ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Plagiarism is plagiarism

Toddy-Cat isn't quite sure that the Zman is a plagiarist.

"I'm not sure that not citing a source in a response to a blog comment actually rises to the dignity of 'plagiarism'".

That degree of uncertainty is fair, especially if you haven't actually read the source yourself, as I have not. But, as Tublecane demonstrates, once you look at Stove's actual words and compare them to the Zman's words, you are forced to conclude there is nothing to be uncertain about:
I thought of the paraphrasing defense, but that doesn't hold up. It's not that Z-man comes off sounding like Stove because uses the same general form of argument, borrowing a phrase or two.... I believe it was deliberate. Compare:

thezman: "Much more is known now about the natural world, than was known fifty years ago..."

Scientific Irrationalism by David Stove, (p.1) "Much more is known now than was known fifty years ago..."

thezman: "...and much more was known then than in 1580."

Stove: "...and much more was known then than in 1580."

thezman: "So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years."

Stove: "So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years."

thezman: "This is an extremely well-known fact."

Stove: "This is an extremely well-known fact..."

thezman: "Let's call this (A)."

Stove: "...which I will refer to as (A)."

thezman: "A person, who did not know (A), would be uncommonly ignorant."

Stove: "A philosopher, in particular, who did not know it, would be uncommonly ignorant."

The remainder of the post veers away from Stove's text, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were stolen from somewhere else. Now, whether such a thing as plagiarism exists in internet comment sections, that's a different matter. I say yes, because it's publicly passing off someone else's writing as your own.
Tublecane is correct. The Zman clearly attempted to pass off David Stove's writing and ideas as his own in order to try to place himself in an intellectually superior position from which he could then pass judgment. It's not merely a question of what he did, but why he did it in that particular manner. He is observably a plagiarist. This observation is further supported by the fact that the Zman didn't understand the argument that Stove was making about Karl Popper, nor does he understand Popper's positions, nor does he even understand the fundamental differences between a) logic, b) math, and c) science, let alone the current need for the etymological division of "science" into its three aspects of scientody, scientage, and scientistry.

Ogre agrees. "It's absolutely plagiarism in the sense of "presenting the words of another as your own." And that's really the only kind of plagiarism we care about here. Whether it could be considered academic plagiarism (I don't know) or copyright infringement (its not), its still a dishonest and unethical thing to do. Especially given the context in which it was presented. It's just more evidence of his posturing--passing off another's arguments and expressions as his own in order to bolster his perceived intelligence."

As has been the case every single time I have exposed the pretenses and posturings of someone who has fans, some of those fans are attempting to change the subject away from the failings of that particular individual to my theoretical motivations in destroying that individual's intellectual reputation. To those fans, I will simply point out that my motivations are irrelevant, the facts are readily observable to everyone, and that this is what I do every time anyone comes at me, be they friend or foe.

The Zman and his would-be defenders can dance and defend and distract and theorize all they like. It won't make any difference. The point is that he's not particularly smart, he's not very well-read - it wouldn't surprise me to learn he hasn't actually read much of the Stove book past the first page since he clearly didn't understand it - and most importantly, he's not very honest. And his moral and intellectual failings have nothing to do with me, as I am merely one of the many people who has happened to observe them.

The main difference between me and most of those who wish to somehow minimize my influence or discredit me is not that I am at least a standard deviation more intelligent than they are, although that is often true. The main difference is that for 16 years I have had tens of thousands of opponents poring over my every word written in column, blog post, comment, tweet, and book, looking for every possible mistake they can exploit, and most of my critics have not.

So, even if I lacked both confidence in my own words and personal integrity, I know better than to ever make the sort of stupid, obvious, dishonest, and self-discrediting mistake that the Zman did in plagiarizing David Stove's words and attempting to pass off Stove's ideas as his own. At the end of the day, a man must decide whether he values his integrity or he values the opinions of others. My decision should be obvious from my mantra: MPAI.

Labels: , ,

130 Comments:

Blogger Matthew November 11, 2017 8:37 AM  

I would expect most dedicated fans of Popper have read Stove's criticisms (I did and I'm not particularly dedicated). Could Zman not imagine that he would be found out?

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 8:42 AM  

I'd be curious to hear whether about any natural Gammas out there have been outed as impostors and, if so, how they think is the best way to respond to having their ego shattered and narcissistic supply cut off like this.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 8:44 AM  

Could somebody tell me what is MPAI?

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 8:44 AM  

Pretty flawless takedown there, Vox. And you could have gone a lot harder too, the self-restraint on display is inspiring.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 8:45 AM  

SirGroggy wrote:Could somebody tell me what is MPAI?

"Most People Are Idiots"

Blogger JohnR219 November 11, 2017 8:45 AM  

Most People Are Idiots

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 8:46 AM  

The usual Gamma response, once no more defense is possible, is jokes and self-deprecation, followed by a "we're all just friends here, right" gesture that is totally unrelated to the matter on which they were exposed.

At no point in time do they admit the truth of the accusation, repent, and acknowledge that the other person was absolutely right. But that would be the best way. Of course, if they could do that, they wouldn't be Gammas.

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 8:48 AM  

Pretty flawless takedown there, Vox. And you could have gone a lot harder too, the self-restraint on display is inspiring.

Tublecane did all the hard work. And I don't dislike the Zman. I think he's simply trying to build up his media career but has learned some false lessons from some bad examples. And, like most moderately intelligent people, he doesn't realize how MUCH smarter than him I am.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 8:58 AM  

There is a good lesson to be adopted on integrity here. Most of my smartest and most interesting young adult (ages 18- say 25) friends failed slightly to badly for themselves in this area.

"Playing False" is lacking integrity and being proud of it.

Blogger The Kurgan November 11, 2017 9:04 AM  

The more I scrutinise your intellectual positions Vox, the more the very first email I wrote you, which became a blog post on VP, seems to have hit the mark.
Simultaneously I also find that what I perceive to be your true position on a topic tends to generally be both far more kind than almost anyone would suppose and also far more "hidden", though I wouldn't say this is necessarily so by strict intent, as much as perhaps idiot filtering.
In any case, it certainly requires more prosecco evenings to properly philosophise about.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 9:14 AM  

VD wrote:Tublecane did all the hard work. And I don't dislike the Zman. I think he's simply trying to build up his media career but has learned some false lessons from some bad examples. And, like most moderately intelligent people, he doesn't realize how MUCH smarter than him I am.

