Sometimes I can't stop myself from writing, so here are some of my thoughts on why this happens, with a prevalence of narcissism in humanity not being a major reason in my mind as some other comments are suggesting-- and I think the idea of rampant online narcissism is possibly a mistake in reason popularized by Jordan Peterson.. at the very least in that it might unintentionally do these three things: oversimplify our fellow human beings in a way that dehumanizes them, damaging the collective understanding of what it means to be human, and prevent more platonic intimacy and subsequent wellbeing between human beings as a result; which is also not to say there are people that should be avoided for different reasons including narcissistic traits.
One problem with appealing to oneself as an authority is when it is a mirage of language based on constraints. We go about our daily lives speaking in generalizations and absolutes-- rather than in arguments, that are seen as probabilities, where the level of probability is fluid, and defined by intuiting and weighing the reason and evidence we have for each argument-- with the latter being the more analytical mindset. We have limited time, attention, and energy, and going along with that, human language generally appears to work better and faster with less contrasting of arguments and the probabilities of aspects of those arguments being true. So we are biologically and culturally geared towards simpler stances on reality that would theoretically help us with the known base impulses of survival and reproduction, going along with what seems at present, to be a history of humans mostly being hunter-gatherers.
Since it takes more words and time to speak in more nuanced probabilities, sometimes a person can end up looking like they aren't "premise guarding".. not delivering their arguments in a way that shows that they see them as a probability, that's subject to change based on evidence and reason: due to text constraints-- for example on Twitter; or due to their time constraints. And it also seems that for two people to have really novel intellectual discussions, particularly when they are from different specializations of knowledge, sufficient time needs to pass for them to learn each other's differing uses of language, as it might apply to whatever they are talking about-- or else the discussion revolves around figuring that out, or taking offense to it by mistake, rather than maybe something more novel and generally desirable.
But also there is a problem of appealing to oneself as an authority because of fight or flight physiology, going along with cognitive dissonance-- with a person having one or more cherished values that conflicts with new reason and evidence, preventing them from a more analytical mindset. I agree this seems like a conceptual and emotional struggle that it appears everyone is prone to; and to use, and add onto, some ideas from the YouTube channel Navigating Patterns.. a good way of navigating this problem seems to require building more platonic intimacy or communal understanding of each other, while trying to healthily navigate the limitations on how many social interactions and friendships one can have-- and maintaining the capacity for a poetic view of the world rather than purely propositional view of it, in the sense of leaving room for embracing uncertainty, and doing this in a way that is more rooted in love, and faith in love, rather than in fear, to pursue more desirable outcomes in life.
Look buddy! I am very smrt and I dont know what your (P) and (Q) represent, therefor they mean nothing and you have wasted everyones' time with your OBVIOUS nonsensical diatribe! /end-sarcasm
Ok jokes out of the way. Thanks for the post and a reminder to think more before speaking to people that claim special authority.
Personally, I don’t understand the point of this. Assuming we can read the minds of, and/or understand the motives of another person’s perspective does not give us the right to label his/her thought process and therefore, the person. If he/she disagrees with my train of logic, or just can’t follow it or just doesn’t think the same way, does that necessarily mean that she/he believes A or B and considers himself/herself omniscient? Aren’t I the one thinking I’m omniscient by prescribing motive or believing that I know what/how they’re thinking? Outside of clinically psychotic behavior (I.e., serial killers, psychopaths, etc.), most of us aren’t qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism. Aren’t we all selfish sometimes and don’t we all favor our own points of view? Logic IS logic, but applying it can be a subjective exercise sometimes. I’m not disagreeing with the logic premise, but I’m getting tired of the word narcissist being applied whenever we (including myself here) disagree with, are offended by, or think differently, than someone else. Using the term narcissist seems like more of a shaming/canceling tool these days. I am trying to favor the biblical concept of examining the log in my own eye and focusing less on the specks in the eyes of others before I start passing judgement on their character. Just saying.
Indeed, the last paragraph is of paramount importance, for even the intelligent who pay attention, and are often right, always have their own blind spot.
Never knowing enough is always my baseline premise. Always confused that some people think they know it all. I believe most have pretender syndrome and convince themselves that their fake persona is real.
Well said. This is the narcissistic version. These techniques are central to approaches used by professional trolls & propagandists. You'll find that what you just said is largely contained within The Gentlepersons' Guide to Forum Spies:
Sometimes I can't stop myself from writing, so here are some of my thoughts on why this happens, with a prevalence of narcissism in humanity not being a major reason in my mind as some other comments are suggesting-- and I think the idea of rampant online narcissism is possibly a mistake in reason popularized by Jordan Peterson.. at the very least in that it might unintentionally do these three things: oversimplify our fellow human beings in a way that dehumanizes them, damaging the collective understanding of what it means to be human, and prevent more platonic intimacy and subsequent wellbeing between human beings as a result; which is also not to say there are people that should be avoided for different reasons including narcissistic traits.
