ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The importance of rhetoric

A few facts:
  • 78% of Clinton supporters don't believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites. 
  • 68% of Clinton supporters don't believe blacks are less law-abiding than whites.
Wow, they're all pretty stupid, right? No, because intelligence has NOTHING to do with it. Greater intelligence just means that an individual has an enhanced capability for rationalizing his belief in even more ridiculous falsehoods.

After all:
  • 68% of Trump supporters don't believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
  • 53% of Trump supporters don't believe blacks are less law-abiding than whites.
Let's throw in a few more facts.
  • Average white American IQ: 103
  • Average black American IQ: 85
  • Average sub-Saharan African IQ: 70
  • The 12% of the male US population that is black provides 37% of the male prison population.
  • Blacks commit violent crimes at 8.5 times the rate that whites do.
In other words, facts are observably incapable of persuading MOST of the US population. Their minds are not changed by the receipt of new information, regardless of how accurate it may be. As much as 80 percent of the population is totally impervious to observation, statistics, eyewitness testimony, genetic science, and documentary evidence. Considering their ability to resist observable reality, how susceptible do you think they are likely to be to logic and abstract reason?

I conclude that less than five percent of the population is even subject to persuasion by logic and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it. And if these facts is insufficient to persuade you that dialectic is an intrinsically limited tool that must always be supplimented by rhetoric to be generally effective, well, welcome to the 98 percent.

Labels:

182 Comments:

Blogger Gaiseric September 14, 2016 10:38 AM  

Another reasonable conclusion is that those facts aren't made readily available to most Americans, and unless they go out of their way to find them, they aren't aware of those statistics, though.

Most people are pretty incurious and willing to believe their indoctrination; or at least set aside and ignore the cognitive dissonance that comes from their observation being at odds with their indoctrination.

There's also probably a major Bradley effect in play with those numbers; i.e., a lot more people than are willing to admit it really DO understand that black IQ and per capita violence and criminality is a lot higher than that of the white population. But because it's considered bad to admit it, they don't admit it, even to pollsters.

Blogger #7139 September 14, 2016 10:38 AM  

...and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it.

This sounds about right.

Blogger haus frau September 14, 2016 10:40 AM  

THis is true. Seen it first hand. If you ask these same people why they don't live in predominantly black neighborhoods they might tell you about the crime rate, the poor quality of housing and the poor schools but these are all just incidental to the fact blacks live there or they are an injustice imposed on those particular occupants. Whatever they say, their choice of neighborhood has nothing at all to do with getting away from blacks per se. They also interpret "diversity" as a wholly superficial concept. Why of course they wouldn't mind living next to Indians, Chinese, dindus, etc. if those people acted exactly like whites and why wouldn't these people want to act like why people? White behavior and morality is entirely universal. They are blind to their own bigoted assumptions about human behavior.

Anonymous TCC September 14, 2016 10:52 AM  

@1

Yes, the rhetoric / social punishment comes into play not necessarily in the act of noticing disparities -- indeed, the whole of the BLM movement is predicated on this idea -- but rather in insinuating that the disparity may be caused by an intrinsic racial factor.

Since the very nature of a causal relationship in the social realm is more nebulous, it's easier for social norms to seep in and determine what people are ready to consider as an explanation.


Blogger James Dixon September 14, 2016 10:55 AM  

> I conclude that less than five percent of the population is even subject to persuasion by logic and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it.

On my more pessimistic days, I consider your statements like this overly optimistic. :)

Blogger Positive Dennis September 14, 2016 10:55 AM  

This is why i am on hiatus on blogging. I know Vox does like despair, but .... I am encouraged by an article i read about writing for the remnant. Hopefully I will start again.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 10:56 AM  

welcome to the 98 percent

Now THAT's funny.

People herd. It is a central thesis in socionomics and so phenomenally obvious (fashion, anyone?) that discussing it can't escape tautology.

Herding occurs at a level beyond (prior to) the subconscious. We don't even feel it. The urge to "fit in," to adopt the views and beliefs of those around us is as old as mammals. It arises in the same brain structures as do phobias and emotions, and the seat of self. The urges swamp our puny reason, hijacking it like a virus hijacks a living cell and forces it to do the virus' bidding.

There are no outside observers. We're all part of the system, even though not all of us embrace the Dominant Narrative. The Dominant Narrative is the trend, and the trend is (by definition) in place until it's not.

Proximity to a trend change (a change to a new Dominant Narrative) is signaled by growth in the community of heretics. This is what the Alt-Right is, no?

The connective tissue holding together the Dominant Narrative in social, political, economic and financial realms is a once-in-three-centuries social mood mania characterized by openness and trust. Trust in monetary madness. Trust in centralize political systems. Trust in alien cultures and peoples. Trust in celebrities, pundits, the intelligentsia and ideologues. These last are the Alphas of our times...or False Alphas, if you prefer.

Few people realize just how much of the world we take for granted now exists in a "Castle in the sky," an illusory realm that grew up these past 50 years, and how much of what we assume is permanent will evaporate when this unprecedentedly long and large bubble finally bursts.

Nothing changes any of this; it changes on its own terms, endogenously. Rhetorical persuasion is ineffective, too. All attempts to alter the Dominant Narrative from the outside are like trying to force an idea (a New Narrative) before its time has come.

Bonds are now showing some signs that the long love-affair with pathological trust is coming to an end. Maybe this time will be THE time. US stocks look like they might still have a new All Time High in them in coming weeks. The rally may continue. We won't know until hindsight reveals all.

But the existence of the Alt-Right, like the Trump Phenomenon, is exactly what we should expect to see at the beginning of a massive change in trend, as the Equals Temple Cult dogma is deposed in favor of the next Idea Whose Time Has Come.

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 10:56 AM  

maybe related: current admin uses behavioral science to persuade

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/09/records-show-obama-hired-behavioral-experts-expand-use-govt-programs/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

" Americans should be concerned that the government is employing behavioral experts to use psychological techniques in order to manipulate the behavior of its citizens"

Blogger Escoffier September 14, 2016 10:57 AM  

Is it not possible that this is what they tell a pollster, not what they themselves believe? I mean I've talked to both to be sure but in my experience most people actually know and are just too cowardly to say.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 14, 2016 10:57 AM  

People are trainable few are worth the time trying to educate. But the right is stuck in that rut

Blogger Zaklog the Great September 14, 2016 10:58 AM  

Is that "supplanted by rhetoric" or "supplemented by rhetoric"? The two have very different meanings.

Anonymous gxg September 14, 2016 11:00 AM  

It would help if media, including news, television, movies, etc. would portray things accurately. But as it stands now, blacks are portrayed as noble, victims, cool, funny, misunderstood, etc., while whites, especially white men, are portrayed far less favorably.

My Boomer Mom lives in a lilly-white area, grew up in a lilly-white area, too. The only blacks she sees are on TV. All her kids, however, have experienced diversity firsthand and are race realists, much to her disappointment.

It reminds me of that old South African joke.
QUESTION: What's the difference between a tourist and a racist?
ANSWER: About two weeks.

Blogger Third Coast September 14, 2016 11:02 AM  

Scott Adams has already covered this extensively.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:03 AM  

Scott Adams has already covered this extensively.

So have I. But we keep having to repeat it because most people can't understand it or accept it upon their initial encounter with it.

Anonymous VFM#1819 September 14, 2016 11:03 AM  

Not everyone can be an ENTJ.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 14, 2016 11:04 AM  

Most people can't think. Most of those who can won't think. And most of the few who do think can't do it very well.

It's the handful who think regularly and clearly that are the difference between civilization and barbarism.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:04 AM  

Is that "supplanted by rhetoric" or "supplemented by rhetoric"? The two have very different meanings.

Either, really, but we'll keep it simple and go with "supplemented".

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:05 AM  

@8 Using behavioral science to control people's minds is as old as time. Elucidating the underlying mechanisms may improve it some, but I question whether it is successful in pushing a trend beyond its normal reversal, and I'm fairly sure that causing a reversal itself probably impossible.

Our social mood mania could have reverse several times in the last 30 years. 1987, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2007 all offered pauses in the trend, but each time the complex system took "continue" instead of "reverse." Sometimes black is "in style" for season after season, and sometimes you really do flip "heads" six times in a row.