Thanks to tublecane then for the flawless takedown, but I still give Vox points for ejecting the drunk like a professional.

Anonymous Rocklea November 11, 2017 9:14 AM  

From Zman, an apology of sorts:

Much more is known now about the natural world, than was known fifty years ago, and much more was known then than in 1580. So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years.

This is an extremely well-known fact. Let’s call this (A). A person, who did not know (A), would be uncommonly ignorant. To assert that all scientific conclusions are open to revision, as Vox Day has done, is to deny the existence of (A). I see he is now pushing around the goal post on wheels to try and obscure the fact he made a ridiculous statement, but that changes nothing.

Look. Lots of people like to throw around the phrase “scientific conclusions” for reasons that range from laziness to cynicism. That does not change the fact that the Multiplicative Axiom is not open to debate and never will be.[1]

[1]This is a paraphrasing from Stove. I apologize for not making this clear. The pedantic ankle biter can go back to playing with his dolls now.

Anonymous Man of the Atom November 11, 2017 9:19 AM  

Rocklea wrote:
From Zman, an apology of sorts:

[1]This is a paraphrasing from Stove. I apologize for not making this clear. The pedantic ankle biter can go back to playing with his dolls now.


An apology would have included, like -- you know -- an apology. This is petty posturing.

Anonymous Wilbur Hassenfus November 11, 2017 9:19 AM  

ZMan started out as a brighter than average, more perceptive than average, white guy who knew black America better than most and wrote about it honestly and empathetically. And nobody was listening anyway so he just shot his mouth off and it was good.

At some point people started paying attention and he started taking it seriously. Then he decided he had to say something every day, inspired or not. And the then he started going to AmRen and doing a podcast.

At some point it turned into a performance. I still read the guy, but a couple months ago he said something literally nonsensical and I asked him what he meant by it. His first response was a brush off, then he sort of flapped his hands and said it was a distraction or something.

In the old days he’d have said “I write quickly and I don’t proofread, it is what it is, here’s your refund”. That’s the right answer.

Oh well. He’s still better than Jonah Goldberg.


Blogger VD November 11, 2017 9:22 AM  

From Zman, an apology of sorts.

It's not an apology of any sort.

[1]This is a paraphrasing from Stove. I apologize for not making this clear. The pedantic ankle biter can go back to playing with his dolls now.

It wasn't a paraphrasing. It was plagiarizing. Notice that he's still trying to maintain his posture that he is my intellectual superior. This is merely a Fighting Withdrawal; he isn't trying to claim Stove's ideas for his own anymore, but he's still refusing to admit that he's wrong about Popper, wrong about math, logic, and science, and wrong about me.

Typical Gamma behavior.

Blogger xavier November 11, 2017 9:23 AM  

I shake my head in sadness. It's this obsession to be ground breaking original that caused zman to lie.
I hope he recognizea the error and does what he can to amend his behaviour. Hopefully he can co tongue contributing to the great conversation

Blogger S1AL November 11, 2017 9:26 AM  

That response by Zman doesn't even display a lack of intelligence. It's just dogmatism. Not to mention a failure to distinguish between mathematical logic and empiricism.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 9:28 AM  

Look. Lots of people like to throw around the phrase “scientific conclusions” for reasons that range from laziness to cynicism. That does not change the fact that the Multiplicative Axiom is not open to debate and never will be.[1]

Look. The multiplicative axiom is not a scientific theory but is it part of mathematics. This is a category error.

Blogger maniacprovost November 11, 2017 9:30 AM  

I've only read a little of Zman, but he struck me as someone who started from ignorance and reasoned his way to some interesting conclusions. I think it was a series on the difference between Left and Right or the cathedral or something.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 9:37 AM  

S1AL wrote:That response by Zman doesn't even display a lack of intelligence. It's just dogmatism. Not to mention a failure to distinguish between mathematical logic and empiricism.

Math logic not Science: Who knew?! At this point he knows he lacks integrity, and he IS proud of it. I said this was not over.

Ya know, there are doers, and people climbing all sorts of careerist ladders, careerists have a hard go with that integrity thing.

Blogger maniacprovost November 11, 2017 9:37 AM  

Also, an axiom is not a conclusion.

Also, axioms are up for debate and have been changed over the years. The fundamental underpinnings of mathematics were rearranged in the early 20th century.

Anonymous Rocklea November 11, 2017 9:38 AM  

I think Scott Adams Movie*, the Alternate Universe Edition, will be playing over there at Zman's blog soon.

*yes I did read Desdishado's comment there, but I was thinking it before I did and the attribution is in the name.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 9:45 AM  

Also, an axiom is not a conclusion.

Yes, making him doubly wrong. He doubles down in wrongness even as he declares victory.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 9:45 AM  

Math is still changing: You bet, I know a young lady who had up through trig and analytic geometry in high school, and she is getting graded down for not doing some stuff like coloring in her answers on a college mathematics. She does get all the answers correct, but simply refuses to do the coloring.

Anonymous Rocklea November 11, 2017 9:48 AM  

"She does get all the answers correct, but simply refuses to do the coloring."

The colouring is the most important part!

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 9:49 AM  

It is not how kaleidoscopically wrong he is on this which bothers me, it's not a crime to be wrong, but it's the inability to be corrected, even over something so esoteric and abstract.

And then lack of intellectual integrity in declaring victory after having been shown to be wrong.

The initial wrongness is trivial and forgivable compared to the above.

Blogger Desdichado November 11, 2017 9:50 AM  

And I got the idea and the link from Stickwick, who pointed it out first. Credit where credit is due.

This explains why zman contunues to defend Richard Spencer. He's trying to emulate his same career path!

Anonymous Ages November 11, 2017 9:51 AM  

I don't even know who any of these people referenced in the article are. Seems pretty clear that the same words were used (without attribution?), so if you care about that kind of thing, all right.

I personally don't care much about plagiarism as an issue. It's a thoroughly modern idea, borne out of the same ideas as copyright and trademark, which are themselves thoroughly modern.

