Posts made by Psymaster

@EggBoi33 you see now the expert needs your help, i think you are the expert in this subject can you help me understand what it means

Finally, i feel that it is my responsibility here to say that both the intial girl who said "so what i post hitler" and her follow up copy who took suit of her ways of talking and arguing, are not to blame for their inadequacies. You see, people do not know how to argue, and that is why argumentation is a scientifical endeavour. And that is why i can disprove the relative validness of what they say, and any one who knows these things will see the same thing. And the more they do not, of course see, the less they will become good at actually winning arguments without hurting people.

This does not mean they are bad people, or bad argumentators, or even wrong (i found two instances, where they were right. This was that it was pretentiously arrogant of me to "throw hooks out" and list my merits. I got accused of being pompous without self inflection which of course, was wrong of them to do, and a fallacy because it would rather be construed as narcissism if anything at all. But if you were not trying to reduce the author to look better i.e (ad hominem) you would then never even say that most likely. And another fallacy such as ad passionem when he tries to purport that my writing alot, has to do with me, being angry alot. Which is another argumentative fallacious statement since he then is saying that i am not in capable form to deal with affect. (1) and also, that he was so right, that i was so angry to spend the time out of spite rather than wanting to find a common good. This he can not be sure of, but the thing is that why would you think so highly of yourself to think that your little opinion carried any weight. It carries for me an opportunity to teach what NOT to EVER do when arguing. Let us take hitler as an example, a man who never explained anything in full but actually did exactly this. Reductio ad passionem ad hominem ad absurdum. And this is your playbook my fallacious friend and you can not be a dirty player, mean while saying that you are so noble to have done this. You should have of course seen that i am doing this to somehow give infromation that is not widely available or accumulated. And what you do is say "he took it all from wikipedia, another personal attack to reduce the impact of what is done. And from there on they keep doing wrong all the way down the thread. Except when there was one mention that the flynn effect, has nothing to do, with the flynn effect. And you can stand proud for doing at least that one thing right cant you. Stop your nonsense, grow up, and learn to talk. I have not even in the slightly tried to bring you down here, i sloppily list things i know, and i could dig out a million other ways to disprove your ways, but i dont bother, because i do not have it as a goal, to crush you. You are not as important as you might imagine and i am sorry to burst your bubble about that.

PS: all your downvotes prove me further right its ridiculous you are behaving very childsih.

@tempname420 said in Ask an expert about relationships and manliness, femininity.:

You needed 3 replies to answer me? Pretty emotional for someone that claims to be so intelligent and understanding of their own nature. Flynn effect? For the sake of reason, please name the proper ones. Dunning-Kruger feels closer. It is, however, pointless to continue, you have taken onto the path of believing what is convenient for you. Oh, and you might be able to help by actually being interested in what one has to say. @Ash29, would you like to be more explicit on what exactly happened?

Of course, my sneaking suspicion is that you are doing all of this in hopes of becoming the glorious hero who so bravely stood up to the scary informed university guy and actually cared about ash genuinely. " you might be able to help" implies you KNOW how to help. "actually being interested" implies that you KNOW ME TO NOT BE INTERESTED. To say "being interested, also implies, that you are doing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad passionum. Again strengthening said hypothesis that this is your actual reason for acting like this. This also rings well with your initial joke of a response where you tried to look good as well, finding some fault that was no there of course to make urself bigger. Now what further is true, is that you want to make yourself look BETTER by saying oh "it took you so much words, and attempts to win over big me". Yeah you are a real big guy saying that are ya.

So to summarize your brilliance. too many fallacies to count, you did plead to the masses that am both emotional "FOR WRITING ALOT" instead of THOROUGH FOR THINKING ALOT, which would then turn out to be reductio ad absurdum and strawmaning and all what not else.

What was it now "Is this like a place you feed your ego on? Well, well, learning so much about human behavior and still unable to introspect." implying you oh savior can know, about of course, since you are taking a dubious moral highroad of falsehood.