Social mood manias are quite rare. The last defined one was in the early 1700's. This one is, in amplitude and duration, many times larger. Its reversal will be commensurately large.

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier September 14, 2016 11:10 AM  

"Greater intelligence just means that an individual has an enhanced capability for rationalizing his belief in even more ridiculous falsehoods."

Yeah, I'm getting convinced of this over and over again everyday.

@VD

You've summarized this very well. I'm probably part of your supposed 2% (I don't know if that's accurate or not, but it is definitely a small minority of the population), and I used to make the assumption that other people were like me and could be argued logically and reasonably from position to position.

I used to chalk this up to the general stupidity of the rest of the population. But, someone I know very well who has a nearly identical IQ to mine is completely impervious to facts and logic. Repeatedly discussing various topics with this person has helped to convince me of just how real this "dialectic immunity" is.

It makes it difficult for the Ilk around here who seem to be far more of the dialectical sort than the general population. Learning rhetoric isn't that hard, but it always seems to feel cheap and some how dirty to me.

That said, manure is cheap and dirty, and it can make all the difference in the world in your garden or field.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:10 AM  

@12 It would help if media, including news, television, movies, etc. would portray things accurately.

When has this ever been the case? The Narrative defines what is "news." It defines what is "entertaining." It defines what is deemed "accurate."

When this current Narrative is fully reversed, during the next trend there will be a large cohort of people who will invert the Left-inaccuracies and swat up equally inaccurate beliefs in the opposite direction. If you can imagine a world as saturated by DISTRUST as our current world is saturated by (manic) TRUST, you've a better imagination than I.

That is what I believe will come, in due time. Overshooting the mean is what cycles do, and when the coming decline in trust begins in earnest, it is starting from a very, very high altitude.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:13 AM  

I used to make the assumption that other people were like me and could be argued logically and reasonably from position to position.

Then you aren't part of the 2 percent, obviously. You are part of the 5 percent. Because you still find it difficult to accept the legitimacy of rhetoric. If you were part of the 2 percent, the information would have fully convinced you.

Anonymous DissidentRight September 14, 2016 11:15 AM  

In SJWs Always Lie you point out that disinterested third parties (your coworkers) are usually going to split the difference between SJWs and their victim. That doesn’t necessarily make them incapable of persuasion by logic, it just means they don’t care.

The vast majority of white Americans live and breathe the Narrative and are disinterested because they aren’t directly affected by blacks/globalism. So they split the difference. And because white Americans are cucked, they choose to believe the part of the Narrative that would be most triggering if it were false.

Being credulous, accepting peer pressure, and failing to do your homework is not the same thing as being incapable of persuasion by logic. What it does mean, of course, is that rhetoric will be more effective on you.

/sperg

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:17 AM  

In SJWs Always Lie you point out that disinterested third parties (your coworkers) are usually going to split the difference between SJWs and their victim. That doesn’t necessarily make them incapable of persuasion by logic, it just means they don’t care.

Yes, and what does that have to do with anything? Most people are both indifferent and impervious to dialectic.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:18 AM  

In personal experience, people who qualify for and join (a sample bias confounder, to be sure) http://colloquysociety.org/ are just as impervious to dialectic as anyone you'll meet at WalMart.

Per the group's home page, this is about 140 IQ, or 1:200 people.

IQ has nothing to do with it. If anything, very high IQ people are just (as VD notes in the OP) better at rationalizing their premises, and their premises are largely dictated by their own personal herding behavior.

All of us herd. Some of us herd more than others. It's not connected to IQ. Maybe it has something to do with common sense, an attribute for which I know of no written test (although one's happiness in life might be a surrogate.)

Most of the people frequenting this blog are probably low-spectrum for herding. Not zero, just lower than the mean.

Anonymous DissidentRight September 14, 2016 11:23 AM  

Yes, and what does that have to do with anything? Most people are both indifferent and impervious to dialectic.

It could imply a false positive for your percentages. Someone who can be persuaded by dialectic but doesn’t care would look like someone who can’t be persuaded by dialectic.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 14, 2016 11:23 AM  

IQ has nothing to do with it. If anything, very high IQ people are just (as VD notes in the OP) better at rationalizing their premises, and their premises are largely dictated by their own personal herding behavior

As I pointed out before, many people with a demonstrated higher than average IQ refuse to believe in IQ. I was talking with someone like this last week, a retired man who grew up in the 1940's and I think he has a mental association like this " IQ = Eugenics" and "Eugenics = Nazis". He has an aversion to IQ that's not quite like someone looking at an ugly spider, but it's close.

"Herding" may not quite be the word you want to use. There are brain structures in canids similar to those in humans. The word you might want is "pack", men tend to run in "packs".

Sigmas probably don't herd / pack very well compared to others.

PS: "Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal" -- Lazarus Long

Anonymous BGKB September 14, 2016 11:24 AM  

But because it's considered bad to admit it, they don't admit it, even to pollsters.

Even I say "of course I believe in equality I wouldn't have worked all those years in inner city hospitals if I didn't"

I used to make the assumption that other people were like me and could be argued logically and reasonably from position to position.

I actually once tried to explain pay day loans to a black co-"worker".

OT why is no one talking about the new Batch of WikiLeaks?https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/775845990645522432

Its going to be nice never hearing leftists bring up Gerrymandering ever again.

Blogger Rabbi B September 14, 2016 11:24 AM  

@23 VD

Most people are both indifferent and impervious to dialectic.

It only takes one or two exchanges on Twitter or Facebook to confirm this.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) September 14, 2016 11:24 AM  

welcome to the 98 percent.

#occupylogic, #occupydialectic

Anonymous BGKB September 14, 2016 11:27 AM  

Lawfare plans

Matt Forney ‎@basedmattforney
OH SHIT! Here's the DNC plan to destroy the GOP House majority through nonstop litigation. #DNCleak #DNCleaks pic.twitter.com/cGZuj7gPMt

Blogger Sagramore September 14, 2016 11:28 AM  

How about the importance of repetition?

Female staffers adopted a meeting strategy they called “amplification”: When a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author.

Yes, yes, we will take you to Mount Spashmore, little girl. Now go play in the traffic.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:29 AM  

It could imply a false positive for your percentages. Someone who can be persuaded by dialectic but doesn’t care would look like someone who can’t be persuaded by dialectic.

It doesn't. Re-read and think the matter through.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 11:30 AM  

Female staffers adopted a meeting strategy they called “amplification”: When a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author.

Women and SJWs do this ALL THE TIME. Any time they talk about a female writer, she is always "brilliant" or "dazzling". Then you read something the woman has written and you wonder how ANYONE ever described her that way, let alone so many people.

Anonymous DissidentRight September 14, 2016 11:32 AM  

It doesn't. Re-read and think the matter through.

Okay, I will.

Blogger Curlytop September 14, 2016 11:33 AM  

If you teach or have ever taught for any length of time in a solid Home-educating setting, you will see these facts on full display.

You are dealing w mostly middle to upper middle class traditional nuclear families. They are church going etc, yet the black children struggle the most on average w math, Latin, Logic, and English Composition. There's no comparison when teaching Logic.

Blogger Nick S September 14, 2016 11:35 AM  

This is why I don't like humans.

Anonymous Roundtine September 14, 2016 11:35 AM  

Rhetoric:
>Blacks are as smart as whites
>Anyone who says otherwise is a racist

Fact:
>Average white American IQ: 103
>Average black American IQ: 85

Rhetoric:
>Why do you know that? You are a racist.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 14, 2016 11:37 AM  

But we keep having to repeat it because most people can't understand it or accept it upon their initial encounter with it.

In pedagogy we see that different people require a different number of repetitions to grasp a new concept. Some "get it" the first time, some take any number of repetitions, some never "get it" for a sufficiently advanced concept. This is in reference to things that are not hot buttons, such as multiplication or rules of grammar.

The higher the level of emotion associated with an idea, the more resistant an individual will be to modifying it. We have 50 years of propaganda hammered into people's heads about the black / white divide in school and in crime. It's remarkable anyone can think clearly about these topics at all.