Most of the great minds of human history knew no such concept. People freely took others' words and ideas and made them their own (or not). It's just another reason for petty squabbling in my mind.

What's important is whether an author or speaker's ideas enrich our civilization or not; who said them is only relevant if someone is trying to make money off it.

I say this as one who has had my own work ripped off before. Sure it felt bad, but when I was honest the plagiarist did a better job with it than I did, so there's some satisfaction in seeing the seed of my own ideas end up blossoming in new and interesting ways that I hadn't thought of.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 9:52 AM  

SG

"The initial wrongness is trivial and forgivable compared to the above."

Yes, and he is proud of himself even more now.

Blogger OGRE November 11, 2017 9:53 AM  

Rocklea wrote:
Look. Lots of people like to throw around the phrase “scientific conclusions” for reasons that range from laziness to cynicism. That does not change the fact that the Multiplicative Axiom is not open to debate and never will be.



He still doesn't get it does he? A mathematical axiom is NOT science. By their very nature NO logical axiom can be considered scientific. Even the logical positivists knew better than to try to claim that.

Zmans ignorance is almost willful at this point. Do all the science fetishists think these things? It hurts my head just trying to think of a way to explain the plainly obvious differences between logic and science.

Using the scientific method, I think we must reject the initial hypothesis that zman is a midwit, as our observational data contradicts this claim. He is clearly expressing a level of intelligence below the mean, and I suggest that we modify the original hypothesis to account for this new data. To that end I propose a new hypotheses: Zman has a sub 100 IQ. Let the testing begin.

See how science works?

Anonymous Ages November 11, 2017 9:53 AM  

To be sure - I do think people ought to cite quotes. And I guess it's within everyone's free speech to lambast those who don't, if they themselves feel strongly about it. But I just don't see the point.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 9:56 AM  

But then.... I can't help getting hung up these things, being a dyed-in-the-wool hopeless ankle-biter of ill repute.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 9:58 AM  

This explains why zman contunues to defend Richard Spencer. He's trying to emulate his same career path!

Yeah, he says he's trying to 'build a media career'.

Well, he might not be the brightest spark in the fire when it comes to the Big Boys (or the Big Ankle Biters) but he is probably smarter and more charismatic than the people on Cable TV and probably well-suited to that sort of thing. Being a pseudo-intellectual with a heavyweight ego. Perfect!

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 9:58 AM  

"I say this as one who has had my own work ripped off before. Sure it felt bad, but when I was honest the plagiarist did a better job with it than I did, so there's some satisfaction in seeing the seed of my own ideas end up blossoming in new and interesting ways that I hadn't thought of."

Ah, yes, but here is the thing, tropes. It's okay to do what Shakespeare did because he improved on what he took. Even if you creatively go sideways, and have another interesting perspective it's okay. Yet, these people did not steal the whole literal material, and then suggest something dumber.

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 9:59 AM  

The initial wrongness is trivial and forgivable compared to the above.

Sure, but this outcome was obvious to those of us who understood the nature of the initial wrongness. You may recall that I recently wrote a book on doubling down and why people do it.

I just don't see the point.

What would you think if I told you that I was smarter than you are, and when you challenged my assertion, I plagiarized a long passage from Newton's Principia in order to prove it? Would you see any point to calling out my plagiarizing, or would you admit that I had proved my original assertion?

Blogger seeingsights November 11, 2017 9:59 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger seeingsights November 11, 2017 10:00 AM  

Also, the claim that we know more than we did 50 years ago, and more than we did in 1580, is a claim that I think Popper would not object to.

Blogger roughcoat November 11, 2017 10:03 AM  

I say this as one who has had my own work ripped off before. Sure it felt bad, but when I was honest the plagiarist did a better job with it than I did, so there's some satisfaction in seeing the seed of my own ideas end up blossoming in new and interesting ways that I hadn't thought of.

If they just started from the same concept and created something different than you did, it wasn't plagiarism. Even if they got that concept directly from you.

Blogger Howard Stone November 11, 2017 10:17 AM  

I was watching an older Hovind seminar last night and he referenced Popper. I like Hovind, he’s an ex con so that means he’s HAF. Also the story of what happened to the DA who was prosecuting his case is very relevant to current events.

Blogger Bobo #117 November 11, 2017 10:19 AM  

Cut/paste...

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 10:19 AM  

Ages wrote:To be sure - I do think people ought to cite quotes. And I guess it's within everyone's free speech to lambast those who don't, if they themselves feel strongly about it. But I just don't see the point.

The point of plagiarism is to look good without being good, and therefore get payoffs that by rights ought to go to better people. This is a form of parasitism where the individual cheater deliberately benefits at the expense of the group. "No one gets hurt" they'll say, except of course for the real intellectuals, artists and geniuses who get passed over for promotion.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 10:20 AM  

You may recall that I recently wrote a book on doubling down and why people do it.

I haven't read it yet, I promise I will soon, My Supreme Ankle Biter

Blogger Nathan November 11, 2017 10:20 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Resident Moron™ November 11, 2017 10:21 AM  

Yeah but, like the man said, do we know more that is or isn’t so?

I know people who know that:
-Saddam had WMDs
-Russia hacked the DNC
-Russia hacked the election
-Benghazi was about a YouTube video
-global warming is going to burn us all up
-the polar bears are dying
-artificial intelligence is “just 20 years away”
-blacks can’t be racists
-there are 72 genders
-islam is a religion of peace
-the pope’s catholic
-free speech is violence
-gun control works
-Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever
....

I could go on.

It’s not at all obvious that people today generally know more true things than in 1580.

M. P. A. I.

Blogger Michael Maier November 11, 2017 10:22 AM  

Life is so much easier when you INSTANTLY admit your mistakes.

It's also easier when you can say "I like this guy's ideas. Here's what they are..." instead of pretending to be brilliant yourself.

Honesty is such a dang low bar.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 10:23 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 10:24 AM  

So, to be perfectly clear, the real harm of plagiarism is in opportunity cost born by the group, which loses out on the real art, philosophy, science, etc. they could have had if not for the impostors sucking up unearned privileges.