One problem with appealing to oneself as an authority is when it is a mirage of language based on constraints. We go about our daily lives speaking in generalizations and absolutes-- rather than in arguments, that are seen as probabilities, where the level of probability is fluid, and defined by intuiting and weighing the reason and evidence we have for each argument-- with the latter being the more analytical mindset. We have limited time, attention, and energy, and going along with that, human language generally appears to work better and faster with less contrasting of arguments and the probabilities of aspects of those arguments being true. So we are biologically and culturally geared towards simpler stances on reality that would theoretically help us with the known base impulses of survival and reproduction, going along with what seems at present, to be a history of humans mostly being hunter-gatherers.
Since it takes more words and time to speak in more nuanced probabilities, sometimes a person can end up looking like they aren't "premise guarding".. not delivering their arguments in a way that shows that they see them as a probability, that's subject to change based on evidence and reason: due to text constraints-- for example on Twitter; or due to their time constraints. And it also seems that for two people to have really novel intellectual discussions, particularly when they are from different specializations of knowledge, sufficient time needs to pass for them to learn each other's differing uses of language, as it might apply to whatever they are talking about-- or else the discussion revolves around figuring that out, or taking offense to it by mistake, rather than maybe something more novel and generally desirable.
But also there is a problem of appealing to oneself as an authority because of fight or flight physiology, going along with cognitive dissonance-- with a person having one or more cherished values that conflicts with new reason and evidence, preventing them from a more analytical mindset. I agree this seems like a conceptual and emotional struggle that it appears everyone is prone to; and to use, and add onto, some ideas from the YouTube channel Navigating Patterns.. a good way of navigating this problem seems to require building more platonic intimacy or communal understanding of each other, while trying to healthily navigate the limitations on how many social interactions and friendships one can have-- and maintaining the capacity for a poetic view of the world rather than purely propositional view of it, in the sense of leaving room for embracing uncertainty, and doing this in a way that is more rooted in love, and faith in love, rather than in fear, to pursue more desirable outcomes in life.
/sarcasm
Look buddy! I am very smrt and I dont know what your (P) and (Q) represent, therefor they mean nothing and you have wasted everyones' time with your OBVIOUS nonsensical diatribe! /end-sarcasm
Ok jokes out of the way. Thanks for the post and a reminder to think more before speaking to people that claim special authority.
Personally, I don’t understand the point of this. Assuming we can read the minds of, and/or understand the motives of another person’s perspective does not give us the right to label his/her thought process and therefore, the person. If he/she disagrees with my train of logic, or just can’t follow it or just doesn’t think the same way, does that necessarily mean that she/he believes A or B and considers himself/herself omniscient? Aren’t I the one thinking I’m omniscient by prescribing motive or believing that I know what/how they’re thinking? Outside of clinically psychotic behavior (I.e., serial killers, psychopaths, etc.), most of us aren’t qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism. Aren’t we all selfish sometimes and don’t we all favor our own points of view? Logic IS logic, but applying it can be a subjective exercise sometimes. I’m not disagreeing with the logic premise, but I’m getting tired of the word narcissist being applied whenever we (including myself here) disagree with, are offended by, or think differently, than someone else. Using the term narcissist seems like more of a shaming/canceling tool these days. I am trying to favor the biblical concept of examining the log in my own eye and focusing less on the specks in the eyes of others before I start passing judgement on their character. Just saying.
This is more than narcissism, it’s a step up. It’s I am God, all knowing. This is what the globe is now confronting
Yes, as many have written in the comments, we'll find ourselves dealing, and debating, with a narcissist. Proceed with utmost caution.
BTW, TES: I mentioned you in my Substack article, here:
https://nightowlchristian.substack.com/p/advent-2023-christmas-sunday-epiphany
Indeed, the last paragraph is of paramount importance, for even the intelligent who pay attention, and are often right, always have their own blind spot.
Never knowing enough is always my baseline premise. Always confused that some people think they know it all. I believe most have pretender syndrome and convince themselves that their fake persona is real.
What, other human beings are ends in themselves, not merely means to my end?
Absurd!
Without me, there is nothing.
Well said. This is the narcissistic version. These techniques are central to approaches used by professional trolls & propagandists. You'll find that what you just said is largely contained within The Gentlepersons' Guide to Forum Spies:
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Perfect
Agreed -- you can’t argue with narcissism, it’s infallible by definition
😵💫