We are all like 1980's Soviet people trying to understand a non-centrally planned state. Some grasp it quicker than others, and some just won't ever get it.

So VD will have to repeat the lesson from time to time. Because there's always some SOB who doesn't get the word.

Blogger Jimmy The Freak September 14, 2016 11:38 AM  

And memes are statistically proven to be 98% effective.

Blogger Arthur Isaac September 14, 2016 11:38 AM  

Seeing people's careers ended for wrongthink is effective rhetoric.

Blogger JWM September 14, 2016 11:38 AM  

The numbers don't seem to jibe with my own experience. I don't know too many people who would agree with the results. I know- small sample fallacy and all that, but...
What I wonder:
What group was being sampled for polling?
College students? Blue collar workers? Random folks on the street?

How was the poll conducted?
Anonymously filling out a form? Answering a phone survey? Speaking face to face with a pollster?

There are too many circumstances in which a person polled would give the "right" answer instead of an honest answer. It doesn't take a whole lot of contact with blacks to reach the politically incorrect conclusion, but people are terrified of the ostracism that follows being labelled a racist.
The more frightening thought that occurs to me is that 12 or more years of miseducation in the public school system produces programmed robots that cannot think other than how they were told. True believers in every sense of the word.

JWM

Blogger Clint September 14, 2016 11:40 AM  

Aristotle spoke of ethos, pathos, and logos (among other things) as key for persuasion. Ethos being the perceived credibility of the speaker/writer; pathos being emotional appeals; logos referring to the use of logic.

Wanna guess what most college students rely on? Yep, emotion. They are devoid of facts. For them, facts are whatever they want them to be.

Rhetoric, as VD points out, is the method to use to reach the majority of people. Just look at commercials and other ads. In 1945, newspaper ads presented all the benefits of a product, using lots of words. Today such ads would be ignored, so they rely on pictures and slogans, with few facts involved. Advertisers recognize that rhetoric works better than dialectic for most groups.

Just consider the ASPCA ads that run all the time on television. Sad music, injured and sick animals fill the screen, a weepy celebrity talks about the horror of animal abuse and how your pittance could save them all. Facts? Almost none. Rhetoric? full to the brim.

Blogger Noah B September 14, 2016 11:41 AM  

This was a bitter lesson for me, but since then I've learned to stop worrying and love meme magic!

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 14, 2016 11:41 AM  

Female staffers adopted a meeting strategy they called “amplification”: When a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author.

Bandwagon fallacy. VD noted that women and SJW's do this all the time. Hey, "everyone else says so" is a lot easier than thinking.

This is how the US got Prohibition, and look how that worked out.

Anonymous BluePony September 14, 2016 11:43 AM  

Ideology is the mind killer. I spent years deliberately trying to remove it all from my thought processes. It's not easy, and I'm never completely sure if I accept or reject something for pure logic or some comfortable notion is making me think I am.

So, no surprise to me most people aren't willing to go down that road, or even aware they can or need to. They know what they know, yesiree, bob's yer uncle.

I do have to wonder if people were honest on the crime question, though. All I see are the ones that admit blacks do more crime, but they excuse it because racismstuffs 'n feelz.

I actually started welcoming survey phone calls a few years back because they are enormous fun to futz with the survey taker. If the caller is female, say she sounds cute and ask what she's wearing.

Blogger RobertT September 14, 2016 11:45 AM  

7. dc.sunsets

Good stuff.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:47 AM  

@26 A Paradigm, I'm just using Prechter's terminology. Herd vs pack vs flock vs school (as in fish), it's all a metaphor to describe how people's actions in areas of uncertainty are guided by brain structures not used in reasoning, but in fact are used for emotion.

Using his example: If you sat in a chair and someone dumped a box of writhing (harmless) Black Snakes in your lap, you'd probably jump out of reflex. No matter that your reason informs you of their harmlessness, you jump, time after time. It would take considerable conditioning to stop jumping.

This is the same for phobias. I can't pick up a Madagascar Cockroach, even though I know it's harmless, because I'm phobic. I tried. Several times. If it hissed or moved, it was like a spinal reflex forcing my fingers apart to drop it. My IQ-brain was helpless before my emotion-brain. This is a product of natural selection; the animal that sat around trying to decide if that movement in the grass was a hungry lioness was lunch, while the one that immediately ran without thought survived and passed along its genes.

It is in this part of the brain that people choose to trade stocks, what political program or candidate to support, or a host of other decisions. Only when deciding between the 29 oz can of diced tomatoes at $1.29 vs the 14 oz can at $0.79 do (math-capable) people largely engage their rational minds. Otherwise, the rational mind is simply engaged to rationalize the pre-existing bias or premise delivered up from underneath consciousness.

I always remember that in most conversations I'm talking to that person's emotional mind, not their logical mind (even if they have one.)

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 14, 2016 11:48 AM  

Had a debate with my brother the other day about how IQ is or is not genetic.

He's a fairly intelligent man but was unable to accept that IQ was genetic and assumed there were other factors involved. I kept pressing him about what other factors but he couldn't provide a legitimate answer.

Sadly, he even refuses to believe that the Libertarian party has been thoroughly taken over by leftist losers who want to smoke pot and sodomize each other (with consent of course). When I cite Gary Johnson as proof of this, he denies it as well.

Indeed, facts do not convince intelligent people and I am forced to agree with VD on this based on my experiences.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 14, 2016 11:49 AM  

How he gonna get his money?

OpenID luciussomesuch September 14, 2016 11:50 AM  

Beneath the platitutes of the upper pundits,
Far beneath the web of soft-swollen repute
Uprears, restless, resenting elitest surfeits,
Wondrous KEK: woke to revenge, refute
Those shadowy sponges who soak the light
Of life from millennials left to blight,
Who condemned ‘em to weed-fumed healthless cells,
Broke-backed with debt, left friendless incels.
These have lied for ages, dark in their grots
Battening upon nations, making their boast
To school for chains trusting Christian tots
Till they rear down their ranks, a slavish host.
KEK’s wrathful fire, worm-wrought nations shall purge
As angels and men upon the portent gaze,
And lo! Through the polls Trump’s mammoth surge
Unstops the mouths of righteous, risen rage!

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 11:50 AM  

18. Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:05 AM
@8 Using behavioral science to control people's minds is as old as time. Elucidating the underlying mechanisms may improve it some, but I question whether it is successful in pushing a trend beyond its normal reversal, and I'm fairly sure that causing a reversal itself probably impossible.


I never noticed it before these last 8 years, especially the last 4.
like the statement that the current admin will be increasing "refugee" intake by 30% in 2017? seems like a strange thing to say for one that will be out of power in mid January. these kind of things bother me and I notice them more and more often lately.

Anonymous VFM #7916 September 14, 2016 11:50 AM  

@The Dark Master

Review, Repeat, Remind is one of my go-to managerial consulting phrases. Also a key to effective rhetoric.

Blogger RobertT September 14, 2016 11:51 AM  

26.

IQ has nothing to do with it.

My one adventure with Mensa ended after I discovered that Mensa is more converged in SJW than the overall population. All that brainpower going to waste.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 11:52 AM  

As much as 80 percent of the population is totally impervious to observation, statistics, eyewitness testimony, genetic science, and documentary evidence.

That ceiling may not be high enough. 91 percent of respondents in a sample of 21 diverse countries said that equal treatment of people of different races or ethnicities was important to them. That was in 2011. I'm fairly sure that five years later, rhetoric has changed minds and lowered that percentage, but I would be terribly surprised if dialectic made a lick of difference, except perhaps to an odd (and very young) outlier or two who had logically come to the conclusion based on bad data.

Aristotle never put a hard upper limit on the popular limits of the dialectic, but he wrote the handbook on Rhetoric...for everyone, for a reason.

Anonymous M.W. Peak September 14, 2016 11:53 AM  

Since Progressives are either unwilling or unable to hear dialectic and indifferent to rhetoric (the doubling down), they are going to be much less inclined to solve differences with Alt-Right and other anti-Progressive groups through simply talking. They will, however, be more inclined to use force. This is why the whole movement of the past century is not going to end well.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 11:54 AM  

My one adventure with Mensa ended after I discovered that Mensa is more converged in SJW than the overall population. All that brainpower going to waste.

