Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whether this is projection or not on your part, I'm willing to have a breather here if you promise to have it lead into more meaningful discussions down the road, on the open forum for all to witness. 

 If you promise to actually discuss things and not rage when your ego gets challenged, yeah.

This sounds like you saying "No". 

 I'm up for it. You just have to do your part. Unless your ego is too big for that as well.

Considering your room to just accuse that out of any situation, it doesn't really fix anything.

There'd need to be some means of objective criteria for it. 

 When you use insults that are not backed by any evidence, rather than your usual brand of pseudologic. Insults hurt, you know. Have some empathy for me.

You'll use it for the 'pseudologic' too like you have already, and without some means of criteria predefined for it there won't be a means for either of us to really call the other on anything. 

If we're to bridge and be able to communicate, then a system needs to be established for it to prevent this unraveling. 

 I am interested in this as well. 

What is the definition of a pseudologic? 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whether this is projection or not on your part, I'm willing to have a breather here if you promise to have it lead into more meaningful discussions down the road, on the open forum for all to witness. 

 If you promise to actually discuss things and not rage when your ego gets challenged, yeah.

This sounds like you saying "No". 

 I'm up for it. You just have to do your part. Unless your ego is too big for that as well.

Considering your room to just accuse that out of any situation, it doesn't really fix anything.

There'd need to be some means of objective criteria for it. 

 When you use insults that are not backed by any evidence, rather than your usual brand of pseudologic. Insults hurt, you know. Have some empathy for me.

You'll use it for the 'pseudologic' too like you have already, and without some means of criteria predefined for it there won't be a means for either of us to really call the other on anything. 

If we're to bridge and be able to communicate, then a system needs to be established for it to prevent this unraveling. 

 I am interested in this as well. 

What is the definition of a pseudologic? 

 Turncoat. It's Turncoat.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whether this is projection or not on your part, I'm willing to have a breather here if you promise to have it lead into more meaningful discussions down the road, on the open forum for all to witness. 

 If you promise to actually discuss things and not rage when your ego gets challenged, yeah.

This sounds like you saying "No". 

 I'm up for it. You just have to do your part. Unless your ego is too big for that as well.

Considering your room to just accuse that out of any situation, it doesn't really fix anything.

There'd need to be some means of objective criteria for it. 

 When you use insults that are not backed by any evidence, rather than your usual brand of pseudologic. Insults hurt, you know. Have some empathy for me.

You'll use it for the 'pseudologic' too like you have already, and without some means of criteria predefined for it there won't be a means for either of us to really call the other on anything. 

If we're to bridge and be able to communicate, then a system needs to be established for it to prevent this unraveling. 

 I am interested in this as well. 

What is the definition of a pseudologic? 

 For example: I call tc stupid. 

TC: people that call other people stupid tend to be stupid themselves. (Inserts multiple insults based on me being stupid)

If you look at TC's posts, he makes an assumption based on "likely", "tends to", etc. He then writes conclusions based on that. Sometimes his arguments can have "likely" statements, the combination of which, unlikely. Oftentimes he'll pay more attention to his "likely" statements and ignore bona fide evidence. Its like him doing mental gymnastics and typing it out at the same time.

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

Turncoat said: 

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

 It was just an example. If anything, you're on mt. stupidity. Read the 2nd part, after the example.

Cavalier said: 

 

Read the 2nd part, after the example.

I did, it was related to my answer. 

Turncoat said: 

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

 This has nothing to do with dunning kruger. You're just quoting concepts to feel smart.

And yeah. appeals in your advantage and only when it suits you.

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

 This has nothing to do with dunning kruger. You're just quoting concepts to feel smart.

And yeah. appeals in your advantage and only when it suits you.

 Yeah. True.

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

This has nothing to do with dunning kruger. You're just quoting concepts to feel smart.

In short, your sense of certainty behind the data you choose tends to blind your means of bridging with other data. Rather than draw correlations or even show some level of open minded uncertainty, you stomp your feet and insist your data's the only data, even when yours is shown to be out of date. You then accuse other people of not listening if not ad homming their credibility to shut them out of the conversation, showing that your current guise's idea of debate is over presence rather than facts. 

The use of uncertain language denotes that they know enough about the subject to also know that they don't know everything, that we're working within a realm of likelihoods and possibilities within what we have within our grasp as of now and that one's understanding is constantly growing and evolving. To use certain language, by contrast, tends to appeal to the basic layman, the person who wants to believe they know enough to not warrant continued study or even further scrutiny, and they'll usually appeal towards history as a consistency basis rather than the process of learning new information itself being the consistency. 

It's those who remain unsure who find reason to keep digging and asking questions, while it is the one who thinks they already know everything who speaks in absolutes. Even within how smug a scientist can present themselves as in discussion, they still talk less in absolutes than you'd see from a religious fundamentalist. 

Turncoat said: 

Cavalier said: 

Turncoat said: 

So pseudologic is a lack of dunning kruger that appeals to larger bodies of stats? 

This has nothing to do with dunning kruger. You're just quoting concepts to feel smart.

In short, your sense of certainty behind the data you choose tends to blind your means of bridging with other data. Rather than draw correlations or even show some level of open minded uncertainty, you stomp your feet and insist your data's the only data, even when yours is shown to be out of date. You then accuse other people of not listening if not ad homming their credibility to shut them out of the conversation, showing that your current guise's idea of debate is over presence rather than facts. 

The use of uncertain language denotes that they know enough about the subject to also know that they don't know everything, that we're working within a realm of likelihoods and possibilities within what we have within our grasp as of now and that one's understanding is constantly growing and evolving. To use certain language, by contrast, tends to appeal to the basic layman, the person who wants to believe they know enough to not warrant continued study or even further scrutiny, and they'll usually appeal towards history as a consistency basis rather than the process of learning new information itself being the consistency. 

It's those who remain unsure who find reason to keep digging and asking questions, while it is the one who thinks they already know everything who speaks in absolutes. Even within how smug a scientist can present themselves as in discussion, they still talk less in absolutes than you'd see from a religious fundamentalist. 

Oh the irony. If anything, I'm willing to listen and care about what you say. You're completely shut in from your arrogance. If anything, the uncertain terms you're using is to back up your arguments without amy evidence, not because you're actually uncertain and humble. Maybe someday you'll learn to get along better. I have faith in you.