Deadly internet bullying, OR ways in which the FF is like police brutality

[Watser?]

It's your mental abnormalities that may account for being the creepy stalker alien robot asshole that you are.

Or maybe they don't and it's all just what you choose to be, if that's what you prefer.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's a remarkably uncharitable interpretation.

It is. It's also an implausible one, which is perhaps more disconcerting.

The pattern seems to be that mick can't accept the notion that other people might not be persuaded by things which he found persuasive. Therefore, their failure to be persuaded must be ascribed to some other thing -- such as intent on their part to resist persuasion.

You can tell it's moderately dysfunctional just because it subverts even the most basic analysis of causality; he's describing things happening in 2009 as causing things which happened in 2007. That's fairly atypical for just-plain-autism, but not necessarily totally unheard of. Basically, he's got huge cognitive dissonance problems somewhere and you can tell because his described reality is full of cracks and patches. If we're sticking with a simple model, then presumably the underlying dissonance is just other people genuinely not believing what he does. However, most adult autistic people can handle that better. (Autistic kids often have a really rough time with it; one of the people at TR has a ten-year-old autistic kid who is really stuck on the idea of different people believing different and mutually-exclusive things.)

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Watser?

It's your mental abnormalities that may account for being the creepy stalker alien robot asshole that you are.

Well, yeah, duh.

I already pointed that out in the other thread.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by seebs

Well, yeah, duh.

I already pointed that out in the other thread.

Yeah, but it seems mick prefers to be thought of as a creepy stalker alien robot asshole rather than someone who just can't help communicating like he does.

[mickthinks]

So far, all I've seen is people coming to believe with greater certainty that you are genuinely wrong -- the only big change I see is that they're starting to suspect that you actually believe the things you're wrong about, and aren't just lying to start trouble.
Yes, I've seen them too. I think of them mostly as the usual suspects. LOL No, I've no firm evidence that anyone here is taking me seriously. It's a hunch and it may be hokum; we'll see.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It's untrusting, and in that sense it is uncharitable. Why do you call it remarkable though, Michael?

I would guess he does so because it is far beyond the normal scope of merely-uncharitable remarks. It's not just that it ascribes a dishonest motive to people; it's that it describes an exceptional amount of effort for people to go to in order to achieve a result of no particular value to them.

Believing that someone is only doing something for money might be uncharitable. Believing that they are only doing something because they think you might own a Yorkshire Terrier, and they like to find people who have Yorkshire Terriers and hide zucchini in their houses later is remarkably uncharitable.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

So far, all I've seen is people coming to believe with greater certainty that you are genuinely wrong -- the only big change I see is that they're starting to suspect that you actually believe the things you're wrong about, and aren't just lying to start trouble.
Yes, I've seen them too. I think of them mostly as the usual suspects. LOL No, I've no firm evidence that anyone much here is taking me seriously. It's a hunch and it may be hokum; we'll see.

Can you describe anything other than someone you've categorized as "the usual suspects" becoming totally convinced of your claims that would lead you to consider that perhaps your evaluation is inaccurate?

It seems to me you've carefully constructed a set of ways of dismissing anything anyone says to you which makes it quite literally impossible for any set of events to convince you that you have made any kind of mistake in your analysis or evaluations. The "usual suspects" are categorically dismissed, and anyone who shows signs of arguing against your positions is declared a Usual Suspect.

This doesn't sound healthy.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

It's untrusting, and in that sense it is uncharitable. Why do you call it remarkable though, Michael?

Because it depends on the extraordinary assumption that "a lot of people" are more inclined to accuse you of mental abnormalities than engage in meaningful dialog. It also has the unstated assumption that you actually have convincing arguments that people are trying to quash, rather than giving them a fair hearing.

This has not been demonstrated in any way.

More to the point, even the most perfunctory familiarity with the forum will demonstrate that its denizens are, as a rule, more than willing to engage in serious debate -- even with people whose opinions they find despicable.


Surely, you aren't so arrogant as to think that your arguments are so devastating that people will try to squash them, rather than seriously engage them? There are several people here who practically live for the chance to engage in debate.

Again, there have been quite a few posters here who have made arguments that most people found odious. No one reacted to those posters by suggesting they might have ASD. In other words, even if you're making arguments, and even if most people disagree, that will not cause people to attempt to head your arguments off by accusations of "mental abnormalities."


On the other hand, showing a spectacularly-poor comprehension of normal human interactions will.

Originally Posted by seebs

I would guess he does so because it is far beyond the normal scope of merely-uncharitable remarks. It's not just that it ascribes a dishonest motive to people; it's that it describes an exceptional amount of effort for people to go to in order to achieve a result of no particular value to them.

Believing that someone is only doing something for money might be uncharitable. Believing that they are only doing something because they think you might own a Yorkshire Terrier, and they like to find people who have Yorkshire Terriers and hide zucchini in their houses later is remarkably uncharitable.

Exactly so.

[seebs]

For that matter, again, I've been using the theory of "mickthinks is autistic" as a way to support his arguments -- showing that he's making claims which could be sincere, honest, and supported by data. Even though they look, when interpreted more normally, to be totally disingenuous.

[mickthinks]

it's that it describes an exceptional amount of effort for people to go to in order to achieve a result of no particular value to them.
Saving face by silencing one's critics can be valued quite highly by people with a lot of face to lose.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by seebs

It seems to me you've carefully constructed a set of ways of dismissing anything anyone says to you which makes it quite literally impossible for any set of events to convince you that you have made any kind of mistake in your analysis or evaluations. The "usual suspects" are categorically dismissed, and anyone who shows signs of arguing against your positions is declared a Usual Suspect.

This doesn't sound healthy.

Again, exactly so.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

it's that it describes an exceptional amount of effort for people to go to in order to achieve a result of no particular value to them.
Saving face by silencing one's critics can be valued quite highly by people with a lot of face to lose.

Again, that could be true but:
1. It doesn't silence you.
2. Hell, it doesn't even slow you down.
3. No one appears to be in any danger at all of losing face.
4. Every newcomer who comes to this tries to engage you a bit, gets turned off by painfully obvious misinterpretations, and writes you off as a kook.

So there's no risk of losing face to begin with. Furthermore, the argument that you're autistic doesn't silence you -- or even lead towards silencing. Instead it gives people a way to read your posts which makes you look less like a lying idiot. Several of us are now finding actual substance to posts we previously thought were purely trolling.

So your argument comes down to the idea that we would carefully seek out a new paradigm for interpreting your posts allowing us to give credence to them and find substance worth considering and responding to, in order to silence you... Which is implausible. And furthermore, you're accusing someone with a clinical diagnosis of autism of being concerned about saving face, which is just dumb.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by seebs

Furthermore, the argument that you're autistic doesn't silence you -- or even lead towards silencing. Instead it gives people a way to read your posts which makes you look less like a lying idiot. Several of us are now finding actual substance to posts we previously thought were purely trolling.

This is indeed the case. If mickthinks is indeed autistic, his posting style makes a lot more sense, and I'm inclined to look upon him in a far more positive light. The alternative interpretations of his behavior are far less palatable.

[mickthinks]

Because it depends on the extraordinary assumption that "a lot of people" are more inclined to accuse you of mental abnormalities than engage in meaningful dialog.
I don't think that is an extraordinary assumption. I think vm has admitted to it, and I see no reason to assume he is on his own.

It also has the unstated assumption that you actually have convincing arguments that people are trying to quash, rather than giving them a fair hearing. This has not been demonstrated in any way.
I disagree on both counts; that I believe in the soundness of my arguments is unremarkable to the point of being completely expected, and I think I have demonstrated the soundness to all with ears to hear and wit enough to follow.

Surely, you aren't so arrogant as to think that your arguments are so devastating that people will try to squash them, rather than seriously engage them?
I wouldn't call them devastating, but I do think that there are a couple of people here who would go to great lengths not to be seen climbing down from position they regret taking up. I don't think it is arrogant to believe in yourself.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I disagree on both counts; that I believe in the soundness of my arguments is unremarkable to the point of being completely expected, and I think I have demonstrated the soundness to all with ears to hear and wit enough to follow.

Riiiiight.


Am I assume that this is not meant to be arrogant and insulting? Because I assure you that it most-definitely is.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think I have demonstrated the soundness to all with ears to hear and wit enough to follow.

How?

When I ask you to even back up one single, simple claim, you focus instead on how I asked it rather than making the slightest attempt to justify your claim.

[mickthinks]

No one appears to be in any danger at all of losing face.
Maybe.

Every newcomer who comes to this tries to engage you a bit, gets turned off by painfully obvious misinterpretations, and writes you off as a kook.
LOL That's "every" in the sense of "by no means all"? I'll work with the few that aren't misled by the group-think.

And furthermore, you're accusing someone with a clinical diagnosis of autism of being concerned about saving face, which is just dumb.
No, I'm not, seebs. How did you get to that conclusion?

Mick

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Am I assume that this is not meant to be arrogant and insulting? Because I assure you that it most-definitely is.

Yes, it is not meant to be arrogant or insulting, Michael. How come you are insulted by it?

[The Lone Ranger]

I didn't say that I felt insulted; I said that it was an arrogant and insulting claim. And it most-definitely is. If you truly can't understand that, then I see no point in continuing.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Because it depends on the extraordinary assumption that "a lot of people" are more inclined to accuse you of mental abnormalities than engage in meaningful dialog.
I don't think that is an extraordinary assumption. I think vm has admitted to it, and I see no reason to assume he is on his own.

Even if we granted that there existed such people (and I don't, for various reasons), there's nothing to suggest that I'm one of them. I'm actively pursuing the question of detangling your arguments.

It also has the unstated assumption that you actually have convincing arguments that people are trying to quash, rather than giving them a fair hearing. This has not been demonstrated in any way.
I disagree on both counts; that I believe in the soundness of my arguments is unremarkable to the point of being completely expected, and I think I have demonstrated the soundness to all with ears to hear and wit enough to follow.

Again, this appears to be nothing more than a perfectly-circular defense mechanism. I'm outlandishly smart in every way we have tests to measure, and I have no objection to the notion that you might have good arguments. I just don't see you advancing any.

Surely, you aren't so arrogant as to think that your arguments are so devastating that people will try to squash them, rather than seriously engage them?
I wouldn't call them devastating, but I do think that there are a couple of people here who would go to great lengths not to be seen climbing down from position they regret taking up. I don't think it is arrogant to believe in yourself.

I can't think of anyone here that I haven't seen back down from positions that they've been persuaded away from. Except you, Michali, and Sovereign. I've seen everyone else concede points willingly and easily.

Furthermore, I haven't taken any position in the underlying issues.

Keep in mind, I'm the primary advocate for the position that you're autistic -- and I don't care about the underlying issue, because it's boring to me. I'm just interested in this because I am fascinated by the ways in which my brain fails to perform according to nominal spec. Since I have learned a lot of coping skills, one of the most useful ways for me to explore this is to study how other people think.

You're very interesting to me precisely because I can make some sense of your posts when other people visibly can't. But that's not at all consistent with your theory.

I think it is not generically arrogant to believe in yourself. It is arrogant to do so contrary to all available evidence. It is dysfunctional to do so when you have to create whole categories of disqualified observers and rely only on your own observations, never anyone else's... Unless, of course, you're autistic. In which case it's normal... In context.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Every newcomer who comes to this tries to engage you a bit, gets turned off by painfully obvious misinterpretations, and writes you off as a kook.
LOL That's "every" in the sense of "by no means all"? I'll work with the few that aren't mislead by the group-think.

Again, no case for groupthink here. Remember, I have paperwork showing that I don't do groupthink. So you have to come up with some other explanation...

And again, groupthink doesn't usually work that way -- least of all across a large group of people many of whom personally dislike each other. If people all had the same arguments for why they dislike you, you could make a case for groupthink. If different people dislike you for different reasons, you're probably just a jerk.

And furthermore, you're accusing someone with a clinical diagnosis of autism of being concerned about saving face, which is just dumb.
No, I'm not, seebs. How did you get to that conclusion?

I am the advocate of the "mickthinks is autistic" position. Your stated argument is that the theory that you are autistic exists to allow people to "silence you" to save face. For that to be true, it has to be true that I'm trying to promote the view that you're autistic in order to silence you in order to save face. And yet, I have a clinical diagnosis of autism, and no real history of trying to save face.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I didn't say that I felt insulted;

No you didn't say it. I assumed you were, but if you aren't I am glad to hear it.

I said that it was an arrogant and insulting claim. And it most-definitely is.
Okay, if you are taking offence in theory, and you are unwilling to explain why, Michael, I think it best we end it here.

Blessings - Mick

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Yes, it is not meant to be arrogant or insulting, Michael. How come you are insulted by it?

He's probably not.

But it's certainly an arrogant and insulting claim. Any claim of the form "anyone who disagrees with me is insufficiently intelligent or unwilling to accept the truth" is arrogant and insulting. Especially when, as in this case, the "arguments" you've provided have been little beyond bald assertions.

Interestingly, there's a known pattern where some people present their conclusions and assume that the arguments are patently obvious, or skim through arguments that are crystal clear to them, expecting other people to follow along without effort. It has to do with difficulty correctly modeling other peoples' cognition. It's called autism.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Okay, if you are taking offence in theory, and you are unwilling to explain why, Michael, I think it best we end it here.

You act as though it is a problem that he doesn't explain his positions.

And yet, you rarely explain yours; I've yet to see you write more than a couple of short sentences on any given topic. I've certainly never seen a real analysis of your interpretation of a post; you sometimes get as far as claiming that a particular word means something, but you never seem to really provide any explanation.

Hmm. You know, it's odd, but you act just like someone who expects his views and positions to be self-evident to others.

You seem to think it suboptimal for other people to think you autistic. Might I recommend that you consider acting in ways that aren't completely stereotypically autistic?

[mickthinks]

I'm outlandishly smart in every way we have tests to measure, and I have no objection to the notion that you might have good arguments. I just don't see you advancing any.
Okay.

I've seen everyone else concede points willingly and easily.
Okay.

I think it is not generically arrogant to believe in yourself.
Cool.

It is arrogant to do so contrary to all available evidence.
Not just arrogant. I'd call that dishonest and stupid.

It is dysfunctional to do so when you have to create whole categories of disqualified observers and rely only on your own observations, never anyone else's...
Agreed.