Mensa is far too inclusive to argue that "IQ has nothing to do with it," RobertT.

Blogger RobertT September 14, 2016 11:54 AM  

28. Rabbi B

Most people on twitter are never going to change their minds. Speaking to the choir. But I love it never-the-less.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 14, 2016 11:55 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:All of us herd. Some of us herd more than others. It's not connected to IQ. Maybe it has something to do with common sense, an attribute for which I know of no written test (although one's happiness in life might be a surrogate.)

Most of the people frequenting this blog are probably low-spectrum for herding. Not zero, just lower than the mean.


Associative horizon can be thought of as the inverse trait of herding.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 11:55 AM  

@38 A Paradigm,
We are all like 1980's Soviet people trying to understand a non-centrally planned state. Some grasp it quicker than others, and some just won't ever get it.

I remember reading that ex-Soviets asked, "But if the state doesn't build cars (the abysmal Trabant!), from where will cars come?"

If only 2% are open to dialectic, what percentage (overall, or a subset of that 2%) can think through abstractions...and what subset of that can think through multilevel abstractions?

Question 1: If I launch a ping-pong ball horizontally off a table and simultaneously drop one from the same initial height, which one hits the floor first. (Interestingly, you can show people mired in concrete thinking, e.g., 7 year olds, this empirically and they'll still give you the wrong answer.)

Question 2: How many 1" cubes does it take to make a 2" cube. It's astonishing to see how few people get this one right.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 14, 2016 11:59 AM  

It would help if media, including news, television, movies, etc. would portray things accurately. But as it stands now, blacks are portrayed as...

You mean the media is using rhetoric instead of dialectic? I'm shocked...

So anyway, the question is, did it used to be better? Did it used to be more than 2%, because we (our society) used to make better decisions? Or was something else at work?

-An empty belly is pretty effective at breaking through illusions. Is our prosperity to blame?

-Have we allowed too many of the 98% into the decision-making process?

-Has our genetic decline decreased the number of people capable of having their mind changed by the receipt of new information? IQ has gone down, has our ability to override emotion with logic gone down as well?

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 12:00 PM  

56. Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 11:54 AM
My one adventure with Mensa ended after I discovered that Mensa is more converged in SJW than the overall population. All that brainpower going to waste.

Mensa is far too inclusive to argue that "IQ has nothing to do with it," RobertT.


if they truly want to be "inclusive" how long will it be until they
(are forced to) begin admitting people with below 98th pct IQ?
affirmative action for MENSA, lol

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 12:01 PM  

@58 from your link: A remark I wish to make is that what I call "associative horizon" is by others often mistaken for "creativity". But creativity is a higher-level phenomenon, a synergy of things, of which associative horizon is only one. The idea that associative horizon itself is creativity is of course attractive to who do not possess much of the other components of creativity. But it is not true.

True for me. In spades. I can see multi-level abstractions and their associations as though they are painted on a wall in front of me. My creativity, however, is limited to linear progression (e.g., establish a plot device and then let the novel write itself, almost like it has a life of its own.)

That is a fascinating link.

Anonymous Milwaukee man on the street September 14, 2016 12:03 PM  


Question 2: How many 1" cubes does it take to make a 2" cube. It's astonishing to see how few people get this one right.



RIch white people got all the cubes and won't share! I don't wear cubes but we need them!

Blogger Anthony September 14, 2016 12:04 PM  

The polling numbers quoted are probably skewed because people don't trust the anonymity of polls and would rather lie to a poster than face disapproval from a stranger.

I think that more that 5% or 2% are in those categories when it comes to being persuade if something where there's no financial or social cost for changing beliefs (social being much more important). But the percentages aren't a lot higher.

But there are a lot of people who will progress top not be persuaded, but then act as if they are - as people have brought up, look how few liberals are actually willing to live in black neighborhoods.

Anonymous Onlooker September 14, 2016 12:04 PM  

Yep, I've seen the light on this, Vox. For far too long I clung to the notion that I could convince people of the merits of various arguments for free markets, small govt, capitalism, etc. I knew about confirmation bias and all the classic fallacies, but still thought that if the information was presented in just the right fashion that surely most people would see the light. No more. It's a huge waste of time and only leads to frustration. It's actually very liberating to realize this.

I'll still be on the look out for that rare person who can take in dialectic and really change their minds, but realize the rarity of such.

Blogger Nate September 14, 2016 12:05 PM  

Dialect is explaining the benefits of light to the people in the cave.

Rhetoric is lighting smoke bombs in the cave and driving them out.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 12:06 PM  

look how few liberals are actually willing to live in black neighborhoods.

Too bad more do not follow the righteous examples of David Ruenzel and Amy Biehl. Darwin's in need of Kek.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 14, 2016 12:09 PM  

I don't know how this fits into the rhetoric/ dialectic aspect, but there's also the point that modern society is saturated with propaganda that directly contradicts the facts cited. Some of this is rhetoric, some is false dialectic/ sophistry/ pilpul, but a lot of it is in video form (any modern movie, TV show, etc.).

Video propaganda, in a way, constitutes a sort of "false experience" that bypasses rational interpretation. Humans evolved in a setting where, if other humans were moving, talking, and interacting in front of you, that was reality, period. It's reasonable to expect that the brain interprets this kind of visual stimulus, at a deep level, as "lived experience," despite the understanding at a superficial, rational level that it's just a movie (or a TV show). The invention of video technology thus is something that the human mind is not really equipped to cope with.

People "know" that Blacks aren't more criminal than Whites, not just because of social pressure and indoctrination, but because they've seen thousands of movies with White criminals and Black good guys (and even hundreds of burglar alarm commercials where the criminal is invariably White). They "know" that Blacks aren't any less intelligent than Whites because they've seen so many movies where the computer genius is invariably Black. They "know" that Germans are evil, and jews innocent victims, because they saw the ebil not-sees abusing the poor jews right in front of them. Of course, they've never seen Communist jews abusing and killing millions of Russian and Ukrainian Christians, so that never happened. Etc., etc.

I'm sure everyone can think of an instance where someone used an example from a movie or TV show to make a point, as if it were something that really happened. Usually more intelligent people avoid doing this, as they realize that, at a rational level, it makes no sense; that a movie is not reality, it's just a story that someone made up. Still works, though.

Final point: selective reporting, especially in the area of crime, is a similar technique. Anecdotes are more "real," more convincing than statistics, to most people, so all they have to do is present a nonrepresentative sample of cases (though even this distortion is inadequate in some areas of violent crime, such as interracial rape, so they have to make up incidents such as the Duke lacrosse hoax).

This sort of promotion of a "false reality" probably counts as rhetoric, just a deeper, sneakier kind.

Blogger Nate September 14, 2016 12:10 PM  

"I'll still be on the look out for that rare person who can take in dialectic and really change their minds, but realize the rarity of such. "

the matter is complicated by the fact that even most of those who can be persuaded with facts must figure it out for themselves. They cannot be instructed. Pride is a big wall. All you can do is ask questions and motivate them to looking to things objectively. If they do, they will convince themselves.

But you can throw facts at them all day and they won't hear it. Because Pride.

That's a different group of people though that the normal rhetoric types that are simply incapable.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 12:10 PM  

Take heart. Armies cannot resist an idea whose time has come.

The early adopters of a New Narrative are by definition heretics in the Old Temple. My expectation is that the New Narrative will be less universal than the old (because the New Narrative rejects universalism, paradoxically) but if the Phase Change does in fact loom, all you have to do is wait around: your family, friends, neighbors and coworkers will spontaneously change their minds, just like a new fashion trend sweeps a populace.

The Lie-Rejection of the Alt-Right is going to be the New Black. All it will take is a little time.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 12:12 PM  

Dialect is explaining the benefits of light to the people in the cave.

Rhetoric is lighting smoke bombs in the cave and driving them out.


Precisely.

