Sociopath Community

Thumper said: 

OMG, this is still going on?

It hasn't even been going on for a month yet, chill. 

This turned into a great thread. It's affirmed a lot of what I suspected. 

Turncoat said: 

He's not doing this intentionally.

While many a cheeky snarker will purposefully miss points to further incite answers out of the other, Inquirer to me looks like he at least thinks that he's genuinely attempting (with excuses to not try as hard, but still), even if he is starting to enter his rigid and unwilling Bedrock Stonewalling stages. He is stubborn, especially when he's mistaken enough to think he's right, and that tends to slow down the process with him as he attempts to handwave it's continuation through unconscious ad hominems over why his opponents purely (not himself) are trying to keep it going (autism, trolling, "it's a game to them", "this is how they respond to losing", etc).

By keeping it about why they need to keep the verbal battle going, he doesn't have to actually listen to or take it seriously anymore other than through sheer reinforcement of the same points for a length of time that can span for weeks if not months. He always has a justification for how he's clearly the one winning in any duel I've seen him be a part of, and preparing for such a justification is likely why he "picks his opponents wisely". 

His username as time's gone on has seemed increasingly ironic to me.

The funny part is that I never realized Inq was like this before you actually pointed it out. And oh boy were you right. If anything, Inquirer has demonstrated that every one of your claims is true here. "He carries himself like he's this sophisticated shmaht guy with zilch feelings, like some sort of Spock ripoff". He really drives that point home in this 19-page topic.

How much he actually can't is the funnier part.

No shitting. If his logic required he eat his own shoe, he'd choose to do it rather than admit he's wrong.

I've never met anyone with this much pride who had so little to show for it.

You could do it if said admission turned out to be more practical/hilarious, or you could just disappear for a while and let it become forgotten, while he actually has believed stakes in this now through how much time and investment he's now already spent here (Sunken Cost Fallacy).

I was entertaining the thought. Although, I think there'll be some more fun now that he's forced to stick to his stupid stance for the rest of his life on SC. My guess is that he'll retreat to his shell as usual. That seems to be his way of saving face after going all-out high and mighty pompous.

HOW IS THIS THREAD STILL ACTIVE

Edvard said: 

HOW IS THIS THREAD STILL ACTIVE

It'd make more sense if you bothered to read it. 

Legga said: 

First off, it is not "my idea of evidence." Like I said, I'm just following Bayesian logic. I'd say it's much stronger than some 20-something CS Swede logic which argues that everyone must adhere to "Inquirer evidence."

You listed a bunch of people and claimed they were Swedish, which is separate from your claim in the paper, and now you try to argue you don't have to back that up because of "Bayesian logic". That you simultaneously feel the need to mischaracterize and mock "Inquirer evidence" in literally every post you make only further creates the look that you're trying to avoid my actual points. Forget about "my" evidence if it bothers you so much and simply provide scientific evidence.

Secondly, you're misrepresenting your own stance and my own. You've clearly been debating my paper, so +1 to me (I can probably give you verifiable evidence for that if you like),

Alright, quote me.

and even if you didn't, it still wouldn't overrule the fact that I've clearly outlined my stance since the start (if you like I can give you verifiable evidence for that too).

...and I've clearly outlined my stance from the start. When you gave me a list of names you deviated from your statistical argument in your "paper". My argument has been all along that your list of Swedes is stupid and that it undermines the whole effort of yours to question me and my "socks" because it shows how little you actually know about the forum.

Your main argument now is essentially: "it is not."

And yours isn't? All you say now is "but I'm following Bayesian logic", even if I explain over and over how the details of your paper are irrelevant.

You can't even answer simple questions regarding your stance and refuse to define anything you say.

Quote what I've failed to answer or define.

 

I'll ask you an extremely simple yes/no question that should leave no room for misunderstandings:

When you told me I need to provide you with evidence, did you mean that I should provide you with good evidence, or not? Yes/no will do.

Lol, a yes/no won't do. This is akin to asking "did you stop beating your wife?".

Here's what I mean by "good evidence":

"All I'm asking for is for you to show or reasonably argue that the people you listed have spoken/written decent Swedish and/or have claimed they're Swedish more than just once (so we can't just count in people who lazily troll you in chat, like User)."

What about that is unclear or badly defined?

 "Quote me arguing against your paper":

Inquirer said: 

When you gave me a list of names you deviated from your statistical argument in your "paper".

And yours isn't? All you say now is "but I'm following Bayesian logic", even if I explain over and over how the details of your paper are irrelevant.

Go back to read my previous post to find my retort to this lol.

1. My stance was "people can decide for themselves", based on Bayesian logic [1]. No sane person would continue insisting on the correctness evidence if others clearly state they don't have access to the same information, which is precisely why I stated my view so many times. *YOU* claimed I needed to provide convincing evidence. I retorted with "you do it." And now you go "now the proof-of-burden is on you, because you said you can provide convincing evidence" when I clearly never made the claim; my view is Bayesian.