Anonymous Fred Beale November 11, 2017 10:27 AM  

Teddy Beale, exploring the known limits of butt-hurt. Pathetic. But not as pathetic as his insecure sycophantic followers.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 10:29 AM  

The short bus doesn't always run on time, but you can always count on it to arrive eventually.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 10:31 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Quilp November 11, 2017 10:37 AM  

I'm not the huge fan of Steve Sailor many seem to be, so maybe I'm negatively biased. However, the entire incident at the Mencken club involving Sailor and the Zman seemed not just contrived or planned, but carefully timed and orchestrated with a purpose in mind. I don't pretend to know the ultimate ends sought, but it reminded me of recent criticism coming form here of the Alt Reich, the responses, and possibly some thoughts of playing very white knight nobility to the wounded serfs below.

Blogger seeingsights November 11, 2017 10:39 AM  

* 48. Fred Beale

I notice that you haven't addressed the points and arguments made in these threads.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 10:43 AM  

45. MM

"Life is so much easier when you INSTANTLY admit your mistakes."

Depends on where you're at and who you're with at the time.

In many corporate environments, you might be forced to make a living at, "Never apologize, and never explain" is the best idea. Also, never make that mistake again. In these haunts, to apologize is looked at as a weakness. Also, never apologize to an SJW, even if you somewhat did make a mistake, as they will turn in into the witch hunt they intended.

If you are around intelligent people and you make a mistake, then apologize, and own up.

Blogger Michael Maier November 11, 2017 10:46 AM  

"Also, never apologize to an SJW, even if you somewhat did make a mistake, as they will turn in into the witch hunt they intended."

I understand (and yes, I've read SJWsAL) but if I make an error, I say so.

Offending someone is not an error.

Blogger sykes.1 November 11, 2017 10:49 AM  

In the academic world, where I worked for 37 years, paraphrasing is define as plagiarism if no source is given. At least at Ohio State, the rules were explicit on this point: paraphrasing = plagiarism.

However, there is no doubt that Z-man, whom I regularly read, plagiarized Stove, whom I have read with pleasure. Although I didn't detect the plagiarism.

Another instance of plagiarism by a blogger is "Evo and Proud," who has plagiarized hbd chick's numerous posts on family structure in NW Europe.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 10:57 AM  

Michael Maier wrote:"Also, never apologize to an SJW, even if you somewhat did make a mistake, as they will turn in into the witch hunt they intended."

I understand (and yes, I've read SJWsAL) but if I make an error, I say so.

Offending someone is not an error.


It's just that, I used to work in corporations, and all the guys that use to apologize got stepped on like the National Review types against the Left or the "Washington Generals."

I'd warn them, and they still did it, then got stepped on again. Almost, as if, "virtue-signaling."

You just be gooder than me!

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 11:03 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Naga November 11, 2017 11:06 AM  

@2 The game isn't over. He can't play the abusive father, so he's playing the sulking boy, secret king. If he couldn't play either role he'd become a raging monster. If that failed he'd become suicidal or lay down to die or something. (Assuming he, his conscious mind, didn't figure out the game somewhere.)

To remove this compulsion he has to make all the trauma conscious, rather than have these memories forced into life by his unconscious mind. That's the gist anyway.

This is all bro-psychology, purely for entertainment purposes.

In the spirit of not plagiarizing ideas, I can list some books if anyone wants them. They're unusual, but their practical value to me forces me to share them when needed.

Blogger Increase November 11, 2017 11:10 AM  

I'll just point out again, that Zman's reference to Stove two comments down preceded Tublecane's investigation.

If I say "The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world."

Then later - after everyone has a bit of time to stew on that - I tell someone who doesn't get the point (regardless of error on my part) to read Aquinas, am I clearly attempting to pass someone else's work off as my own? Bear in mind that professional, moral, and legal standards may be different for blog comments and academic publishing.

Four blog posts on Scientodygate. Maybe a fifth will convince us there's no butthurt here.

Blogger tuberman November 11, 2017 11:13 AM  

Michael Maier wrote:"Also, never apologize to an SJW, even if you somewhat did make a mistake, as they will turn in into the witch hunt they intended."

I understand (and yes, I've read SJWsAL) but if I make an error, I say so.

Offending someone is not an error.


In a career or corporate place, you need to just fight back to survive. Apologizing is considered wimp territory. It's not one on one usually, it's teams, so responsibility is usually uncertain, and to apologist is to often take full responsibility for a mistake that you were possibly only a small part of, but they will lay it all on you. There are politics going on in the background that no one talks about. ETC.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 11:20 AM  

Narcissist's Grandiosity as Cognitive Bias (Dunning-Kruger Effect), video by Sam Vaknin which describes the cargo cultism of high midwits.

Found this while looking for an answer to my earlier question,

Aeoli Pera wrote:I'd be curious to hear whether about any natural Gammas out there have been outed as impostors and, if so, how they think is the best way to respond to having their ego shattered and narcissistic supply cut off like this.

Closest I've found so far is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLvTNZ8Fb-w from the same channel.

Anonymous Steve November 11, 2017 11:21 AM  

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?


--Zman

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 11:21 AM  

Four blog posts on Scientodygate. Maybe a fifth will convince us there's no butthurt here.

Your utter failure to understand my motivations is amusing. I did a solid month straight with multiple daily posts on whether the Japanese could have invaded the US West Coast. (TL;DR: no.) I've hammered Scalzi since 2013 without any end in sight. You are projecting your own motivations for action.

I don't need to be upset or hurt in order to write 100 posts on a subject. I post 3-5 posts every day; these are easier than most. Nor does it matter if you believe the Zman hurt my feelings or not. I am, as usual, stating the simple truth, which is not contingent upon your belief.

Blogger Lance E November 11, 2017 11:29 AM  

While acknowledging the factual truth of tublecane's dissection and Vox's explanation, two thoughts spring to mind:

1. Some of us have very good verbal memory, approaching eidetic (but for words, not images). I am pretty sure that I have, on multiple occasions, quoted someone else nearly word-for-word, without any conscious awareness of having done so. It does happen by accident.

Unfortunately, Zman's defense of it as "paraphrasing" disqualifies the above as an explanation. Anyone who realized they had unintentionally quoted someone else would probably just admit that, since they didn't really do anything wrong. Unless...