Anonymous crushlimbraw September 14, 2016 12:18 PM  

This is one of the most enlightening posts I have read. Why? Because I'm sorta into this subject and it was a primary factor in starting my own website - partly from a biblical perspective.
One of the most fundamental scriptures I always quote is "Prove all things - and hold on to that which is good!" - Unfortunately, to most people that means find the 'truth' and then cling to it for dear life.
Someone on the net wrote "Truth for us mortals is a process, not an end state!" - Bingo! That in effect reflects "Prove all things....", but is not interpreted as such by most people.
The point is that most folks decide that what the truth is at some point in their life - and it is now set in concrete - and they become more delusional as they effectively lose touch with reality.
This is confirmed by Dr. Joel McDurmon's book "Biblical Logic" definition - "Logic is the systematic study and practice of discerning and telling the truth!" - it is a continuing process. I can certainly vouch for this process taking place in my own life over the last 10 years alone!
So how do we affect change, when the public schools are creating guvmint mobots? Answer - mentoring and home schooling! Read the rest at my site if interested further!

Anonymous TJK September 14, 2016 12:18 PM  

How do these facts mesh with our host's support for direct democracy?

I'm asking because all too often similar observations have been used as arguments for aristocratic or technocratic systems instead.

Anonymous BluePony September 14, 2016 12:21 PM  

@59

Is the ping pong ball spinning?

Blogger Doug Cranmer September 14, 2016 12:21 PM  

He's a rude boy but worth listening to.

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 12:24 PM  

Of course, they've never seen Communist jews abusing and killing millions of Russian and Ukrainian Christians, so that never happened. Etc., etc.

seems like some decent movies could be made on the subject. the only one I saw was low budget, escape from Siberian gulag to India iirc.

Blogger Arthur Isaac September 14, 2016 12:24 PM  

In regards to herding and 2%. I saw a discussion a few weeks ago that was on the prevalence (3%) of men who are sociopaths. They would arguably lack ANY herding instinct.I wonder if there is a continuum.

I also am starting to see many more ways that IQ is divorced from socio-sexual rank. High IQ doesn't correlate to independence of thought.

OT, seeng the Briggs-Meier reference has anyone else wondered what a low IQ (say 80) INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP looks like? These types are intelligence dependent but is that relative to the herd intelligence or objective intelligence?

Blogger Wrangler September 14, 2016 12:24 PM  

"Granted, a century of endlessly replicated social science studies have found that, on average, blacks are in truth both less intelligent and less lawful than whites." Steve Sailer earlier today.

These numbers are depressive, 68% of Trump supporters don't believe clearly provable facts.

Blogger Doug Cranmer September 14, 2016 12:27 PM  

He's a rude boy but worth listening to.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus September 14, 2016 12:27 PM  

Facts are for racists, Vox. I thought everyone knew that.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 14, 2016 12:30 PM  

"...he even refuses to believe that the Libertarian party has been thoroughly taken over by leftist losers..."

As a rhetorical response, you can always link to the libertarian striptease video (from their convention):
youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow

I don't think I've convinced any lolbertarians with it, but it does seem to reliably induce a ragequit response (OK, maybe not want you want in talking to your brother). I also find that "libertarianism-- do enough legalized drugs, and you won't notice the flood of Third World immigrants" seems to trigger them as well. OK, that one might be better for mockery than for convincing your own brother, too. Anyone else?

Blogger Rabbi B September 14, 2016 12:34 PM  

@69 Nate

They cannot be instructed. Pride is a big wall.

This. So much, this.

Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.(cf. Proverbs 9:8-9)

MPAI is a Biblical doctrine.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 12:35 PM  

Dialect is explaining the benefits of light to the people in the cave.

Rhetoric is lighting smoke bombs in the cave and driving them out.


Pseudodialectic is explaining to them why the smoke bombs are good for them if they only breathe more deeply. Pseudodialectic is almost always a manipulative abuse of rhetorical logos/logic (as opposed to the demonstrable logic of dialectic.)

Blogger JWM September 14, 2016 12:36 PM  

@78
Polling question #1: Are you a Trump supporter?
Answer: Yes
Polling question #2 Do you believe that Blacks are less intelligent than whites?
Answer: uh huh. I know exactly where *this* is going
Oh, uh- no.

JWM

Blogger Arthur Isaac September 14, 2016 12:37 PM  

OT Sheqweshu Clark is suing Chipotle over mestizo privilege.


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/13/former-worker-at-el-segundo-chipotle-sues-chain-for-racial-discrimination/

Her Latino manager "black girls always have attitude".

I might add especially those named "Sheqweshu".

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 12:38 PM  

I've always felt that your hammering on the superiority of rhetoric was a bit tautological. I mean, rhetoric is the art of persuasion. By definition, it would be better than anything for persuading people, including dialectic, which is merely the art of truth-testing. Why would one expect dialectic to be persuasive? If you've ever read a philosophy textbook you know none of them agreed with eachother.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 12:40 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey September 14, 2016 12:41 PM  

Glad to see I'm not the only one sperging on that. Seems like backspin or topspin would make a significant difference on the horizontal one...

Anonymous a statistician September 14, 2016 12:42 PM  

Two points, logic can be unconvincing because of false premises, and, well, there are liars, filthy liars and statisticians.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer September 14, 2016 12:42 PM  

Why would one expect dialectic to be persuasive?

A lot of people like to think they are impervious to emotional manipulation and that using it to persuade others is some how "wrong." Those people often watch a lot of Star Trek and wear Spock ears to the conventions.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 12:42 PM  

How do these facts mesh with our host's support for direct democracy?

The rhetoricals are far less harmful than the rhetoricals being led by the nose by antisocial elites.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 12:43 PM  

A lot of people like to think they are impervious to emotional manipulation and that using it to persuade others is some how "wrong." Those people often watch a lot of Star Trek and wear Spock ears to the conventions.

And go into a complete emotional meltdown if you say Trekkie instead of Trekker, or prefer Star Wars to Star Trek.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 12:45 PM  

@65-"if the information was presented in just the right fashion that surely most people would see the light. No more."

Why no more? You were right. If presented in the right fashion, they will follow you. That's what rhetoric, public relations, propaganda, whatever are for. I don't see what you're getting at, here.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 14, 2016 12:45 PM  

Deleted that comment; it's so embarrassing to re-read something and realize you had a reading comprehension brown out.

The 12% of the male US population that is black provides 37% of the male prison population. This fact will soon be Memory Holed, just like race data at the National level and race data accumulated since 1996 at The College Board (SAT.)

TV informs me (watching both commercials and programs) that half of North America is black, 75% of doctors, lawyers, pilots, heroes and geniuses are black and 100% of God is Morgan Freeman. Oh, and ALL cool guys are black.

All joking aside, there are numerically more stupid whites in the USA than there are average-and-below blacks yet it's blacks who decide that their crappy station in life is due to The Man and Whitey Racism and feel entitled to riot and burn cities, while low-SES whites apparently get stoned or go fishing.

Maybe it's because blacks are watching all those Magic Negroes on TV and instead of seeing them as role models to emulate, they see them as illustrations of what their lives would be if not for RACISM....

I could'a been a contenda' takes on a whole new meaning....

Blogger pyrrhus September 14, 2016 12:45 PM  

What's really impressive about this widespread denial of these differences is that the differences in intelligence aren't small, they are enormous--and they have enormous repercussions. Check out any country in Africa run by the black population. As Paul Theroux observes many times in his rather sympathetic books about Africa, Africa can't fix anything or maintain anything. Technology disappears without a trace......WAWA, West Africa Wins Again is an acronym for this perpetual state of chaos

Anonymous Jack Amok September 14, 2016 12:49 PM  

Why would one expect dialectic to be persuasive?

Because so many people believe their own rhetoric about being fair-minded and open to the truth.

Anonymous andon September 14, 2016 12:49 PM  

The 12% of the male US population that is black provides 37% of the male prison population.

Radix Journal tweeted something like this in conversation to a black woman in media and her reply: "when's your next KKK meeting"

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 12:49 PM  

@90-That's beside the point. The question was why people would think dialectic is persuasive, not why they think emotional persuasion is wrong.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 14, 2016 12:50 PM  

People are adaptation executors running pre-rational OSs. Nobody's is fully rewriteable by the user.

Dialectic comes in multiple internal flavors and communication protocols.

Rhetoric accesses more universally compatible chimpanzee legacy systems.