Essentially, you're trying to shift the burden of proof, which is a type of logical fallacy [2]. Here's the definition: "Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side." For someone who always goes "ad hominem derp derp" you should know this.

My point is and has been that you can't provide convincing evidence yourself, so you shouldn't call me an idiot if I fail to do that. If you think I did in fact make the claim that I can provide convincing evidence, then give me the citation in which I do it. I.e, provide evidence as per your stance or be labeled an idiot again, also as per your own stance. You will find no such citation.

Quote what I've failed to answer or define.

Well for example you failed to answer a yes/no question.

I'll ask you an extremely simple yes/no question that should leave no room for misunderstandings:

When you told me I need to provide you with evidence, did you mean that I should provide you with good evidence, or not? Yes/no will do.

Lol, a yes/no won't do. This is akin to asking "did you stop beating your wife?".

Here's what I mean by "good evidence":

"All I'm asking for is for you to show or reasonably argue that the people you listed have spoken/written decent Swedish and/or have claimed they're Swedish more than just once (so we can't just count in people who lazily troll you in chat, like User)."

How in the world is "When you told me to provide you with evidence, did you mean good evidence, or not?" the same as "Did you stop beating your wife?" It's an extremely simple question. Explain yourself.

I take it is "yes," since you consider that to be good evidence? Essentially, were you *NOT* arguing that I should give you something that would be convincing enough for you?

I'm not trying to strawman you. We can both agree that you went on to describe what you think is convincing evidence afterwards. But that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking you a simple question. And you didn't answer.

Do you agree you asked me to provide evidence with the purpose of convincing you, or not? Yes or no? You even slammed down reasoning you thought was unconvincing.

This is getting cringy Inq. If you say "provide evidence", then it shouldn't take a linguistics expert to figure out what it means. All I'm asking you is what was your intention behind that statement. Was it that I should provide you with something convincing? Yes/no?

[1] For more details see my previous post; I can also give verifiable evidence that I've clearly stated this before I asked you to prove your point. I can also show that I've been touting about Bayesian philosophy throughout this topic, which TC noted independently. I've explained my view even after your claim, and I can give you verifiable evidence for that, if you don't believe me.

[2] https://softschools.com/examples/fallacies/burden_of_proof_examples/521/

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

I think this insistence of yours to bring up my 'image' (an image I believe you're exaggerating) says more about you than about me.

At the risk of redirecting focus, what's it say about me then?

That you wish there are deeper meanings, quirks or patterns at play because they make more sense to you than the relative mundaneness/simplicity of reality and because you get attached to your own theories.

Again, it's funny how you take something fairly obvious and uncontroversial and try to spin it to mean something deeper and more 'shady'.

Not shady, mostly lazy. 

This isn't some complicated scheme on your part with black market dealings involved or whatever, this is you having a totem erected in your honor over an idea you're passively selling to people (and not correcting when they think it), likely to reinforce your own view of your construct that you take to be "you". They misappropriate your behavior as stoic poise traits when it's clearly just an unwillingness to work hard put behind the avatar of a poised old man, and you eat up their mistake and take their praises of you as facts about yourself. 

I feel like people meeting you in person would burst this illusion you've cast with others' help.

I'm not really sure what meaning you load into words such as "stoic" but I believe I've been consistently calm and collected on SC. I take it you disagree?

Your point about laziness is too broadly made. I can be lazy when it comes to delving into topics that I don't find interesting or productive, sure, but that doesn't mean I am lazy when I actually engage. That you don't see that is, I think, an inflexibility on your part to consider goals or focuses narrower than your own. You think I'm "unwilling to work hard" when I decline to expand the topic, for example.

These are examples of how you on one hand exaggerate my image (and claim I'm overly attached to it) and then exaggerate how far from these traits I actually am. In this way you make it seem as if the disparity between reality and reputation is far greater than it actually is. Just consider how you describe my reputation as "sophisticated shmaht guy with zilch feelings, like some sort of Spock ripoff" and then call my stoicism "clearly just an unwillingness to work hard put behind the avatar of a poised old man".

Your overarching point about me having a totem could still be true but it loses much of its punch if you're forced to actually stay reasonable.

Just because I choose topics to engage in based on interests and knowledge (those two often go hand in hand) doesn't mean I'm actively trying to hide my lack of knowledge in other fields, or that I'm trying to 'maintain illusions I've cast'.

It means exactly that. You don't want to embarrass yourself, you don't want to go into subjects where you'd need to take risks, and this "selection" of yours is largely responsible for how people perceive you (and likely has tie ins with how you see yourself based on lacking exposure to risk).

So because I'm not talking to blanc about make-up that means I'm actively trying to avoid embarrassing myself?

I also think you're cherry picking your list of "usual choice of debate partners" there. I've debated Koloss, MrM, you, Syst, Organism and Alice among others, clearly pointing to the driving factor for me being the topic itself, not the people participating.

