Overusing the block feature causes a person to build and echo chamber around them, which trains them to dismiss opinions that contradict their ingrained beliefs - which therefore fuels confirmation bias and potentially sources the very type of bad faith driven arguments that Athena mentions here.
Then again, not taking enough care to prune one's profiles by weeding out bad actors will inevitably undermine one's online presence and dilutes one's reach and enjoyment in various ways, which easily becomes a Sisyphean exercise of futility.
It is really a judgement call issue. I tend toward utilizing tenor as my measurement stick. If someone is deliberately goading, they are blocked. I have no interest in someone that is meaning to be snide because they think that they are right, and therefore superior.
That does sound like the reasonable thing to do, I suppose. I don't often get those types of interactions, though.
I'm more the type who accidentally rubs people the wrong way because sometimes I'm 100% focused on whatever idea I happen to be chasing at the moment, and some people seem to interpret this as though I'm playing mind games or luring them into some kind of intellectual trap.
Yeah... maybe it is I who could use a bit of tenor tweaking, at times.
I do get them from time to time. People like to be right and won't listen to reason. And I admit to not pulling any punches if it needs to be put out there that things are the way they are.
With how much the use of the internet is required in our daily lives now, I see this issue everywhere: people investing in opinions and arguments online that are pointless in real life. Investing in them so much, in fact, that it takes an enormous toll on their wellbeing. People's lack of purpose nowadays plays a big part in this, I'm sure. People want to feel like heroes and deliverers of justice, and so they staunchly defend their position with vitriol and rage, to everybody's detriment. It often seems that the only way to exist online without facing this is to participate in the irritating echo chamber where the only thing that matters is telling people they are right, and challenging somebody's thought is the equivalent of committing homicide.
"Choose your battles" is a saying that I enjoy. I try to participate only in discussions or problems that will be important and fruitful. As you mentioned, it is easy to allow that instinctive emotional reaction - that sudden spike of anger or need to respond - to guide your actions, but this will only lead to endless headaches and wasted time. Thank you for the post.
Your comment describes the way I was as a teenager and I will admit the emotional part of me is still there somewhat. I try to avoid engaging in certain topics online because the rage I feel will last for several hours if not a couple of days, but occasionally I end up succumbing.
When it comes to a lack of purpose, that is definitely something I can understand. Western culture has it roots in Greek and Roman culture with significant influence from Christianity. I have read the bible cover to cover and honestly, I can't be a Christian both due to logical and moral objections. With less people being religious nowadays it can lead to people feeling disconnected from the traditional social institutions where Christianity played a major part.
What our society will replace Christianity with, if at all, is something that has yet to be determined.
Judeo Christian values significantly shaped Western civilization, and without their continuation or evolution I'm concerned about social cohesion. What also concerns me is society's inability to agree on objective truth. Not "my truth" but truth based on a combination of perception, logical reasoning, scientific method, and evidence based reality. Sometimes, it seems like truth has become a free for all.
I want to know, what do you consider Judao-Christian values? Because while I agree that Christianity has a huge influence on western culture, I also realize that many things in our culture that we attribute to Christianity have their origins elsewhere.
For instance democracy, the bible never once mentions having a democratic vote to elect leaders, the ancient Greeks however talked about societies going through cycles of monarchy, then democracy, then oligarchy, then back to monarchy.
Many people claim the US constitution was made with a Christian moral framework, yet there’s a contrast between the constitution and the bible. The constitution guarantees religious freedom, while the bible directly says “thou shall have no other gods before me” and the bible is filled with stories of God putting people to death for worshipping other gods.
What the church did provide was a sense of purpose and was the major source of education, healthcare, and socially significant ceremonies for centuries.
Western civilization is definitely going through a transition period, but I don’t think it’s going to be thrown into anarchy because Christianity is becoming less relevant.
First of all, I think of the Bible as a political tool, and I'm not a believer. However, I do believe that it has had enormous cultural influence. It expresses the way people at that time viewed governing, and morality.
Judao-Christian values are the moral and ethical principles and traditions of Judaism and Christianity which include a belief in one God, the value of human life since we are created in his image, the importance of moral and ethical behavior, the importance of family, but what I consider its greatest value is that of creating a community where people are admonished to care for one another.
It's also terribly punitive. I would never agree that the threat of torturous eternal hellfire and damnation is a good way to control people. So, I have bones to pick with it.
As a secular humanist, and practicing Buddhist, I can easily see other traditions taking its place. But, I can't see how a society can survive without anything to provide this sense of community, cooperation and trust.