2. Some people seem to have taken the "never apologize" rhetoric a bit too literally, and interpreted it as more than just rhetoric. These days it's dangerous and foolish to apologize when you've wronged no one and committed no sin. When you've actually been caught in an objectively immoral act, however - especially a very obvious and public lie - then digging in is only going to make things worse. Contrition still goes a long way for friends and allies acting in good faith.

This is not to excuse Zman; frankly, I barely know him or his writing, I only stumbled upon him through the IG News link and only read his blog a few times, so it's possible there's a larger trend of which I'm not aware. Based on this incident alone, though, I don't think I'd write him off as a gamma. Public embarrassment can really mess with your head, especially the first few times it happens, and (from what I can tell) he doesn't have much experience at being a "public figure". Hopefully he'll learn from this and not repeat similar mistakes.

Anonymous S1A1 November 11, 2017 11:32 AM  

Zman proves my point that the more anti-Semite you are, the more leftist and socialist you become. Zman is just another alt-retard.

Blogger Increase November 11, 2017 11:32 AM  

VD wrote:You are projecting your own motivations for action.

But displacement is a "complicated psychological theory". I see why the Gabbers like the bantz. Have fun. I guess I'll skip x + 1.

Anonymous Heywood November 11, 2017 11:38 AM  

"The point is that he's not particularly smart, he's not very well-read"

I like Zman and read him with interest. He is well read. Just not on this subject, where his is, demonstrably, almost glaringly ignorant. I would say his blind spot is typical of people who have certain kinds of educations - mainly philosophy, but with side lines of history and economy too, while being almost completely void of knowledge of the natural sciences. Fine, not everyone is cut out to be the next Feynman. What's disappointing is not the blind spots - he's human, he's bound to have some - but his total unwillingness to learn when people who know better jump in to gently (and, admittedly not so gently) correct him. That I would not have expected from his earlier online history.

Anonymous kHz November 11, 2017 11:42 AM  

Previous conclusion: asshat.

New data: plagiarism.

No need to revise, it fits!

Current theory: asshat.

Blogger OGRE November 11, 2017 12:10 PM  

@67 I'd strongly disagree with your educational assessment. After two weeks in an epistemology course no philosophy student would make the categorical errors that zman is making.

Blogger seeingsights November 11, 2017 12:28 PM  

Resident Moron made a witty reply to the claim that we know more than we did 50 years ago, and more than we did in 1580.

My reply: Yes, a lot of people have false ideas in their heads, but I think that on balance there is more knowledge today than those previous times mentioned. Also. people back then had false ideas too.

This is how internet communication should be: make bright and witty posts like Resident Moron.

Anonymous BBGKB November 11, 2017 1:02 PM  

I copy some comments that are well expressed rhetorically, but its always something that I understand & I usually add my own spin to it.

This is my version of something VD said:

Anders Breivik required 121 shots to kill 77
Bernie Bro at GOP ball field fired 50+ rounds 0 kills
Copenhagen moslem attack had 200 rounds fired with only one dead that was not the cartoonist target


OT:
I thought Lew Rockwell might find enough to rail against other than free meals for vets given Wikileask+ParadisePapers+(((HollyWoodRape))). At least this time he was honest enough to just link to older rants instead of reposting as new.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/i-am-celebrating-today/

Blogger vanderleun November 11, 2017 1:16 PM  

Although the subject here is "plagiarism" the overall tone of the item and the fellow traveler cascade of comments seems to me to be more like "petulance." It strikes me as a kind of not-so-passive-agressive kneejerk to the ZMan item that includes this aside:

"John was first up and he used Vox Day’s 16-points blog post as the framework for his talk. He made the point that Vox is by no means the leader of the alt-right or the voice of it, but a representative sample that is useful for analyzing the movement. His comments about item number eight were laugh out loud funny, to the empirically minded. What John was doing was introducing the general ideas of the alt-right to a crowd that is not spending their evenings in the meme war. He did a good job presenting the broad strokes."

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=11972

It seems to me people need to be reminded to hold their friends close and their allies closer.

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 1:29 PM  

It strikes me as a kind of not-so-passive-agressive kneejerk to the ZMan item that includes this aside.

That's nice. A nice deflection, too. Is plagiarism not plagiarism when the motivation for pointing it out is "petulance" or "a kind of not-so-passive-aggressive kneejerk"?

It doesn't matter why you draw the dark lord's eye. The glare is going to expose you if you have anything to hide.

Blogger DBSFF November 11, 2017 2:06 PM  

It looks like his website is down (for me at least). Damage control? If he tried to pass off stuff like this once, odds are he did it many more times.

Blogger DBSFF November 11, 2017 2:09 PM  

Never mind. As soon as I posed that, his site loaded for the first time in an hour.

Anonymous Heywood November 11, 2017 2:15 PM  

@74: It's fine here. Although it does stall for me with mobile chrome. It's been doing that since forever. Desktop Brave is a-ok.

@69: Yes, I know. And anybody doing a thesis work get the basic course in elementary scientific epistemology too. But perhaps he got so hung up on Das Ding an sich and the like that he forgot these mundane things? I dunno. No excuse for the boneheaded refusal to learn, though.

Blogger Nate November 11, 2017 2:59 PM  

As I have said since the begining... zman is a midwit... acting like a typical midwit

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 11, 2017 3:14 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:I'd be curious to hear whether about any natural Gammas out there have been outed as impostors and, if so, how they think is the best way to respond to having their ego shattered and narcissistic supply cut off like this.

The *best* way would be to face reality, get humble and ambitious, and put your nose to the grindstone. The more likely is to ghost, tell yourself that you had no way to know it needed actual knowledge and experience to do it right, and then when you get your feelz under control, come back and blow it off with some self-deprecating yet also self-aggrandizing humor, while also being slightly more cautious about thinking you can do anything.

Anonymous hoots November 11, 2017 3:23 PM  

Zman's gamma-ness was beautifully illustrated when in a recent podcast he used the phrase "social justice warriors like Vox Day."

Such an absurd statement can only be made in an attempt to get a rise out of one's opponent. It's a bold declaration that he doesn't care in the least about being taken seriously as a critic. He is valuable, and at his best, when playing the part of the Jester. Hopefully he'll learn to stay in his lane.

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 3:32 PM  

Zman's gamma-ness was beautifully illustrated when in a recent podcast he used the phrase "social justice warriors like Vox Day."