Many of those jumped into topics where something else had you trapped first, and a few on there I'd argue you think are still "easy" from that list.

Trapped by what? Almost all of them stayed within the realm of the initial topic.

Yeah, some people are easier to debate than others. What's your point?

Legga said: 

 "Quote me arguing against your paper":

Inquirer said: 

When you gave me a list of names you deviated from your statistical argument in your "paper".

And yours isn't? All you say now is "but I'm following Bayesian logic", even if I explain over and over how the details of your paper are irrelevant.

Go back to read my previous post to find my retort to this lol.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. Imagine you never made the paper and instead only posted your list of Swedes.

1. My stance was "people can decide for themselves", based on Bayesian logic [1]. No sane person would continue insisting on the correctness evidence if others clearly state they don't have access to the same information, which is precisely why I stated my view so many times. *YOU* claimed I needed to provide convincing evidence. I retorted with "you do it." And now you go "now the proof-of-burden is on you, because you said you can provide convincing evidence" when I clearly was saying the exact opposite.

Yes, I claimed you needed to back up your list of Swedes. That's irregardless of your Bayesian logic argument in your paper.

You can either do this with verifiable scientific-grade evidence or, like I suggested, just provide good reasoning. The burden of proof is on you since you are the one pushing the overall claim that I'm lying about Swedes/myself and you made the initial list of Swedes.

Essentially, you're trying to shift the burden of proof, which is a type of logical fallacy [2]. Here's the definition: "Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side." For someone who always goes "ad hominem derp derp" you should know this.

Again, imagine you never posted the paper and just the list. Why wouldn't the burden of proof be on you? You made the initial claim.

My point is and has been that you can't provide convincing evidence yourself, so you shouldn't call me an idiot if I fail to do that. If you think I did in fact make the claim that I can provide convincing evidence, then give me the citation in which I do it. I.e, provide evidence as per your stance or be labeled an idiot again, also as per your own stance. You will find no such citation.

I think you did make the claim implicitly by posting a list of Swedes. All I've done since is push you to actually back up that list. I've even said you're free to drop the list if you can't back it up (though I think it'd show you don't really know what you're talking about then).

Quote what I've failed to answer or define.

Well for example you failed to answer a yes/no question.

Quote it.

How is the question the same as "did you stop beating your wife," what the hell are you babbling about? It's an extremely simple question. Explain yourself.

I take it is "yes," since you consider that to be good evidence? Essentially, are you *NOT* arguing that I should give you something to convince you?

I'm not trying to strawman you. We can both agree that you went on to describe what you think is convincing evidence afterwards. But that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking you a simple question. And you didn't answer.

Do you agree you asked me to provide evidence which would convince you, or not? Yes or no?

I thought you were trying to catch me on semantics and that's why I answered your yes/no question like that.

But yes, I do agree I asked you to provide me with evidence/reasoning. Now what?

Yes, I claimed you needed to back up your list of Swedes. That's irregardless of your Bayesian logic argument in your paper.

You're misunderstanding what I've said, but I agree that it was your claim, and not mine.

My Bayesian logic was precisely in place because my premise would be quite cumbersome to prove in a convincing way and can be more easily evaluated individually (i.e., Bayesian logic gives a beautiful answer to dealing with anecdotal evidence). Even you find this reasonable. Either people agree with your list because they have access to the same information (or believe they do), or they don't. It'll take too much time to prove your list in any convincing way, so practically speaking your stance is untenable. I'm sure you agree that, if I have some information hidden away that you have no access to, then presenting it here as if it should be universally accepted isn't awfully smart?

Look at how long it's taken you to wrestle with your list. You're shitstained after 19 pages and you still haven't got anything except some half-assed "I'm right you're wrong" type evidence which I can't even verify.

Again, imagine you never posted the paper and just the list. Why wouldn't the burden of proof be on you? You made the initial claim.

I don't think you can just throw away the paper because that was the motivation for what I said in the first place, and the debate. My list was never a strict requirement for my paper, since it's much easier to evaluate the number of Swedes by your personal set of information and beliefs.

Imagine I posted the list and said "People can decide if they want to believe this or not based on the information available to them, and evaluate the premise themselves, since I can't give good evidence," as per my Bayesian view, which allowed them to achieve some goal (in this case evaluate paper results). After which you say "you need to give convincing evidence," after which I say "I don't need to, and that's practically untenable," and then you say "then you're an idiot, here's my list," and then I go "give evidence." And then you go "I can't, that's impossible." To which I tell you "then you're an idiot by your own logic."

Haven't I essentially proven the superiority of my Bayesian view now?

I thought you were trying to catch me on semantics and that's why I answered your yes/no question like that.

But yes, I do agree I asked you to provide me with evidence/reasoning. Now what?

Ok, thank you. Then your stance is that I need to provide something that can convince you.

Do you agree that it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to reject information which I have no access to?