Blogger Wild Man September 14, 2016 12:52 PM  

Vox Day - your assertion that "less than five percent of the population is even subject to persuasion by logic and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it" is a bold statement indeed, but nevertheless is an attractive idea due to it's power to explain so much of what occurs in the social spheres, however we must discern if this in fact instead might just be a convenient idea (i.e. - by way of perhaps ignoring some empirical evidence that doesn't fit). In that vein I am wondering what studies you can point to that may provide credence to your assertion?

My personal speculations on this topic are that abilities around the use of logic and the underlying cognition associated with the dialectal method, most probably does occur gradient-wise so that there will be variation within human populations, but in the main should be considered a hallmark of human-ness, given that some other animals appear to have these cognitive tools as well, at least to some degree, but on the whole appear not to be as blessed as humans, generally, in this respect, and so therefore to get a better handle on the social dynamic we observe in this respect, we need to look for the other mental conditions that either harken or dampen the operation of our cognitive tools of logic, ...... and that these other mental conditions seem to be molded by individual focus and motivation, which in turn are operations that are very susceptible to influence by way of social conditioning. I may well be wrong with respect to by personal speculations in this regards ..... but I think it is an avenue at least worth exploring.

Do you know of any studies that may better tease out the nuances of what may be occurring here with respect to other mental conditions that may either be promoting/demoting the operation of logical capacity?

Blogger ManofGondor September 14, 2016 12:53 PM  

I have long believed what you just wrote but never really articulated it in my own mind. Thank you for that! I think even if the idea you offer is correct it should be the Alt-Right that ushers in the "new idea" and there is great opportunity to influence things at this point in time. In my mind the orchard is ready for harvest. There are so many factors pushing people toward our cause.

Blogger Nate September 14, 2016 12:55 PM  

"Why would one expect dialectic to be persuasive?"

Because it is persuasive to some. Through rhetoric at Vox for example and you may as well be trying to blow out a fire with an oxygen tank.

Anonymous Bowman September 14, 2016 12:56 PM  

swiftfoxmark2 wrote:Had a debate with my brother the other day about how IQ is or is not genetic.
Same here. And my brother is smarter (higher IQ) than me.
He agrees we are the result of a combination of our parents' DNA.
But miraculously not for the brain. Brain is magical universal shit, same capabilities for everyone, only the environment matters.
We need red pill on a daily basis.
But hey, Muslims are working on that ...

Blogger Rabbi B September 14, 2016 12:57 PM  

@86 tublecane

Why would one expect dialectic to be persuasive?

It may be persuasive for the intellectually honest imbued with humility. So, for most people, it will not.

I mean, rhetoric is the art of persuasion.

The rhetoric of which VD often speaks is not meant to persuade, as much as to expose and ridicule the inanity or falsity of someone's position, as well as the midwit himself who remains stubbornly obtuse enough to tenaciously hold to his position if only to save face.

You might succeed in smoking them out, (to use Nate's analogy) but that is no guarantee they will open their eyes or remove their fingers from their ears. In all likelihood, they'll quickly find another hole to stick their head in.

Blogger Nathan September 14, 2016 1:02 PM  

Vox,

You say: "because intelligence has NOTHING to do with it." Later you say: "I conclude that less than five percent of the population is even subject to persuasion by logic and less than two percent are reliably capable of being persuaded by it."

I'm not sure I am following. If a person is capable of being persuaded would this not have something to do with the fact that they are more intelligent? If it is not intelligence which allows for this, what is it that does?

You said, in your 16 points: "The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses..."

So your main point is that intelligence - or any other particular quality - is not synonymous with superiority.

What do persons think of this then as a useful way to distinguish those who are concerned to study issues like this from those who build their worldview around these things?:

Racists are those who assert that their biological identify is intrinsically superior to those of others. Believing that something we might loosely call “Western civilization” is, as a whole, better than alternatives – or merely preferring it to other ways or forms of life – cannot reasonably be called racism.

Right track?

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:03 PM  

@104-This ridicule takes place in public, and is meant to persuade people listening in, not his interlocutors, I assume.

Anonymous St. Cecilia September 14, 2016 1:04 PM  

"Blacks commit violent crimes at 8.5 times the rate that whites do."

Does this stat reflect inclusion of Latino violent crime in the "white" category? I'd bet the black/white ratio is more like 40:1.

Blogger Nathan September 14, 2016 1:04 PM  

Ah - is the answer simply "honesty"?

Blogger Gaiseric September 14, 2016 1:07 PM  

Rabbi B wrote:MPAI is a Biblical doctrine.
Which is why Elijah with his heckling of the priests of Baal as an example of Biblical rhetoric was always my favorite of the Old Testament prophets.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:09 PM  

@102-Okay, but Vox won't be persuaded by just any dialectic. I don't imagine he's been taken in by Marx. That was my point above. Entire libraries are full of attempts at dialectic, pseudo-dialectic, and so forth, and they don't agree with eachother. So why would I assume there's some magic truth-testing formula that would work on people as well as the actual art of persuasion?

Anonymous CC September 14, 2016 1:10 PM  

When I was learning design in college it was taught to the students that it was always better to layout text in ways that made it easy and pleasant to read. One tutor emphasised that it helped students who were studying to remember. One morning I came across two scientific studies that were shown or sent to me: the first one stated that students were more likely to remember text written in hard-to-read writing (presumably the information imprints on your brain more if you have to concentrate to take it in) and the second stated that if people have a firm belief in something, regardless of what it is, there first reaction when presented with contrary evidence is to argue even harder restating their original belief. I showed the first one to this tutor and it flummoxed him a bit and his first response was to try argue that clear page and type layouts were still the way to go. I didn't have the heart to show him the second article, even though it would have been very interesting to see his reaction, I didn't want him to feel like I was trolling him, he was a really nice guy and designers can sometimes really take their type design seriously...

I'll have to see if I can find that second study again, might explain more about the idea of doubling down.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:12 PM  

@105-"Racists are those who assert..."

Don't go defining "racist." It will have changed by this evening.

Blogger Anonymous-9 September 14, 2016 1:16 PM  

#15 I used to score as an ENTJ. Now I score as INTJ.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 14, 2016 1:18 PM  

It helps to think of the human mind not as the product of intelligent design but of genetic randomization shaped and culled by various selective pressures. One does not need to leave Earth to find aliens.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:19 PM  

@111-I've never thought of our hard-headedness and stubbornness in the face of new evidence to be a bad thing. It is bad when the new evidence is true, but what if you're being tricked? You can't know. There are so many ways to go wrong, and if we were perfectly open to new evidence we'd be intellectual will-o-the-wisps.

Unfortunately, it also leads to error and makes honest truth-testing nearly impossible. But I think expecting us to be Vulcans is like expecting us to be 20 feet tall. That's not who we are, as Obama says.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen September 14, 2016 1:20 PM  

Whoops: I should say "individual human minds" rather than "the human mind", to be Creationism agnostic.

Blogger Sheila4g September 14, 2016 1:20 PM  

@24 dc.sunsets: "Most of the people frequenting this blog are probably low-spectrum for herding. Not zero, just lower than the mean."

I'd strongly agree. You can't/won't be open to even considering the narrative might be off if you're concerned with staying in others' good graces. Try as I might, I could never even pretend to believe in the latest "wolf man" or whatever fantasy I was told in elementary school by the "cool" kids. And I started questioning what I was told (not merely a challenge of authority/hierarchy, but a genuine desire for explanation and understanding) right after I started talking.

@69 Nate: "the matter is complicated by the fact that even most of those who can be persuaded with facts must figure it out for themselves. They cannot be instructed. Pride is a big wall."

Spot on. Wisdom of the ages. You can lead a horse to water . . . etc. Pride is deadly in so many ways. Prevents one from seeing truth, from seeking wisdom and instruction, and from acknowledging God.

Anonymous Bowman September 14, 2016 1:22 PM  

Nathan wrote:If a person is capable of being persuaded would this not have something to do with the fact that they are more intelligent? If it is not intelligence which allows for this, what is it that does?
Intelligence (IQ) is just the capacity to apply models.
An intelligent person applies mathematics & find optimum result.

It doesn't say a thing about the quality of the models. About the underlying philosophy.

Think of Ptolemy who built a crazy complex system to rationalize the Earth at the center of the universe ...

Anonymous BGKB September 14, 2016 1:34 PM  

Question 2: How many 1" cubes does it take to make a 2" cube. It's astonishing to see how few people get this one right.

If we don't get rid of common core no student will ever be able to do it in their head

Final point: selective reporting, especially in the area of crime, is a similar technique. Anecdotes

During the week long reporting of Cecil the Lion, a Hispanic was caught on video tossing the body of 8yo white girl Maddie Middleton into a dumpster after he raped her to death. Why did we see the picture of the refusegee boy that didn't drown but not Maddie's tossed into a dumpster video?

What's really impressive about this widespread denial of these differences is that the differences in intelligence aren't small

The small difference in math ability between US East Asians and whites is enough that the E Asians are twice as likely to get a perfect math SAT(that has been tuned for decades to remove what blacks fail at most). When in reality most things (except innovation)follow a general pattern of E Asians-Whites----------------Hispanics-----------------------Blacks or the reverse.

Does this stat reflect inclusion of Latino violent crime in the "white" category? I'd bet the black/white ratio is more like 40:1.

The Color Of Crime puts black/white at 32:1 back when Hispanics counted separately, of course there were less Hispanics then also.

Blogger Nathan September 14, 2016 1:44 PM  

#112 tubalcane

"Don't go defining "racist." It will have changed by this evening."

Not if one believes in essences that endure trans-culturally and trans-historically. I thought long and hard about the definition. I think it is quite good. Again, for others (so you don't have to look back): "Racists are those who assert that their biological identify is intrinsically superior to those of others." What is there to argue with?

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:47 PM  

@120-"What's there to argue with?"

For one thing, there's no assurance that anyone else means that when they use the word.

Anonymous vfm #0202 September 14, 2016 1:50 PM  

The attribute vector has to be multiplied by the situation matrix; the norm of the result /might/ model something like "superiority". If your model is simpler, it's not useful.

Superior at surviving on the veldt? Running a nuclear power plant? Moistening nether lips?

Blogger pdwalker September 14, 2016 1:50 PM  

Good heavens, those statistics are depressing. 2%?

Well, time to use more rhetoric then.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 1:50 PM  

"Not if one believes in essences that endure trans-culturally and trans-historically"

Like the "essence" of the word ""racist?" No, I don't believe in that. If any word has no essence, it's that one.

Blogger Nate September 14, 2016 1:52 PM  

"Which is why Elijah with his heckling of the priests of Baal as an example of Biblical rhetoric was always my favorite of the Old Testament prophets."

i personally prefer the bears eating the millenials.. I mean... youths.

And the fine young lady who drove that tent stake through the dude's temple and into the ground.

Blogger Clint September 14, 2016 2:03 PM  

Nate wrote:

And the fine young lady who drove that tent stake through the dude's temple and into the ground.


Ah, yes, sweet Judith. Fine lass, she was.

Blogger jim September 14, 2016 2:07 PM  

@100 droll!

Blogger tuberman September 14, 2016 2:10 PM  

So what is the point of dialectic or logical ability, to what ever degree does it have have practical value?

Well, logic helps you connect dots better, so you don't have to depend on detailed talking points from politics, yet you can still use political rhetoric. At one more level up you could go beyond connecting the dots and creatively stay inside someone elses OODA by using rhetoric in a quick witted spirit. The results would allow you to set up SJW opponents, even on multiple levels, play with them, and even have insight into their greatest fears (just think, SJW always project, and they often project what they fear most onto you). Fun stuff!!

Blogger Rabbi B September 14, 2016 2:14 PM  

So what is the point of dialectic or logical ability, to what ever degree does it have have practical value?

Buy the truth and do not sell it! The truth is the most practical of all values.

Blogger Sillon Bono September 14, 2016 2:18 PM  

>>I used to make the assumption that other people were like me and could be argued logically and reasonably from position to position.

I used to rationalize what VD has made much more concrete in this way:

* People can be very intelligent as a doctor, engineer, mechanic, but stupid in other fields, the most frequent ones where people is retarded are economics and politics.

I do not consider myself very clever but I have been noticing this issue with people all my life. It costed me many problems in my life, to the point in which at times I was questioning myself, my principles and my beliefs. At some point I realized people is like that and I have to deal with it in the best way possible.

VD nails it.

Blogger tuberman September 14, 2016 2:20 PM  

#129

What you said is true, and also obvious to me.

Yet my point was to suggest how I see VD using Rhetoric against SJW Rhetoric with a deeper logical understanding underneath.

Blogger Salt September 14, 2016 2:22 PM  

tuberman wrote:using Rhetoric against SJW Rhetoric with a deeper logical understanding underneath.

Who cares. Just make it good and hit them in the nuts.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 2:23 PM  

a statistician wrote:Two points, logic can be unconvincing because of false premises, and, well, there are liars, filthy liars and statisticians.

No. Logic is unconvincing to most (even the logical) because its purpose of dialectic is to demonstrate, not to persuade. Don't forget that one-third of artistic rhetoric falls into the "Logic" description. So, it isn't "logic vs. rhetoric." It is dialectic (predicated on logic) vs. rhetoric (with one third of one its categories appealing to logic.) Dialectic and rhetoric use logic differently, but they both use logic.

Dialectic can demonstrate that the space shuttle Challenger O-rings were likely to fail, but even Morton Thiokol's best engineer resorted to brilliant rhetoric to persuade other engineers to try prevent disaster. The fact that his rhetoric didn't work is irrelevant to the fact that dialectic alone would have been irresponsible and unethical.

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 14, 2016 2:24 PM  

And furthermore, logic can't be unconvincing due to false premises, because, by definition, the syllogism has a stated premise that is agreed upon, even if false.

Anonymous Sazerac September 14, 2016 2:26 PM  

@90

This t-shirt just for the star trek fans:
http://shirt.thatdailydeal.com/home.php?id=23458

Blogger James Dixon September 14, 2016 2:31 PM  

> All of us herd. Some of us herd more than others. It's not connected to IQ. Maybe it has something to do with common sense, an attribute for which I know of no written test (although one's happiness in life might be a surrogate.)

We're omnivores, DC, not carnivores. This gives us more in common with herbivores than some of us would like to admit. For an herbivore, there's safety in the herd, while outside of it you're easy prey for any predator.

Herding is performed at an instinctive level most of us don't even realize we possess. As you note, some of us have it less than others, but we all have it.

> #15 I used to score as an ENTJ. Now I score as INTJ.

That happens frequently with people who are near the border of E/I. Ask me how I know. :)

Blogger tuberman September 14, 2016 2:35 PM  

#134

Yep, one needs to get one's A Priories correct.

Blogger Rabbi B September 14, 2016 2:37 PM  

@131 tuberman

Yet my point was to suggest how I see VD using Rhetoric against SJW Rhetoric with a deeper logical understanding underneath.

Agreed. Wielding rhetoric from a position of strength of the underlying truth which our opponents hate and suppress. One of the main reason they are so easily triggered. Men love the darkness.

Blogger Stilicho September 14, 2016 2:46 PM  

OT question: if Hillary's health problems are just a matter of pneumonia, what type of pneumonia lasts five to ten years (the documented time frame for falls and extreme coughing episodes)?

Blogger Noah B September 14, 2016 2:54 PM  

@136 That happens frequently with people who are near the border of E/I. Ask me how I know. :)

Same here!

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer September 14, 2016 3:09 PM  

Think of Ptolemy who built a crazy complex system to rationalize the Earth at the center of the universe ...

The model worked! Far more so than the Climate Change scam. You could make predictions with it that actually happened!

Blogger clk September 14, 2016 3:12 PM  

is the position here that presenting a numeric in a argument or statement automatically makes that statement dialectic in nature ?.. I think 50.1% of people who understand statistics would not agree with this ...

Numbers don't lie but statistics have a long and honored history of being used to support incorrect conclusions under the cover of the math being right... Yes analysis generally requires numbers but the inclusion of numbers in itself does not make a dialectic argument... those numbers have to be in correct context to be valid. The vast majority of math in statistics is trivial -- the hard part is not the math, its the context.. and that's where the real difference is whether its dialectic or rhetorical.