You are a fool of a person for doing this, and you are mock, a tremendous mock out of the art of argument, and frankly, you are making a mock out of yourself more so. And why would you without neither formal training or knowledge be so wise to think that you are the omnipotent knower of faults and solutions. I do wonder, and i do not easily dismiss your "search for good true things" as just that. You probably want something much more low and disgusting than that, and like a little weasel that kicks down the guy who got bullied, you will feel better standing on someones back for a while. That is what it seems to me, and oh by the way, this is not a professional statement, it is just my opinion of you as a person.

@tempname420 Again, you are emotionally implying that an amount (3) has something to do with qualitiy, this is, again, reductio ad absurdum? The case that i mistakenly said flynn, instead of kruger, and that you must jump on it to disprove aaaaaall what i said, is a gain, reductio ad hominem you are trying to muster "common" opinion of the people that your insights, are equal to my being wrong. Why are so desperately trying to disprove me i wonder. And also, furthing that, is that you so "gallantly" have found the "right" way of doing things which of course, is to do whatever you are doing not "explaining" 3 times. You are recieving feedback at the lowest rung. I Took your feedback at the highest point, if i saw there was any type of merit i would change it.

Such as: Flynn, its not flynn, flynn is the dubious effect of IQ standardisations going up. And you have not disproven anything rather made a bigger fool out of yourself yet again. But you can not see that can you, and it is pretty sad.

This here is exactly a clear illustration for you. of what i was talking about. Of course this does not need to be the reason for why your man did hurt your feelings, i can not be sure. But i hope it made things a little more clear? :)

@Ash29
I want to mention of course that getting over such thing are seldom easy. And its not as clear cut as it might seem always. But Generally, the green arrows, will always result in a positive outcome for said relationship (often work group) while the others will juts be destructive, hurtful, and plain evil construed attempts to make you either look bad, feel bad or make oneself look better.

@Ash29 Further more, ash i would say that we know since very long that healthy conflicts are good for relation. Again, i will refer to our student euqalyptus, because she actually did a very good job illustrating many of these things.

And what she then did, was that she straw manned my argument. Instead of saying that i described whatever i did in a way which logically, methodologically more complex, more scientifically rigorously correct, she did the opposite of trying to make it to a scarecrow.

Any leader knows, that if somone comes to you, with a problem. Let us say that you ash called me a donkey. I have these following options. Now, here one would be quick in haste to say oh 1 is always better than 2. But they are pretty gray, and we do not quite know this yet, but it certainly is better for the RELATIONSHIP if 1 is carried out you see.

What he, and she, and sometimes you and me seem to do is go to the last step. Deny, cry, blame, absolve oneself, not think and well, its the other person who is stupid not me. And that might actually be the case sometimes. But in small arguments, it probably is due to a maladjusted way of dealing with conflict.

Why i am saying all this to you, ash, is because malevolent people know that conflict leads to closeness. And it might be that which you feel, and that the abusive cycle persists because it is planned to do so. And you know, such a person does not deserve to be around you or anyone else for that matter.

Ash, i would say that when a person hurts us, as eucalyptus so well tried to do up there, either we start to believe the slanderous thing that they purport us to be (to some or other extent). This of course can be seen in abusive relationships in form of well, i would not hit you if you were not so damn stupid, and basically creating a rollercoaster of emotions that are psychologically damaging for all involved but the one who suffers from Narcissistic or ASPD spectrum disorders or commonly both, and whom are also tremendously disagreeable. We do know, that fighting, and inflicting emotional pain bonds people closer, and this can be seen in i.e healthy conflicts.

A non healthy conflict, is exactly what euqalyptus did above as a matter of fact. Attacking personal attributes, such as she did with ad hominem, that "i could not use introspection" and therefore "i am very bad at what i do" attacking intelligence or the person of him or herself. Denegrading their knowledge, appealing to the masses. Alltså method such as if you say, you really hurt me "equalyptus" she would say, oh you pansy, if you were a psychologists or expert, you would have figured out a way to not be hurt" and so on and so forth when they can not win the objective truth, they do reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem, ad absurdum in another sense to "mock" what you said, or to make a straw man argument out of what you feel "oh you only feel so and such because you are such and such" or in the worst case, resulting in violent both physical and psychological tendencies.

