For some time I’ve been thinking about “narcissistic contrarians”—those who make an art form of their exotically counterintuitive belief systems, who combine positions not normally met in the same person.
Ah, another irregular verb.
I am a deep and original thinker, synthesising good ideas from multiple sources without regard to ideology.
You are a magpie, with second-hand beliefs cobbled together without structure.
He is a narcissistic contrarian, making an art form of his exotically counterintuitive belief system, combining positions not normally met in the same person.
I am deeply suspicious when people try to explain away their opponents’ beliefs, rather than defeat them intellectually.
Ah, another irregular verb.
I am a deep and original thinker, synthesising good ideas from multiple sources without regard to ideology.
I’m going over the verbs trying to locate what you’re referring to as an irregular verb. Am I making a mistake? Does “irregular verb” have some metaphorical connotation I’m not aware of?
You seem to follow with 3 likely different interpretations of the same behavior. If I understand it correctly, that is kind of interesting, I’ll warrant
I am deeply suspicious when people try to explain away their opponents’ beliefs, rather than defeat them intellectually
So you have a criteria for being skeptical of (I won’t say “explaining away”, which would be presumptuous) my arguments having to do with the style of my argument rather than its content. That is good—I think we all should have such criteria, unless we plan to intellectually take apart all of the thousands upon thousands of assertions that cross our paths.
I have been proposing one such. You just proposed another, one which is generally pretty good.
Once you criticize something as “to explain away” most of what else you say is apt to be redundant.
So you have a criteria for being skeptical of (I won’t say “explaining away”, which would be presumptuous) my arguments having to do with the style of my argument rather than its content.
No, I am criticising the content of your argument. You are calling for a refusal to engage with arguments you specifically concede are apparently persuasive (“dazzle their fans”), because they might lead to “unproductive avenues of thought”, based on an evidence-free assertion that their originators just want to be different. You provide no basis for distinguishing “narcissistic contrarians” from people who sincerely take non-mainstream positions. You do not have special insight into the internal minds of your opponents.
I’m content to engage with Camille Paglia and Nicholas Taleb and conclude they’re wrong. I don’t need to go further and engage in armchair psychoanalysis of people I’ve never met.
I am deeply suspicious when people try to explain away their opponents’ beliefs, rather than defeat them intellectually
Part of your misunderstanding, I think, is to assume I have an “opponent”. I’ve read 3 of Taleb’s books, and will probably read him again—maybe some of the more technical stuff he puts on his facebook page, when I’m willing to work hard enough to understand it, but sometimes I take him with a grain of salt, or think to myself “Oh I wish you wouldn’t do that”. I think I’ve read enough of Paglia (which isn’t much) for a lifetime, though maybe I’ll be proven wrong some day—the possibility of proving myself wrong just isn’t enough of a priority to make me pick up another article of hers at present.
Neither are you an enemy, and in this whole exchange, I’ve learned two useful concepts, one of them from you, so thanks.
You are calling for a refusal to engage with arguments you specifically concede are apparently persuasive (“dazzle their fans”),
No, I wouldn’t call that (“dazzle...) a concession that the arguments are “apparently persuasive”, whatever that means, and “calling for a refusal to engage with arguments” sounds like a sort of high drama that I’d very seldom if ever engage in.
Does “irregular verb” have some metaphorical connotation I’m not aware of?
Yes. (At least with a plausible guess at what you’re aware of.) The point is precisely the observation you make that these are three descriptions of the same behaviour; the implied criticism here is that you (or some hypothetical person who somewhat resembles you) chooses very differently-biased descriptions of the same behaviour depending on whether it’s your own or someone else’s. (The comparison is of course with irregular verbs in natural languages—I am / you are / he is. The main point is the difference between the “I” and “he” versions, the “you” typically being something intermediate.)
So it’s more or less an accusation of insincerity. Salemicus is suggesting that you are hostile to some varieties of eclecticism when other people do them, but not when you do the same yourself. (I have no idea what evidence, if any, he has.)
Does “irregular verb” have some metaphorical connotation I’m not aware of?
Yes. In the context it describes a situation when the same condition (characteristic, feature, position, etc.) is evaluated very differently depending on whether it’s held by the speaker himself (I am), someone close to him (You are), or a third party (He is).