The US constitution was NOT intended to be Christian, no matter what anyone claims. The First Amendment has two provisions that address religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to practice religion freely without government interference. To suggest otherwise brings us back to the problem of people inventing whatever "truth" suits their agenda.
Thank you for clearing up what you meant, and I apologize for making assumptions. Usually when I hear people use the term “Judeo-Christian values” they’re using it to attribute Christianity to things in western culture that have nothing to do with Christianity.
As for people making up their own truth, people have been doing that since forever. Confirmation bias is a real psychological phenomenon that isn’t going to leave the human race anytime soon. When we become emotionally invested in an idea, we sure as hell aren’t going to give up the idea easily.
That is why we should teach critical thinking skills to children and avoid indoctrination. The more emotionally engrained an idea is, the harder it is to let go, especially if we learned them during our formative years. Letting go of those ideas can feel like the fabric of reality has been ripped to shreds.
As a formerly indoctrinated Catholic, I know all too well how difficult it is to disentangle oneself from ideas that once were absolute truths to realising their impossibility. For some reason, I had an easier time doing this, but I know others who cannot let go no matter what. Without their faith, they would be completely lost, and possibly suicidal. Imagine if you suddenly realised that everything you were taught by people you love and trust was make believe, or a manipulation. These are really good people, and I count them as trusted friends. But, I draw the line at deliberately creating a lie to mesh with some narrative. If we're going to go with the premise of "sin", that should be among the most egregious. But traditional religion at least has profound mythological meanings. So, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
That's kind of you, Merry. People like this come in all forms, and they tend to be unrelentingly convicted in their positions, regardless of the evidence.
Indeed, trying to reason with the unreasonable is never reasonable as it may sound.
Up until this point, I never blocked or muted people because I am vested in scrutinizing antagonistic views, aiming to either learn something from them that refines my understanding of a given topic - or otherwise become more apt at tearing nonsense apart.
But yeah, my general wet-behind-the-ear type observations are very much in line with what you write about here, and I'm beginning to reconsider my approach. Should I not decide to be more active in pruning comments and contacts... I ought to at least train myself not to engage in futile, energy wasting arguments. It boils down to judiciously picking one's battles, I suppose.
I'd just add that bad faith arguments reek of projection and are ultimately revealing of the person offering them and their own struggles.
"When Paul speaks of Peter, we learn more about Paul". To think this is an actual biblical quote. Wow.
PS - my curiosity is stoked regarding that article you're planning to do. Kindly bring it on!
"The 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla:
1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
3. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
Fascinating stuff!! I could feel my hackles rising reading all the provocative and demeaning language! It’s so hard to ignore sometimes and even worse when the other is so willfully ignorant there’s no way to argue or reason with them. I think learning to step back can only come with age and experience.
It’s amusing to me that people kept projecting their emotions onto your responses, which all read very factual and emotionally flat to me compared to their own responses that were filled with emotional agenda, trying to illicit specific responses or position themselves in a superior light. Alas, the internet… it is what it is…
It is always interesting that they tend to project and find it very difficult to read what I say as it is intended, instead of through their emotional filter
some people like to argue, to boost their own egos with the intention of being an annoyance and nothing more. they could care less if their ignorance is on full display for all to read. their questions are passive aggressive, with foredrawn conclusions and not sincerely interested in learning anything new.
And then there are those that are closed minded and dogmatic, who cannot think outside the box. these are the people who believe the dsm is science and refuse to open their minds to other possibilities. the future will be neuroscience, neurobiology and not the opinion dominated dsm that these people rely on and point to as the last word.
Yes, this is very common. I get passive aggressive comments and questions all the time, which I always find so amusing. Especially the ones that try to distract from that passive aggressive slant, such as this one:
"Of course. ASPD doesn't sound nearly as glamorous as Psychopath. Athena… if I can be real honest…
What you describe in great detail in your writing is simply somebody Born with lesser, muffled emotions. Silly Hollywood films have given the term Psychopath and Sociopath ridiculous stereotypes. What the medical community needs to do is drop these silly archaic terms. Psychopath should be replaced by something like Emotional Retardation Syndrome, for example.
But… an Emotional Retard wouldn't get nearly as much Attention and Followers, hmm. 🤔
Pretty good pseudonym, I will admit.
Athena… a mysterious and rare, exotic name. Special.
Walker… as in She who Walks the Path. 👍
Sorry if I'm wrong… but I suspect I'm right. No doubt you will get Angry and block me. Oh well. 💗"
She certainly didn't make me angry, but she was blocked. I haven't time for this kind of nonsense.