Good Lord! It's like they don't grasp that words have meanings beyond "bad" and "good".

Blogger James Dixon November 11, 2017 3:33 PM  

> Offending someone is not an error.

"The best extant definition of a gentleman is 'a man who never gives offense unintentionally.'" - Unknown source via The London Saturday Review.

> If I say "The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world."

I don't recall Zman using quotes on that material. Quotes make it clear that you are quoting someone, just not who. Thus they serve as an unofficial attribution, which is probably sufficient for a blog post.

Blogger S1AL November 11, 2017 3:38 PM  

"Quotes make it clear that you are quoting someone, just not who. Thus they serve as an unofficial attribution, which is probably sufficient for a blog post."

Or a simple "it has been noted".

The error here isn't repeating the phrases, even without quotes; that's done commonly. The worst part is that he misrepresented the argument because he didn't understand it, thereby rendering it fallacious.

OpenID markstoval November 11, 2017 3:50 PM  

Zman's gamma-ness was beautifully illustrated when in a recent podcast he used the phrase "social justice warriors like Vox Day."

Holy Shit! That is just stupid. I can not see how anyone could make that mistake unless they just got here from off-planet.

Blogger Nate November 11, 2017 3:57 PM  

At this point I am expecting to damn to move to Vegas to work as an escort

Blogger Increase November 11, 2017 4:06 PM  

James Dixon wrote:I don't recall Zman using quotes on that material.

Stop.
Read these and think about what you said.
http://www.ef.com/english-resources/english-grammar/direct-and-indirect-speech/
http://www.whitesmoke.com/nested-quotations

Next time you want to help, just @ me and say, "Dox"

I'll post my personal information here so that someone brighter, kinder, and more helpful can come to my house and just shoot me.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 4:45 PM  

Feed the secret king by doing things your better at than other people. Your ego won't be challenged. Don't try to change, personality disordered people don't change they organize their life to fit round their freakishness.

Find solace in dreams and fantasy where you write all the endings. Avoid women, and ALL emotional relationships. Accept you are a freak but loads of freaks get some sort of life, many good people live lives of misery. Be thankful you haven't been handed that.

Also, and most importantly, never listen to a gamma talking about being a gamma.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 4:55 PM  

That Vaknin is excellent. Gotta go through his stuff if your gamma.

Anonymous Naga November 11, 2017 5:12 PM  

What were your parents like, Jay Will? I get a single mother vibe from that helplessness. Or is it something else?

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 5:29 PM  

My mother was dominant parent and she is a ginormous worrier. Her mother seems to have been quite neurotic. I think very sensitive kids don't need something to be particularly traumatic for it to mess with their development. My parents are good people.

I got a reasonable intellectual grasp of it all, but the intellectual grasp in front of a computer is useless when you can't emotionally deal with the world. It all goes out of the window once you bump into the world of people.

Better to give up, immerse yourself in things that are the equivalent of an imaginary friend, special teddy bear, blanket. Like a dummy it calms you down. For example, alcohol does this. I feel safer with my pint in my hand, anxious when it isn't near me. Just like a baby does.

Vaknin makes sense within a few statements its so obvious he gets this at a deep level. Although just watching it makes me want to get hammered drunk. So therefore true.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 5:30 PM  

Its on alpha game. Ill look for it if you want to read it. Was a 3 post thing going back couple of years ago.

Blogger Dexter November 11, 2017 5:37 PM  

From Zman, an apology of sorts.

It's not an apology of any sort.


Pure gamma shark. Disappointing.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 5:43 PM  

It makes sense that Hollywood is like it is. I'd hate too imagine the gamma in me with situational confidence of their kind. The delusion is that success would make you feel better but it would only make the gap between your emotional childlikeness with the clear reality that you are rolling in success. You'd be the same emotional retard.

Watch the manga cartoon Akira. Nails it, the ego rampant and self-destructive.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 11, 2017 5:51 PM  

82. S1AL November 11, 2017 3:38 PM
The worst part is that he misrepresented the argument because he didn't understand it, thereby rendering it fallacious.



true.

simply plagiarizing it would have been bad enough.

the way he grotesquely mangled everything Popper said was almost laughter inducing.



61. Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 11:20 AM
Narcissist's Grandiosity as Cognitive Bias (Dunning-Kruger Effect), video by Sam Vaknin which describes the cargo cultism of high midwits.



i would pick only one nit there;
he's goes on about how the Narcissist is 'unable' to recognize how ignorant they truly are.

but that can't be true, because he also notes that the Narcissist will construct endless falsehoods to claim as 'fact' or 'knowledge'.

the Narcissist HAS to recognize what he's doing at some point, simply to know that the old Narrative isn't working and to create a new one.

the refusal to acknowledge that Reality is the Final Arbiter, i would agree that this is the linchpin of the problem.

and it also provides a possible explanation for idiocy like the Food Pyramid. why conduct tests to see which foods promote the best health amongst the population? we KNOW in our own minds what is best.

and, oddly, that innate 'knowledge' always benefits the speaker.

Anonymous Naga November 11, 2017 5:53 PM  

I'm very interested in more of your writing if you have it somewhere. It's near impossible to get other ex-gammas to experiment with.

At a glance, that Vaknin seems incomplete compared to what's been done in Dianetics and elsewhere. It was a large movement before it was converged into something else. Are his other videos more mechanical or in-depth or anything?

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 6:12 PM  

I'm definitely not an ex-gamma. It just hits home some of the things he says. I think it would be a stretch to say I have "writings".

There's a good Vaknin video on how to manipulate narcissists.

Anonymous Icicle November 11, 2017 6:27 PM  

What the Hell is the Multiplicative Axiom?

Anonymous Naga November 11, 2017 6:49 PM  

Ah, ok. Thanks, Jay.

You may find this book useful. It's insane in places, and they try to sell their nutty religion, but applying their methods for resolving engrams, to myself, worked wonders.
https://ronsorg.ch/wp-content/uploads/Dianetics-The-Modern-Science-of-Mental-Health.pdf

An interesting extension:
http://www.freezoneearth.org/pub/trompdf.pdf

I've noticed a couple shortcomings. Autosuggestion, or self-talk, is not mentioned at all. There are also no nuances of mind. No sense of the different parts or their function. It's strictly what to do with engrams and hoping for the best.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 11, 2017 6:53 PM  

What the Hell is the Multiplicative Axiom?