Here is a crude version: I am an original thinker, you are a weirdo, and he is insane.
Ah, another irregular verb.
I am a deep and original thinker, synthesising good ideas from multiple sources without regard to ideology.
You are a magpie, with second-hand beliefs cobbled together without structure.
He is a narcissistic contrarian, making an art form of his exotically counterintuitive belief system, combining positions not normally met in the same person.
I am deeply suspicious when people try to explain away their opponents’ beliefs, rather than defeat them intellectually.
I’m going over the verbs trying to locate what you’re referring to as an irregular verb. Am I making a mistake? Does “irregular verb” have some metaphorical connotation I’m not aware of?
You seem to follow with 3 likely different interpretations of the same behavior. If I understand it correctly, that is kind of interesting, I’ll warrant
So you have a criteria for being skeptical of (I won’t say “explaining away”, which would be presumptuous) my arguments having to do with the style of my argument rather than its content. That is good—I think we all should have such criteria, unless we plan to intellectually take apart all of the thousands upon thousands of assertions that cross our paths.
I have been proposing one such. You just proposed another, one which is generally pretty good.
Once you criticize something as “to explain away” most of what else you say is apt to be redundant.
Yes.
No, I am criticising the content of your argument. You are calling for a refusal to engage with arguments you specifically concede are apparently persuasive (“dazzle their fans”), because they might lead to “unproductive avenues of thought”, based on an evidence-free assertion that their originators just want to be different. You provide no basis for distinguishing “narcissistic contrarians” from people who sincerely take non-mainstream positions. You do not have special insight into the internal minds of your opponents.
I’m content to engage with Camille Paglia and Nicholas Taleb and conclude they’re wrong. I don’t need to go further and engage in armchair psychoanalysis of people I’ve never met.
Part of your misunderstanding, I think, is to assume I have an “opponent”. I’ve read 3 of Taleb’s books, and will probably read him again—maybe some of the more technical stuff he puts on his facebook page, when I’m willing to work hard enough to understand it, but sometimes I take him with a grain of salt, or think to myself “Oh I wish you wouldn’t do that”. I think I’ve read enough of Paglia (which isn’t much) for a lifetime, though maybe I’ll be proven wrong some day—the possibility of proving myself wrong just isn’t enough of a priority to make me pick up another article of hers at present.
Neither are you an enemy, and in this whole exchange, I’ve learned two useful concepts, one of them from you, so thanks.
No, I wouldn’t call that (“dazzle...) a concession that the arguments are “apparently persuasive”, whatever that means, and “calling for a refusal to engage with arguments” sounds like a sort of high drama that I’d very seldom if ever engage in.
Yes. (At least with a plausible guess at what you’re aware of.) The point is precisely the observation you make that these are three descriptions of the same behaviour; the implied criticism here is that you (or some hypothetical person who somewhat resembles you) chooses very differently-biased descriptions of the same behaviour depending on whether it’s your own or someone else’s. (The comparison is of course with irregular verbs in natural languages—I am / you are / he is. The main point is the difference between the “I” and “he” versions, the “you” typically being something intermediate.)
So it’s more or less an accusation of insincerity. Salemicus is suggesting that you are hostile to some varieties of eclecticism when other people do them, but not when you do the same yourself. (I have no idea what evidence, if any, he has.)
Yes. In the context it describes a situation when the same condition (characteristic, feature, position, etc.) is evaluated very differently depending on whether it’s held by the speaker himself (I am), someone close to him (You are), or a third party (He is).
Here is a crude version: I am an original thinker, you are a weirdo, and he is insane.
The key thing is the pronoun. Nobody thinks of himself as a narcissistic contrarian. They rather think of themselves as a deep and original thinker.
Actually I suspect there are a few more self-aware ones who just have a grand old time dazzling people.
In order of decreasing likelihood:
Norman Mailer (and I was trying to think of someone probably living or more recently deceased who’s more Norman Mailer than Norman Mailer—any clues?)
Camille Paglia
Nicholas Nassim Taleb
Well said. My sentiments, but better expressed. This is the same reflexive action that was falsification-ism vs pseudo science.