@Eucalyptus You have publically proven ur delusion? You say first, that its not possible, openly, to enervate through a muscle, then you, say that i am wrong for disproving your ignorance, and now you are saying my information is from google, i mean you do you i cant save em all

AND I QUOTE FOR ALL TO SEE:

"what the hell are you even saying? Now you're talking about enervating nerves?
First explain what it is to ''bypass sternocleidomastodeius to the nerve'' because that doesn't make sense in the first place."

yaaaaaay you won the argumeeeeeent wowwwwwww

@Psymaster You do not know what a nerve is, you do not know what they do, you do not know what cells protect them, you do not know what conducts, you do not know what saltatoric means, you do not know the action potential what it might be, resting potential, what it is, you do not know either what causes a nerve to fire, or what does not cause it to fire, you do not know the molecules, proteins, and kations and anions that go in and out to cause it, you do not know the states of these happenings, you do not know what makes the firing go quicker or slower, you do not know basically, anything about this and yet you say " Well a nerve cant sternomastocleideus because, banana rama mama papa"

Matter of fact, you do not know what happens even after the nerve fires. Your knowledge of this whole situation is. I see elctric spark electric spark goes boom-boom to brain and can not happen by muscle mastoideus?

@Eucalyptus You do not know what a nerve even is? And you know you dont? hahahaah

@Eucalyptus And why is it so difficult for you to just admit that you do not know anything and have the humility in the start, to not just play-games of you knowing more- and being able to like - manipulatively "stake out" the falsity of what i said? It's absurde

@Eucalyptus As a matter of fact, you do not probably even know what the word enervate means beyond u getting angry like ur hitler picture

@Eucalyptus Yes it can actually be done by superficial massage, it is enough to enervate the nerve.

@Eucalyptus Further more, i did tell her to massage her vagus nerve, in hopes of this resulting in alleviation of her symptoms. She told me, that it did work, and was actually really stoked that just through my guided instruction, she could bypass sternocleidomastodeius to the nerve.

What do you make of it now?

@Eucalyptus You do not need to say more, because if you did, you would probably dig yourself down a hole, that you could not possibly however much you sunbathe come out of?

When a person has a tenth cranial nerve problem because of a status epilepticus seizure, with either focal or partial omission, that did effect the vagus to the point of her not being able to SPEAK properly what would you do?

Ridicule it, it seems, and this is why you should not come close to responsibility, rather sun bathe away your potentials.

@Eucalyptus I see that you are trying your best with wit and charm to denegrade my ability of speech, which is just a logical fallacy called reductio ad hominem, not unlike hitler you are in that regard, and did you genuinely think yourself to be funny? Or witty, or do s you in fact believe that my speech was so horrid to scare her off?

So we can break this down for you, since you do not seem to have the utilities to do so yourself

@Eucalyptus Well, i have actually heard myself speak, and do so quite frequently and, your point is what?

@tempname420 said in Ask an expert about relationships and manliness, femininity.:

Is this like a place you feed your ego on? Well, well, learning so much about human behavior and still unable to introspect.

I would not say that you are a complete idiot, but you do not understand what you speak of (flynn effect where the 10% holder of info, thinks he can speak better than the one who has close to 90-100). Now of course a sublimated id drive is the catalysation for the ich, which then then drives the est.

Your claim is that lack the est control, then, to instropect. Firstly, you might be right, but for all the wrong reasons. What it might be, is instead a narcissistic drive as opposed to lack of self reflexivity, which both are completely different than "introspection".

Reflexive thought in science have been about oh say for the last 3 years or so. What might in turn lead to Introspection is of course the ability to have self reflexious thought, that is not the same as having for example "i will not think about shoes" and when i see the shoe, i make it in my mind to a bomb, and therefore i am not thinking about shoes. This would be pseudepigraphical introspection i suppose. Generally introspection comes with frontodorsolateral executive functions of planning of semantic knowledge regarding ones own past behavior. In fact, the reason why i was doing what you claim, is because i am that much more able than you to do it you see? I know of psychiatrists spent 90000 hours of active psychodynamic introspective analysis to not know it all even. And your ignorant claim is of course, completely puny. Try again, but nice try bud.