The tone of that little diatribe would get a block from me for sure. Emotional retardation is a pretty odd accusation which I've used to describe people who lack any emotional control which may be some sort of histrionic disorder.
Personally I've been accused of being a narcissist due to unwarranted displays of self confidence at times. One time when that happened I immediately began singing the old Mac Davis song "Lord It's Hard to be Humble" to the woman and another time I sang "How Can I Miss You if You Don't Go Away" to a different woman. I do have a passable singing voice I guess. But since I can't sing on Quora or wherever I just block them.
I would love to read the debate on Quora. It sounds fascinating.
As for arguing with strangers, I learned my lesson on Quora when some guy insisted psychopathy was caused by lead poisoning! I politely asked for a link to where he acquired this information, and he was so rude that a nasty back and forth ensued. I finally deleted my comments and blocked him. Never again will I bother with people like this.
Lead poisoning? That's a new one. What about psychopathy's presence in the human race prior to the use of lead? I wonder how he would have accounted for that?
Lead poisoning is definitely a problem, but mainly by lowering IQ points a bit. That guy thought lead poisoning caused lack of empathy, and ergo all disorders of empathy, but most specifically ASPD. He would not consider any other explanation, or attempts to suggest that these disorders pre-existed lead poisoning. When asked for a link to the studies he was referring to, he mocked my ability to do a google search for myself, as though it was my responsibility to prove him wrong; not his to prove he was right. He was a jackass. He also claimed to be a perpetual victim of narcissists, when he struck me as one of the most narcissistic individuals I'd ever had the displeasure to encounter.
He has one of those NPD grifts going, where he considers himself an expert in all things NPD, because by some mystery of fate, he was raised by "malignant narcissists'', keeps having relationships with "malignant narcissists", "borderlines", and other abusive females, and sees "lack of affective empathy" everywhere except in himself!
NPD is actually quite rare, so he's a remarkably unlucky guy, but he has over 300 followers.
The last laughable thing I saw on his blog was that marijuana has a unique affinity for lead, and people who smoke it cause lead damage to their frontal lobes with an accompanying loss of affective empathy, which turns them into NPD, ASPD, and so on!!! Now, I think I've heard it all. Of course, he doesn't provide any references, or evidence. Any plant grown in contaminated soil can cause excess lead exposure! Cannabis has no special affinity for lead. Some of the smartest and most compassionate people I know have smoked it daily for decades with no ill effects.
A common theme that I have noticed with many people that claim to be experts in NPD, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc, is this insistence that they know a plethora of people that are all these things. It is always someone else, there is never self-reflection.
Ironically enough, lack of self-reflection and always blaming others is a sign of NPD in and of itself.
Of course not everyone who consistently keeps finding abusive people are the abusive ones. Many people who keep on finding abusers have vulnerabilities that malicious people are able to sniff out and exploit.
While NPD can’t be diagnosed by the average person, I do find that you can still observe behavioural patterns and maybe those patterns are indicative of NPD, but since many disorders and normal behaviour have overlap you can never come to a definitive conclusion until there’s an official diagnosis.
Exactly. And his followers seem to have bitter break-up stories involving these people with undiagnosed NPD. They are always victims. Never people who have failed relationships like everyone else. Now, I guess, he believes all of this suffering is caused by lead poisoning.
I can tell you why I will engage rather than ignore, or used to until I learned better and now do exactly as you suggest here.
I respond / defend myself because I hate to be misinterpreted. So if people twist my comment, suggest that I meant something contrary to what I actually meant, then this offends my sense of justice. I’ll engage to clarify and defend the meaning behind my comment. I don’t like people putting words in my mouth.
If attacked and labelled as something I’m not, then again, this offends my sense of justice as well. I’ll engage to reject the comment and highlight the smearing of the commenter. This happens a lot on social media. Terms such as racist, misogynist etc are thrown around like confetti. I put it down to narcissism, the black and white thinking of the ‘true believers’. The ‘All who agree with me are good, all who disagree are bad’ mentality. Then we see the social media pile ons. To disagree with these people is a threat to their control. Control must be asserted and continue to be asserted until you capitulate and control is achieved. Your last example looked very like that to me. A need for control on the part of the commenter. Not interested in the information, just interested in the win.
I’ll engage sometimes to get to the truth of what the commenter is trying to achieve by continuing. Truthseeking, I want to understand the driver behind the behaviour.
I agree with you though. I’ve learned that engaging with these types of people is really a fool’s errand. If the person you’re dealing with is a narcissist or even an NT with reduced empathy because they don’t actually know me, then I can only actually win by picking up my ball and going home!