What the Hell is duckduckgo.com?

What the Hell is Infogalactic?

Ok, ok, here it is on a spoon for you.
Open wide, here comes the choo-choo!

Anonymous Icicle November 11, 2017 6:56 PM  

Ok, ok, here it is on a spoon for you.
Open wide, here comes the choo-choo!


That only works if you're in algebra...

Blogger S1AL November 11, 2017 7:06 PM  

"That only works if you're in algebra..."

Thus the criticism: 'literally not even science'.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 11, 2017 7:20 PM  


That only works if you're in algebra...


Duh.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 7:24 PM  

Instincts say scientology is an avoid for me. How did you get into that? Do you think I am sincere? Are you?

Blogger Samuel Nock November 11, 2017 7:24 PM  

"The entire incident at the Mencken club involving Sailor and the Zman seemed not just contrived or planned, but carefully timed and orchestrated with a purpose in mind."

Can anyone shed some light on this? I have not been able to find a mention on any blog of an incident between Zman and Sailer.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 7:32 PM  

SciVo de Plorable wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:I'd be curious to hear whether about any natural Gammas out there have been outed as impostors and, if so, how they think is the best way to respond to having their ego shattered and narcissistic supply cut off like this.

The *best* way would be to face reality, get humble and ambitious, and put your nose to the grindstone. The more likely is to ghost, tell yourself that you had no way to know it needed actual knowledge and experience to do it right, and then when you get your feelz under control, come back and blow it off with some self-deprecating yet also self-aggrandizing humor, while also being slightly more cautious about thinking you can do anything.


Good advice in general. I'm still wondering if there's any sort of mental routine they can access to talk down the crazy.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 7:45 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) wrote:
61. Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 11:20 AM

Narcissist's Grandiosity as Cognitive Bias (Dunning-Kruger Effect), video by Sam Vaknin which describes the cargo cultism of high midwits.


i would pick only one nit there;

he's goes on about how the Narcissist is 'unable' to recognize how ignorant they truly are.

but that can't be true, because he also notes that the Narcissist will construct endless falsehoods to claim as 'fact' or 'knowledge'.

the Narcissist HAS to recognize what he's doing at some point, simply to know that the old Narrative isn't working and to create a new one.

the refusal to acknowledge that Reality is the Final Arbiter, i would agree that this is the linchpin of the problem.


100%, good analysis.

and it also provides a possible explanation for idiocy like the Food Pyramid. why conduct tests to see which foods promote the best health amongst the population? we KNOW in our own minds what is best.

and, oddly, that innate 'knowledge' always benefits the speaker.


But hey, speaking of scientology...

Jay Will wrote:Instincts say scientology is an avoid for me. How did you get into that? Do you think I am sincere? Are you?

Your instincts are telling you that you're an emotionally fragile person walking into a trap specifically created for emotionally fragile people. All good lies start with truth, but you know those people eventually intend to feed on you.

Blogger weka November 11, 2017 7:46 PM  

When I looked at the last post, I thought... sounds like Stove, but unsure. I did not look up the text. Mea Culpa: it was copied.

And if you copy, you darn should cite and link.

Anonymous Naga November 11, 2017 7:48 PM  

Jay, I am completely sincere. I was in the darkest of pits and searching for anything to help me. That mad man, Hubbard, legitimately healed me with that book. The scientologists have blackwashed a truly great thing, using it as a hook for their cult. It is so important, I don't care what anyone thinks of me for sharing it. Even with all that shit about embryonic trauma and thetans. Everyone should know the core techniques of dianetics.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 8:02 PM  

Less mental process would help.



Anonymous Icicle November 11, 2017 8:37 PM  

Thus the criticism: 'literally not even science'.

I've read those previous comments. That doesn't work in the mathematics either.

That only works if you're in algebra...

Duh.


That more specifically only works in basic algebra. In abstract algebra it fails again.

It's a rhetorical question. THERE IS NO "the multiplicative axiom."

If I'm asking a question in that manner that seems obvious at first, trust me, it's a trap.

Duh.

"She does get all the answers correct, but simply refuses to do the coloring."

The colouring is the most important part!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSSfO0lnEp8

Sometimes it is!

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 8:45 PM  

@Aeoli

Is there anything I can do to help on here? Or with related stuff? Ive got lots of time on my hands. Anything repetitive or time consuming is stuff I can do.

Anonymous tublecane November 11, 2017 9:08 PM  

@37-I agree. Stove argued that Popper's philosophy tended to make him to deny it, or at least not wish to admit it. Not that he'd come out and say so. The message is supposed to be disguised. Stove detects the message from the way Popper thinks and communicates.

Which is overly nitpicky, in my opinion, and applies much better to Kuhn or Feyerabend. But bear in my that "accumulate" is an important word above. Stove has it that Popper doesn't believe scientific knowledge is cumulative.

None of which has much to do with the argument between Z-man and Vox. Z-man's plagiarized argument is a nonsequitor.

Anonymous Jay Will November 11, 2017 9:10 PM  

@Aeoli

Come into the light Jay Will!

Anonymous tublecane November 11, 2017 9:21 PM  

@59-About Z-man recommending the book before I noticed, that just makes it all the more counterproductive. Because how do you expect not to be caught when you put the name of the book right out there?

I recognized the writing before I saw the reference. Stove isn't exactly a household name, but he's well-known enough, on the right at least. And it's not as if the excerpt was from the middle of some obscure, unpublished essay. It's from the first two paragraphs of one of his more famous works.

Is your point Z-man wasn't even hiding it, therefore it wasn't plagiarism? I don't really follow.

Blogger VD November 11, 2017 9:25 PM  

Your instincts are telling you that you're an emotionally fragile person walking into a trap specifically created for emotionally fragile people.

Bingo.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot November 11, 2017 10:40 PM  

"Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit ..."
-- Franz Kafka, "The Metamorphosis"

Oh, wait, is that misattribution ... bugging you? *snicker* :-)

Blogger Increase November 11, 2017 10:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Increase November 11, 2017 10:56 PM  

tublecane wrote:how do you expect not to be caught when you put the name of the book right out there?

