Most people do not study enough philosophy to realize that it is about something real. Most people don’t learn to debate well enough to learn that if it can’t be argued rationally it is crap. Most people don’t learn the logical fallacies or the cognitive biases. Conversations have a direction. The conversation is either moving towards reason in a rational direction or one party is arguing against reason, arguing for vagueness, making emotional appeals. You are either reasoning or rationalizing. You are either talking about something real, good, true and useful or you are trying to make a turd smell like a flower, which is it? Be honest with yourself.
It is out of necessity that great philosophers had to pre-empt conversation. They only want rational conversation. Don’t waste my time with your horse shit. You can’t prove anything using irrational means. That is what praxis is. You can only prove something using rational means, that is why we have due process. If you don’t communicate correctly you don’t think correctly and you don’t act correctly. So the reason that you aren’t communicating correctly is because you are engaged in strategic behavior to make unreason appear to be reasonable.
A phrase coined by Joxua/Shivah to describe irrational communication used to control or manipulate the flow of conversation.
Conversation blocking- a form of strategic communication designed to stop a conversation or to prevent a topic from being discussed
Conversation dropping- a form of strategic communication designed to prevent a person from acknowledging their wrong or from participating in a conversation that is going a direction they don’t want to follow.
Communicating understanding- from shared state theory of communication meaning to communicate accurately your perspective on a subject based on understanding the topic, thinking before you speak, accounting for how it will be interpreted by the listener, listening to yourself as you speak and observing pragmatically the persons understanding of what you said and their application of it. Associated with Socratic dialectic.
Downward spiral of emotional morbidity.
- Depression, more (mmulvin.wordpress.com)
- Customer-Centric Transformation: What Good Looks Like – Retention – Managing Dissatisfaction – Part 11d of 14 (dougleather.wordpress.com)
- Customer-Centricity! Past it’s ‘Sell By’ date? (dougleather.wordpress.com)
I am a user she says, “Fuck you user!” ,she says.
Because I demand that my relationships are useful and not useless?
Because I require that my partnerships create more value than they consume?
I am a usurer? a Shylock at relationship?
How dare I require my need my conversations to be rational and analytical?
How dare I prevent the stupider slower less creative person in the relationship from arbitrarily changing the way she is in relationship with me to maximize benefit to herself?
Without communication, reason or provocation.
How dare I not let her hijack the relationship and make everything about her and her happiness?
She does whatever she wants like a spoiled noisy child bouncing around loudly in the back seat on a road trip, writing herself into her fantasy as a fairy tale princess and everyone else as supporting caste.
I ask her not to be a deluded, insane, retard and she claims I have requested a pound of her flesh.
This is my personal philosophic calculus, so please do not plagiarize me. If you are going to quote me give me credit. It is hard enough in this psychopathic, social climby world to get any recognition.
It is important to understand that two different people can be in relationship differently with the same state. One person wants to experience it again, the other is avoiding it, still another hasn’t experienced it and they either desire it or want to avoid it.
You communicate whatever state you are in. If you feel thwarted you communicate thwartedness. You want to share the state you are in. You want to thwart others. Cognitive psychology has linked the feeling of anger to feeling thwarted.
Right now we are communicating through a shared states. We were both schooled in the english language and the letter “A” means the same to me as it does to you more or less. The word “language” means the same to you as it does to me, more or less.
The problem with the “general will” of Jean Jacques Rousseau is the problem of being highly and equally educated. For example if you had to serve two years in the military after high school as they do in Israel and Northern Europe, you would make decisions differently and that would be a state that you share with others that had the same experience of having to take PERSONAL responsibility for the defense of the nation. So that feeling when everyone knows what is the right thing to do is possible, it is just not an experience we as americans have because of our specialization and our not being highly and equally educated we cannot unleash the “highest common good”.
Physical proximity also might be a shared state in so far as you look from the same vantage point or you experienced the same event. But the problem that we run into is that life has experiential data, which is to say that we tacitly interpret and judge reality in our experiencing of it.
There is also something I realized with psychopaths in that they can communicate a state. In order to do this you have to know how something will be interpreted so it deals in a way with hermeneutics. Interestingly though, psychopaths don’t have to be particularly smart to do this. They can see someone use a behavior and adopt that behavior. Human beings are acquisitively mimetic. I have heard people copy arguments that they personally did not understand because it sounded good and winsome. They copy winning behavior. This is known as strategic behavior.
I studied trolls for years when I was creating my theories on psychology. When I realized that my theories were descriptive and predictive I started using them prescriptively to manipulate the trolls I was trolling. I psychologically destroyed them. I trolled entire groups of trolls off the internet. I realized that I could communicate to them I was in a state that I wasn’t in and as I got better I could communicate to them that I was a person that I am not.
“All narrative is doxography.” ~Joxua
That means that all narrative is point of view. So I would say things that appeared to be coming from a person that I was not. I would be in character, so to speak.
I have been asked repeatedly to write down my techniques for what I learned to do with human behavior and psychology. I think Cris Blakk will particularly find this technique interesting so I dedicate this blog to him. https://plus.google.com/115599668920707439466/posts
When I think a person might be behaving strategically towards me, which is any unprovoked deviation from rational relationship for the purpose of maximizing what they are getting from the relationship without contributing equal value, or an attempt to establish dominance or leverage themselves, or refusing to participate, communicate, understand I have a little test to see if they are being self-referentially consistent.
Most people in trying to falsify another person do so from their own perspective making visual emotional judgements. “I feel that you are wrong, therefore you are wrong”. In order to actually falsify someone you have to do so from their perspective, which means understanding their philosophy if it is valid and non arbitrary, and if it is sound prove to them that their behaviors are not congruent with their beliefs.
I will use a tautology of the behavior or the strategic communication on them and see how they react to their own strategy. If they respond as they want me to respond when they use it I know they are not intentionally being strategic, but if they don’t I know it is some manner of subterfuge.
I came up with this technique from my ASCENDING DRAGON STYLE TAI CHI that i created when I was in Washington state. The concept is that you only turn the energy used to attack you back on your opponent. You must make your ego very small and remove your judgments and interpretations from the interaction to ensure that they are in relationship with their own tactics through you. I also sometimes refer to this as the silver ray technique. http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/10/ascending-dragon-style-tai-chi.html
One of the tests for intelligence in animals is to see how long it takes them to realize that they are fighting their own reflection. The mirror technique is fascinating because you get to see how the person is in relationship with their own strategies. There is a part of my consciousness that sits back and just observes. If you use 100% of your energy for the physical stuff or the emotional stuff you will not have the energy to sit back and learn and remember. You can’t be completely invested in the conflict, you have to have a reserve of energy to learn and remember so that you can improve and compensate for that strategy in the future.
They are not fighting me, they are fighting themselves. Sometimes people become aware of this. Other times they become psychotic and feel they must destroy me. They use as much dumb physical force as they muster and they enter a self destruction loop. They become completely unconscious and completely obsessed with my destruction. Paul Eckman refers to this as a refractory state, he says that a permanent refractory state is synonymous with insanity. This is the technique I used to troll trolls and entire groups of trolls off the internet. Right now I am apparently too controversial for facebook, lol. They won’t let me have a single profile and it has been 6 months. WINNING!