Yes, curious to see the thread you mention. Hot button topic. Covid jabs? That’s guaranteed to be a lively debate past or present!
It's certain to be lively and also subjective. People's personal reasoning and risk assessment is their own to make. I think the conversation is more productive around mandation or requirement of such things, but even then people tend to be rather emotional about the conversation, so it is a difficult one to have.
Definitely. I think to begin with, fear motivated the emotional side either in one direction or the other. Trust also was a key factor. Fear and trust are difficult emotions to influence, not a great deal of wiggle room when they are both in play.
Intellectual & emotional juvenilism is so prominent in society and no where is it more concentrated than on the internet. But my friend said so guy might have well been squirming in his seat with his hand up saying “ooooh ooooh pick me” only to deliver a wrong answer. I find it fascinating how people don’t recognize the extraordinary amount of patience and staying power that a psychopath has until they don’t in which case you’ve got nothing.
i have such a difficult time gauging the difference between a genuine question and an inflammatory one, d/t taking everything extremely literally and intuitively thinking everyone means well (though i've done better this past year putting up some personal safeguards against that instinctual mindset). it's one of the many reasons i'm not on mainstream social media anymore, as everything blew up for me there thanks to some not-nice people. but while it's hard enough for me in person, i find it quite a bit harder to read intent over the internet.
i have asked people i'm close with their tips for evaluating if someone is truly asking a question or if they're trying to stir up something, but the answers i get range from "well i sort of just evaluate their body language" (i don't SPEAK that language), or "i guess i try to look at their facial expression" (and i don't typically look at people's face). i have since resorted to running questionable conversations by the people i'm closest to and now i'm catching on to some patterns a bit, but i still can't understand when people on the internet behind their screens are being a) genuine and when they deserve my time or b) when they're being actual rats.
i find this extremely confusing. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
i liked this one, except the annoying DMers made me want to throw my phone.
I would try to explore the question with them. What are their underlying beliefs that the questions premise is built on, and how did they formulate the thought process that brought the question about? This allows you to know where they are at, and whether it is a well considered question as opposed to something that is designed to raise someone's ire.
Also, when it is meant to be inflammatory for the sake of it, they often, during these probing questions, will be unable to hide their disdain or mockery that is behind their motivation.
The interesting thing is the fact this person believed they were the tier 12 and you were in tier 01. I get surprised at the fact a lot of people think you are narcissistic. Do you know why this happens?
Anyway I would be very interested in reading the discussion you had about that "hot topic". I think neurotypical people like me tend to get stuck in their beliefs and having a read about recognizing signs of a good argument can be healthy.
People tend to think that when I am challenging the prevailing narrative about psychopathy that it is because I believe myself to be superior, instead of seeing that there are logical flaws that have not been addressed, but should be. They consider the notion that I dare have the hubris to not fall in line with stereotypes to be evidence that I am faking psychopathy.
I find it more interesting when people do fall in line with stereotypes surrounding psychopathy, because it is a good indicator to me that they aren't speaking from experience, but rather allowing themselves to be told what it is that they are supposed to be if they are a "psychopath". It, to me anyway, makes it clear that they are not what they think that they are or are claiming to be.
When I was young, I would often have these time wasting discussions. Lol
As I matured I figured out it was a waste of time. I have friends who are always right. They have other qualities that I do like though, so when they start a conversation and it goes to the" I know I'm right" point, I just either agree to disagree or I let them be right, depending on who it is. I no longer involve myself in eating much, if any of my time.
The block feature is the greatest feature on any social media platform
I agree.
Well... Yes and no.
Overusing the block feature causes a person to build and echo chamber around them, which trains them to dismiss opinions that contradict their ingrained beliefs - which therefore fuels confirmation bias and potentially sources the very type of bad faith driven arguments that Athena mentions here.
Then again, not taking enough care to prune one's profiles by weeding out bad actors will inevitably undermine one's online presence and dilutes one's reach and enjoyment in various ways, which easily becomes a Sisyphean exercise of futility.
It is really a judgement call issue. I tend toward utilizing tenor as my measurement stick. If someone is deliberately goading, they are blocked. I have no interest in someone that is meaning to be snide because they think that they are right, and therefore superior.
That does sound like the reasonable thing to do, I suppose. I don't often get those types of interactions, though.
I'm more the type who accidentally rubs people the wrong way because sometimes I'm 100% focused on whatever idea I happen to be chasing at the moment, and some people seem to interpret this as though I'm playing mind games or luring them into some kind of intellectual trap.