Mens rea. If I had to guess - not knowing him - "being caught" wasn't even in his mind. I mentioned three of quite a few standards for plagiarism and two possible contexts. As someone who had to investigate similar things in a professional capacity, I can say both domains matter - as does motivation, this blog's author's disclaiming of the importance of motivation in his own work notwithstanding. Both domains, plus one or two more, are important if one is going to publicly denounce someone as "clearly attempting to pass off X's writing and ideas as his own."

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 11, 2017 11:32 PM  

@Jay Will,

I'm not management around here. That said, I'm very presumptuous. Ever tried your hand at proofreading? If need be I could train you. It's not difficult and I expect your mindset is suited for the work. Castalia House probably still needs volunteers. E-mail me at aeoli dot pera at gmail if interested, worst possible outcome is it doesn't take.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 11:42 PM  

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

-- Zman

Anonymous Icicle November 12, 2017 12:13 AM  

" " "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky"
- Michael Scott "


- Icicle

http://dopeandfamous.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/you_miss_100_percent_shots_michaelscott-theoffice.jpg

Anonymous tublecane November 12, 2017 12:17 AM  

@117-"Mens rea. If I had to guess - not knowing him - 'being caught' wasn't even in his mind."

If you're saying he lacked intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, I doubt it. As another poster said, if he has a photographic memory and confused another author's words for his own, he wouldn't insist afterwards that he was paraphrasing.

I'm at a loss for another explanation for there to be no intent, unless he was figuratively out of his mind at the time.

The scenario you presented above--where you quote a block of Aquinas without attribution then mention his name in another post for those who didn't get it--doesn't apply for a few reasons. Firstly, you could easily put the excerpt in quotation marks or preface it with something like "as Aquinas said." That requires almost no effort.

More importantly, when Z-man recommended Stove's book in the subsequent post, he made no indication that it related specifically to his previous argument. He just recommended people read it it. There was no, "Oh, by the way, I was hinting at blah-blah-blah, for those of you who didn't catch it."

Furthermore, I might add that the unquoted passage did not stand alone. It was incorporated into his post with no break between Stove's words and Z-man's, as if it were an organic whole. This despite the fact that Stove's argument was different from the one Z-man was making.

Finally, borrowing from Aquinas will naturally sound archaic. I'd expect people to recognize it as from another time, even if I gave no indication. Stove wrote relatively recently and in a more or less vernacular style. (When he wasn't minding his P's and Q's.) There wouldn't be any red flags as with the words of a friar from 750 years ago. (Unless you've read the words before.)

Blogger Increase November 12, 2017 12:17 AM  

SirGroggy wrote:We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

-- Zman


Now that's the spirit. Make bantz, not war.

Enough people want to kill us already.

Blogger Increase November 12, 2017 12:46 AM  

tublecane wrote:If you're saying he lacked intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, I doubt it. As another poster said, if he has a photographic memory and confused another author's words for his own, he wouldn't insist afterwards that he was paraphrasing.

I feel like somehow the internet's wires got crossed and I got routed into a PLI or autism support group.

I'm saying "wrongdoing" wasn't in his mental universe because its the wrong context. Somewhere in the whole domain that encompasses stealing original research - or even republishing one's own research in another journal - as opposed to independent discovery on one hand, and coders shamelessly and without consequence taking code off stackoverflow/github for their jobs on the other hand, (or for that matter literary allusion and fair use for satire on completely different axes) lies the recreational small-time blogger making it big & taking and modifying-to-circumstances something (i.e., "paraphrasing" in the most precise sense of the term) in his comments section, in order to deal with a member of his public while stressed and busy - while still directing people to read the author of said words, after having previously told people to read that author ("golly, I'm sure no one will notice, so clever am I").

Nothing to sperg over, nothing to start a flame war over. We have bigger fish to fry, unless the butthurt or incentive to buttkiss is so, so great.

Knock yourself out, accuse whomever of whatever. I'm not being paid to do a line-by-line on this.

Anonymous tublecane November 12, 2017 1:18 AM  

@123-You can't dismiss all internet arguments with the words "autism" and "sperg."

"i.e., 'paraphrasing' in the most precise sense of the term"

The precise sense of "paraphrasing" is putting someone else's writing or speaking into your own words. That's not what we're talking about. This is almost word for word copying.

"while still directing people to read the author of said words"

Without informing them he said them.

Blogger SciVo November 12, 2017 10:24 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Good advice in general. I'm still wondering if there's any sort of mental routine they can access to talk down the crazy.

It has to be a habit built from repetition. That is the only thing that can effectively counter an autogenous instinct. So if you've seen Dr. Amen's stuff about countering ANTs (automatic negative thoughts), it would be like that but to counter automatic narcissistic thoughts.

Blogger SciVo November 12, 2017 10:50 AM  

So basically building a habit of talking back to yourself when you hear certain self-talk, "No that's false." And the trigger could be "That looks hard so I shouldn't try," or "That looks easy so I shouldn't check if it needs experience," or even both.

"No, that is false."

And the gamma needs both talking-backs because imagining that you were born on third base, and only need a lucky break to walk home, makes for people both arrogant and lazy. When what the world needs is humble and industrious, like deltas.

Blogger S1AL November 12, 2017 1:32 PM  

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 and Job 42:1-6. Keeping in mind that they were written by two of the greatest mean who ever lived. Repeat those key parts to yourself, and you'll discover that arrogance becomes all but impossible.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2017 2:52 PM  

> Stop. ... Read these and think about what you said.

OK, I wasted my time doing so. I still have no clue what the hell you're blathering about.

I demonstrated my understanding of double and single quotes in that very comment.

And I went back and checked, and he did not use quotation marks at all in his comment. He did add a note saying "This is a paraphrasing from Stove." after he was called on it. It was not just paraphrasing, as has been demonstrated.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2017 2:56 PM  

Of course if you're simply noting that I should have said "I don't recall Zman having used" instead of "I don't recall Zman using", then you are correct, if pedantic.

Anonymous Ryan November 13, 2017 3:28 PM  

" would expect most dedicated fans of Popper have read Stove's criticisms (I did and I'm not particularly dedicated). Could Zman not imagine that he would be found out?"

My guess is he didn't imagine anyone would care.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts