under the assumption of equality or reciprocity, but instead as a social scientist conducting experiments. In other words, I *use* people like you to run tests (which I’ve been stating openly since 2012 and where my first public experiment was against Kinsella, in which he failed gloriously ). Like fighting, like mathematics, like programming the only way to develop the skill is to practice it.

I teach people this technique as a means of defeating error, bias, and deceit. For example: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155118766937264

So by retaining your position of attacking the person rather than the argument you learn nothing, and merely demonstrate that I am correct: that reason is insufficient and therefore the informational commons CAN ONLY be defended from pollution (harm) by the demand for warranty of due diligence.

You see, what you consider ‘autistic’ is an attempt to create a formal logic that can be incorporated into law, and that will survive constant challenges from critics during legal conflicts.

So there is no ‘room’ per se, for conflationary experience and analogy that we seek in ‘meaning’, in the demand for deflationary truth that we seek to provide means of decidability (dispute resolution) across networks of meaning.

There is a very deliberate method to my ‘madness’. And strangely, the fact that I’m open about it, does nothing to change the reaction to it.

Compare this current ‘educational’ post (comment), with previous ‘prosecutorial’ comments. In this post I’m explaining to you what I am doing and why. In the previous posts I was prosecuting you. This is because in previous posts you were attacking me rather than the argument, and doing so without asking WHY?

So, now that I have been forthcoming with my experiment upon you, in closing, we are left with a few questions:

1) Why didn’t you take the original post, labeled in all caps with the word ‘criticism’, as simply information? And ask WHY?

2) Why did you fall prey to the common criticism of me rather than investigate the tactics?

4) Who is more pompous illiterate and myopically attached to priors?

(And, humorously, why would you fail to categorize your book list by theory of man’s nature, and theory of western civilization as I’d proposed – which would demonstrate that I’d been correct in the original post?)

Thanks for letting me play in your sandbox, and use your involuntarily given test results for the education of myself and others.

We are all victims of cognitive bias.

Cheers.