Yeah... maybe it is I who could use a bit of tenor tweaking, at times.
I do get them from time to time. People like to be right and won't listen to reason. And I admit to not pulling any punches if it needs to be put out there that things are the way they are.
With how much the use of the internet is required in our daily lives now, I see this issue everywhere: people investing in opinions and arguments online that are pointless in real life. Investing in them so much, in fact, that it takes an enormous toll on their wellbeing. People's lack of purpose nowadays plays a big part in this, I'm sure. People want to feel like heroes and deliverers of justice, and so they staunchly defend their position with vitriol and rage, to everybody's detriment. It often seems that the only way to exist online without facing this is to participate in the irritating echo chamber where the only thing that matters is telling people they are right, and challenging somebody's thought is the equivalent of committing homicide.
"Choose your battles" is a saying that I enjoy. I try to participate only in discussions or problems that will be important and fruitful. As you mentioned, it is easy to allow that instinctive emotional reaction - that sudden spike of anger or need to respond - to guide your actions, but this will only lead to endless headaches and wasted time. Thank you for the post.
Yes, I agree. Choosing where you invest your energy is very important.
Your comment describes the way I was as a teenager and I will admit the emotional part of me is still there somewhat. I try to avoid engaging in certain topics online because the rage I feel will last for several hours if not a couple of days, but occasionally I end up succumbing.
When it comes to a lack of purpose, that is definitely something I can understand. Western culture has it roots in Greek and Roman culture with significant influence from Christianity. I have read the bible cover to cover and honestly, I can't be a Christian both due to logical and moral objections. With less people being religious nowadays it can lead to people feeling disconnected from the traditional social institutions where Christianity played a major part.
What our society will replace Christianity with, if at all, is something that has yet to be determined.
Judeo Christian values significantly shaped Western civilization, and without their continuation or evolution I'm concerned about social cohesion. What also concerns me is society's inability to agree on objective truth. Not "my truth" but truth based on a combination of perception, logical reasoning, scientific method, and evidence based reality. Sometimes, it seems like truth has become a free for all.
I want to know, what do you consider Judao-Christian values? Because while I agree that Christianity has a huge influence on western culture, I also realize that many things in our culture that we attribute to Christianity have their origins elsewhere.
For instance democracy, the bible never once mentions having a democratic vote to elect leaders, the ancient Greeks however talked about societies going through cycles of monarchy, then democracy, then oligarchy, then back to monarchy.
Many people claim the US constitution was made with a Christian moral framework, yet there’s a contrast between the constitution and the bible. The constitution guarantees religious freedom, while the bible directly says “thou shall have no other gods before me” and the bible is filled with stories of God putting people to death for worshipping other gods.
What the church did provide was a sense of purpose and was the major source of education, healthcare, and socially significant ceremonies for centuries.
Western civilization is definitely going through a transition period, but I don’t think it’s going to be thrown into anarchy because Christianity is becoming less relevant.
First of all, I think of the Bible as a political tool, and I'm not a believer. However, I do believe that it has had enormous cultural influence. It expresses the way people at that time viewed governing, and morality.
Judao-Christian values are the moral and ethical principles and traditions of Judaism and Christianity which include a belief in one God, the value of human life since we are created in his image, the importance of moral and ethical behavior, the importance of family, but what I consider its greatest value is that of creating a community where people are admonished to care for one another.
It's also terribly punitive. I would never agree that the threat of torturous eternal hellfire and damnation is a good way to control people. So, I have bones to pick with it.
As a secular humanist, and practicing Buddhist, I can easily see other traditions taking its place. But, I can't see how a society can survive without anything to provide this sense of community, cooperation and trust.
The US constitution was NOT intended to be Christian, no matter what anyone claims. The First Amendment has two provisions that address religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to practice religion freely without government interference. To suggest otherwise brings us back to the problem of people inventing whatever "truth" suits their agenda.
Thank you for clearing up what you meant, and I apologize for making assumptions. Usually when I hear people use the term “Judeo-Christian values” they’re using it to attribute Christianity to things in western culture that have nothing to do with Christianity.
As for people making up their own truth, people have been doing that since forever. Confirmation bias is a real psychological phenomenon that isn’t going to leave the human race anytime soon. When we become emotionally invested in an idea, we sure as hell aren’t going to give up the idea easily.
That is why we should teach critical thinking skills to children and avoid indoctrination. The more emotionally engrained an idea is, the harder it is to let go, especially if we learned them during our formative years. Letting go of those ideas can feel like the fabric of reality has been ripped to shreds.
As a formerly indoctrinated Catholic, I know all too well how difficult it is to disentangle oneself from ideas that once were absolute truths to realising their impossibility. For some reason, I had an easier time doing this, but I know others who cannot let go no matter what. Without their faith, they would be completely lost, and possibly suicidal. Imagine if you suddenly realised that everything you were taught by people you love and trust was make believe, or a manipulation. These are really good people, and I count them as trusted friends. But, I draw the line at deliberately creating a lie to mesh with some narrative. If we're going to go with the premise of "sin", that should be among the most egregious. But traditional religion at least has profound mythological meanings. So, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
Athena, you demonstrate the patience of a saint here! I so admire the "matter-of-fact" way you are able to deal with and disengage from this joker!
That's kind of you, Merry. People like this come in all forms, and they tend to be unrelentingly convicted in their positions, regardless of the evidence.
Indeed, trying to reason with the unreasonable is never reasonable as it may sound.
Up until this point, I never blocked or muted people because I am vested in scrutinizing antagonistic views, aiming to either learn something from them that refines my understanding of a given topic - or otherwise become more apt at tearing nonsense apart.
But yeah, my general wet-behind-the-ear type observations are very much in line with what you write about here, and I'm beginning to reconsider my approach. Should I not decide to be more active in pruning comments and contacts... I ought to at least train myself not to engage in futile, energy wasting arguments. It boils down to judiciously picking one's battles, I suppose.
I'd just add that bad faith arguments reek of projection and are ultimately revealing of the person offering them and their own struggles.
"When Paul speaks of Peter, we learn more about Paul". To think this is an actual biblical quote. Wow.
PS - my curiosity is stoked regarding that article you're planning to do. Kindly bring it on!
Excellent, I will do so. It was a spirited debate, and while I argued my position in good faith, I was simply wrong about her conclusions.
Where is that quote in the Bible? It doesn't come up on a search. It sounds like a Bible commentary.
And who could have said it? AFAIK, Paul was the last living writer.
I stand corrected - turns out its's a quote from Baruch Spinoza that services a commentary on the Bible, they're debating it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/reoqx5/what_paul_says_about_peter_tells_us_more_about/
That makes way more sense. Thanks for checking it out.
Thankyou for bringing to my attention that I was not correct, I appreciate that!
"The 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" by Carlo M. Cipolla:
1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
2.The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
3. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#%22The_Basic_Laws_of_Human_Stupidity%22_(1976)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#/media/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg
Cipolla's book in pdf format:
http://gandalf.fee.urv.cat/professors/AntonioQuesada/Curs1920/Cip.pdf
What was Carlin's quote?
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin
He was very on point with that one.
Oh this did make me laugh. Crap! Was it a stupid laugh?!?!
They do, I wouldn't waste my tone on someone that wouldn't
Fascinating stuff!! I could feel my hackles rising reading all the provocative and demeaning language! It’s so hard to ignore sometimes and even worse when the other is so willfully ignorant there’s no way to argue or reason with them. I think learning to step back can only come with age and experience.
It’s amusing to me that people kept projecting their emotions onto your responses, which all read very factual and emotionally flat to me compared to their own responses that were filled with emotional agenda, trying to illicit specific responses or position themselves in a superior light. Alas, the internet… it is what it is…
It is always interesting that they tend to project and find it very difficult to read what I say as it is intended, instead of through their emotional filter
some people like to argue, to boost their own egos with the intention of being an annoyance and nothing more. they could care less if their ignorance is on full display for all to read. their questions are passive aggressive, with foredrawn conclusions and not sincerely interested in learning anything new.
And then there are those that are closed minded and dogmatic, who cannot think outside the box. these are the people who believe the dsm is science and refuse to open their minds to other possibilities. the future will be neuroscience, neurobiology and not the opinion dominated dsm that these people rely on and point to as the last word.
Yes, this is very common. I get passive aggressive comments and questions all the time, which I always find so amusing. Especially the ones that try to distract from that passive aggressive slant, such as this one:
"Of course. ASPD doesn't sound nearly as glamorous as Psychopath. Athena… if I can be real honest…
What you describe in great detail in your writing is simply somebody Born with lesser, muffled emotions. Silly Hollywood films have given the term Psychopath and Sociopath ridiculous stereotypes. What the medical community needs to do is drop these silly archaic terms. Psychopath should be replaced by something like Emotional Retardation Syndrome, for example.
But… an Emotional Retard wouldn't get nearly as much Attention and Followers, hmm. 🤔
Pretty good pseudonym, I will admit.
Athena… a mysterious and rare, exotic name. Special.
Walker… as in She who Walks the Path. 👍
Sorry if I'm wrong… but I suspect I'm right. No doubt you will get Angry and block me. Oh well. 💗"
She certainly didn't make me angry, but she was blocked. I haven't time for this kind of nonsense.
The tone of that little diatribe would get a block from me for sure. Emotional retardation is a pretty odd accusation which I've used to describe people who lack any emotional control which may be some sort of histrionic disorder.
Personally I've been accused of being a narcissist due to unwarranted displays of self confidence at times. One time when that happened I immediately began singing the old Mac Davis song "Lord It's Hard to be Humble" to the woman and another time I sang "How Can I Miss You if You Don't Go Away" to a different woman. I do have a passable singing voice I guess. But since I can't sing on Quora or wherever I just block them.
People get very annoyed with confidence. I think that it might relate to jealousy that they lack it so they cannot demonstrate it easily.
Of all the nerve! Whoever wrote that spent a great deal of time thinking about you. Too weird.
I hadn't even considered that. I suppose that makes sense.
I would love to read the debate on Quora. It sounds fascinating.
As for arguing with strangers, I learned my lesson on Quora when some guy insisted psychopathy was caused by lead poisoning! I politely asked for a link to where he acquired this information, and he was so rude that a nasty back and forth ensued. I finally deleted my comments and blocked him. Never again will I bother with people like this.
Lead poisoning? That's a new one. What about psychopathy's presence in the human race prior to the use of lead? I wonder how he would have accounted for that?
Lead poisoning is definitely a problem, but mainly by lowering IQ points a bit. That guy thought lead poisoning caused lack of empathy, and ergo all disorders of empathy, but most specifically ASPD. He would not consider any other explanation, or attempts to suggest that these disorders pre-existed lead poisoning. When asked for a link to the studies he was referring to, he mocked my ability to do a google search for myself, as though it was my responsibility to prove him wrong; not his to prove he was right. He was a jackass. He also claimed to be a perpetual victim of narcissists, when he struck me as one of the most narcissistic individuals I'd ever had the displeasure to encounter.
People like that are exhausting
He has one of those NPD grifts going, where he considers himself an expert in all things NPD, because by some mystery of fate, he was raised by "malignant narcissists'', keeps having relationships with "malignant narcissists", "borderlines", and other abusive females, and sees "lack of affective empathy" everywhere except in himself!
NPD is actually quite rare, so he's a remarkably unlucky guy, but he has over 300 followers.
The last laughable thing I saw on his blog was that marijuana has a unique affinity for lead, and people who smoke it cause lead damage to their frontal lobes with an accompanying loss of affective empathy, which turns them into NPD, ASPD, and so on!!! Now, I think I've heard it all. Of course, he doesn't provide any references, or evidence. Any plant grown in contaminated soil can cause excess lead exposure! Cannabis has no special affinity for lead. Some of the smartest and most compassionate people I know have smoked it daily for decades with no ill effects.
A common theme that I have noticed with many people that claim to be experts in NPD, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc, is this insistence that they know a plethora of people that are all these things. It is always someone else, there is never self-reflection.
Ironically enough, lack of self-reflection and always blaming others is a sign of NPD in and of itself.
Of course not everyone who consistently keeps finding abusive people are the abusive ones. Many people who keep on finding abusers have vulnerabilities that malicious people are able to sniff out and exploit.
While NPD can’t be diagnosed by the average person, I do find that you can still observe behavioural patterns and maybe those patterns are indicative of NPD, but since many disorders and normal behaviour have overlap you can never come to a definitive conclusion until there’s an official diagnosis.
Exactly. And his followers seem to have bitter break-up stories involving these people with undiagnosed NPD. They are always victims. Never people who have failed relationships like everyone else. Now, I guess, he believes all of this suffering is caused by lead poisoning.
He couldn't!! That's why he had to ridicule me for asking for documentation to support this!!! I never dreamed I'd have to encounter such stupidity!!
That is... a pretty unique encounter
I can tell you why I will engage rather than ignore, or used to until I learned better and now do exactly as you suggest here.
I respond / defend myself because I hate to be misinterpreted. So if people twist my comment, suggest that I meant something contrary to what I actually meant, then this offends my sense of justice. I’ll engage to clarify and defend the meaning behind my comment. I don’t like people putting words in my mouth.
If attacked and labelled as something I’m not, then again, this offends my sense of justice as well. I’ll engage to reject the comment and highlight the smearing of the commenter. This happens a lot on social media. Terms such as racist, misogynist etc are thrown around like confetti. I put it down to narcissism, the black and white thinking of the ‘true believers’. The ‘All who agree with me are good, all who disagree are bad’ mentality. Then we see the social media pile ons. To disagree with these people is a threat to their control. Control must be asserted and continue to be asserted until you capitulate and control is achieved. Your last example looked very like that to me. A need for control on the part of the commenter. Not interested in the information, just interested in the win.
I’ll engage sometimes to get to the truth of what the commenter is trying to achieve by continuing. Truthseeking, I want to understand the driver behind the behaviour.
I agree with you though. I’ve learned that engaging with these types of people is really a fool’s errand. If the person you’re dealing with is a narcissist or even an NT with reduced empathy because they don’t actually know me, then I can only actually win by picking up my ball and going home!
Yes, curious to see the thread you mention. Hot button topic. Covid jabs? That’s guaranteed to be a lively debate past or present!
It's certain to be lively and also subjective. People's personal reasoning and risk assessment is their own to make. I think the conversation is more productive around mandation or requirement of such things, but even then people tend to be rather emotional about the conversation, so it is a difficult one to have.
Definitely. I think to begin with, fear motivated the emotional side either in one direction or the other. Trust also was a key factor. Fear and trust are difficult emotions to influence, not a great deal of wiggle room when they are both in play.
Intellectual & emotional juvenilism is so prominent in society and no where is it more concentrated than on the internet. But my friend said so guy might have well been squirming in his seat with his hand up saying “ooooh ooooh pick me” only to deliver a wrong answer. I find it fascinating how people don’t recognize the extraordinary amount of patience and staying power that a psychopath has until they don’t in which case you’ve got nothing.
Indeed true
Please do the post.
All right, I will
i have such a difficult time gauging the difference between a genuine question and an inflammatory one, d/t taking everything extremely literally and intuitively thinking everyone means well (though i've done better this past year putting up some personal safeguards against that instinctual mindset). it's one of the many reasons i'm not on mainstream social media anymore, as everything blew up for me there thanks to some not-nice people. but while it's hard enough for me in person, i find it quite a bit harder to read intent over the internet.
i have asked people i'm close with their tips for evaluating if someone is truly asking a question or if they're trying to stir up something, but the answers i get range from "well i sort of just evaluate their body language" (i don't SPEAK that language), or "i guess i try to look at their facial expression" (and i don't typically look at people's face). i have since resorted to running questionable conversations by the people i'm closest to and now i'm catching on to some patterns a bit, but i still can't understand when people on the internet behind their screens are being a) genuine and when they deserve my time or b) when they're being actual rats.
i find this extremely confusing. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
i liked this one, except the annoying DMers made me want to throw my phone.
I would try to explore the question with them. What are their underlying beliefs that the questions premise is built on, and how did they formulate the thought process that brought the question about? This allows you to know where they are at, and whether it is a well considered question as opposed to something that is designed to raise someone's ire.
Also, when it is meant to be inflammatory for the sake of it, they often, during these probing questions, will be unable to hide their disdain or mockery that is behind their motivation.
thank you for this, this is actually very helpful!
You are quite welcome
The interesting thing is the fact this person believed they were the tier 12 and you were in tier 01. I get surprised at the fact a lot of people think you are narcissistic. Do you know why this happens?
Anyway I would be very interested in reading the discussion you had about that "hot topic". I think neurotypical people like me tend to get stuck in their beliefs and having a read about recognizing signs of a good argument can be healthy.
People tend to think that when I am challenging the prevailing narrative about psychopathy that it is because I believe myself to be superior, instead of seeing that there are logical flaws that have not been addressed, but should be. They consider the notion that I dare have the hubris to not fall in line with stereotypes to be evidence that I am faking psychopathy.
I find it more interesting when people do fall in line with stereotypes surrounding psychopathy, because it is a good indicator to me that they aren't speaking from experience, but rather allowing themselves to be told what it is that they are supposed to be if they are a "psychopath". It, to me anyway, makes it clear that they are not what they think that they are or are claiming to be.
Informative and entertaining as always! Thanks Athena for one more week's article.
Thank you for reading, Luiz
That was great!
When I was young, I would often have these time wasting discussions. Lol
As I matured I figured out it was a waste of time. I have friends who are always right. They have other qualities that I do like though, so when they start a conversation and it goes to the" I know I'm right" point, I just either agree to disagree or I let them be right, depending on who it is. I no longer involve myself in eating much, if any of my time.
Hopefully they at least respect agreeing to disagree
They do. I wouldn't waste my time on someone who doesn't