If we limit dialectic to math, then only about 1% of the population would be right 99% of the time, and the most often right would those of us with the most math... and I know this not to be true through direct personal experience.

On the 12% vs 37% argument -- when you run other data against these you would start to see that its actually poor black men, with low education, broken families, drug use, poor public defenders, low levels of religious belief etc that is significant to the higher proportion of incarcerations -- and then logically you would work on ways of reducing those factors you can hope to fix -- It might be true that there is a race component here -- but what are you going to do about it ? cants fix race, cant fix generics .. so you fix what you can with solutions that drive the other factors... my observation/complaint is that 50 years of trying to fix these problems hasn't been measured well enough to know if the fixes actually work... and trying the same things over and over again and expecting different results is by definition insane.


Blogger clk September 14, 2016 3:21 PM  

"OT question: if Hillary's health problems are just a matter of pneumonia, what type of pneumonia lasts five to ten years (the documented time frame for falls and extreme coughing episodes)?"

Its not the pneumonia lasting 10 years, its the conditions that cause it.. pneumonia happens when various lesser conditions combine in the right (or wrong way). I know older people who have had bronchitis/pneumonia 2 times a years for 10 years .. there is a pneumonia vaccine... :)

Anonymous a_peraspera September 14, 2016 3:29 PM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Female staffers adopted a meeting strategy they called “amplification”: When a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author.

Unfortunately they probably considered ANYTHING said by a woman as a "key point" regardless of its merits. This probably got a lot of terrible ideas "amplified" over the years.

Secondly, I find it interesting that they are openly bragging about this now. "We colluded to manipulate you all the time! For years! Isn't it great!"

Blogger Nate September 14, 2016 3:36 PM  

"Ah, yes, sweet Judith. Fine lass, she was."

Jael. Not Judith.

Blogger Student in Blue September 14, 2016 3:38 PM  

@138. Rabbi B
Agreed. Wielding rhetoric from a position of strength of the underlying truth which our opponents hate and suppress. One of the main reason they are so easily triggered. Men love the darkness.

And the best part is, the reason why rhetoric based on truth is a position of strength is that you can just keep endlessly pulling forth different, effective rhetoric from the truth -- and a lot of it will just write itself!

But rhetoric from lies requires drastic amounts of time and energy into making sure the lies being spun don't unravel.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants September 14, 2016 3:51 PM  

People will ALWAYS disbelieve any facts/figures that make them feel uncomfortable or might cause them to have "badthink." They shut down as soon as they hear or read anything that they think my be personally offensive to the (insert minority group here) folks they know & like. Everyone good is NAXALT in their minds, everything bad is blanket condemnation of entire group.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 3:59 PM  

@142-"Is the position here that presenting a numeric in a argument or statement automatically makes that statement dialectic in nature ?"

No. The point was that people aren't persuaded by facts. Facts, being true, are also closely associated with dialectics, which is the art of truth-testing. That the facts were here presented numerically is beside the point.

The point is also not that, say, facts as such have no place in good persuasion. You can use facts to persuade people, especially if those facts happen also to be generally accepted as facts. It's just that facts qua facts are not persuasive.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer September 14, 2016 4:25 PM  

It's just that facts qua facts are not persuasive.

I think that you can generalize that any facts that conflict with someone's world view will be disregarded. I've seen people dispute the existence of DNA itself. Add to that that college students are being taught to place more reliance on their "lived experience" than on facts and logic and facts and logic are the tools of oppression used by the white cisgender males to exploit and control everyone else.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants September 14, 2016 4:26 PM  

Or, reverse that last sentence. 😊

O/T just turned on local radio, is someone trying to red pill Churchanity Hannity? He's a very unhappy camper these days, it appears he has "liberated himself from the Conservative movement." It would be a hoot if he slowly starts going full 1488, I'd listen to that purely for the humor.

Yes, I know that's as just unlikely as me becoming a giggly 20 yr old girl, again.
I'm just bored & medicated, suffering from the same heat-induced flumonia dehydration that's stricken poor, dear Hillary. You'd think I'd just power through, silently suffering, as we women always do, right?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd September 14, 2016 4:33 PM  

Nathan wrote:. I thought long and hard about the definition. I think it is quite good. Again, for others (so you don't have to look back): "Racists are those who assert that their biological identify is intrinsically superior to those of others." What is there to argue with?

Unfortunately for your nifty definition, those who say ``racist'' the most have a definition which blends ``you white'' with ``kill whitey.'' I don't think that crowd is interested in your

Nathan wrote:... essences that endure trans-culturally and trans-historically.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 5:19 PM  

In that vein I am wondering what studies you can point to that may provide credence to your assertion?

None at all. I don't pay any attention to studies when I am sorting out new ideas. I said it was an estimate. My estimate. Take it for what you believe that to be worth.

Blogger VD September 14, 2016 5:22 PM  

Throw rhetoric at Vox for example and you may as well be trying to blow out a fire with an oxygen tank.

It's rather funny to see people's reactions when they try it in real life. They're always disconcerted when I laugh, then they tend to get very uncomfortable when I start asking them what they hoped to accomplish by their resort to rhetoric.

No one likes to admit that they're intentionally trying to inflict emotional pain on anyone, so they usually start dancing like crazy.

Blogger Nathan September 14, 2016 5:29 PM  

tublecane,

"For one thing, there's no assurance that anyone else means that when they use the word."

That's why you define it. When I talk about essences, I am talking about how throughout human history there are some ideas that persevere and remain largely the same because things remain largely the same. Have there, since the dawn of humanity, been groups who assert that their biological identify (blood) is intrinsically superior to others or not?

Anonymous Spinrad's Agent September 14, 2016 5:50 PM  

It on this issue that you've probably had the most influence on my thinking. It took a while, but once I began to apply it in my life I was convinced. Life changing.

Blogger Rick T September 14, 2016 6:59 PM  

Vox, I'd like to propose a slight new reading of your first 4 data points.

It's not necessarily the respondents do or don't believe the two propositions but what they say in public as virtue signalling. Trump supports are already Othered by the media so they have less to lose, they are more likely to admit the obvious.

Behavior is more telling. How many white Hillary supporters live in mixed or white-minority neighborhoods?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 14, 2016 7:10 PM  

@155
It on this issue that you've probably had the most influence on my thinking. It took a while, but once I began to apply it in my life I was convinced. Life changing.

Some things, once Noticed, cannot be un-Noticed.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 7:11 PM  

@154-"That's why you define it."

You can't define it, or rather you can't make other people accept your definition. Not concerning a word like that. It's too useful to too many people as undefined.

You could come up with a new word to cover the essence of which you speak, and maybe people will take it up.

OpenID simplytimothy September 14, 2016 7:17 PM  

Good stuff, Vox. Thanks.

Anonymous CC September 14, 2016 7:47 PM  

tublecane wrote:@111-I've never thought of our hard-headedness and stubbornness in the face of new evidence to be a bad thing.

I agree with you on this, I always try and reserve judgement. I'll have to look up that study again. As I recall it simply demonstrated that people's first reaction when challenged on sincerely held beliefs is always to reject it in favour of your core belief. It seems to be a natural reaction and it makes sense if you consider how people emotionally invested in what they believe to be true. I read a good quote once how people tend to change their minds only when their alone.

Anonymous Jeff September 14, 2016 8:02 PM  

"I am wondering what studies you can point to that may provide credence to your assertion?"

Wow, spoken like Professor Frink.

I have a friend who claims that all the ills of the (post)modern world can be traced back to the words "studies" and "workshop". I'm inclined to believe him.

Blogger Curlytop September 14, 2016 8:18 PM  

If you teach or have ever taught for any length of time in a solid Home-educating setting, you will see these facts on full display.

You are dealing w mostly middle to upper middle class traditional nuclear families. They are church going etc, yet the black children struggle the most on average w math, Latin, Logic, and English Composition. There's no comparison when teaching Logic.

Blogger S. Misanthrope September 14, 2016 8:42 PM  

This post and comments bring up so many memories, it's hard not to spam this thread with dozens of stories. I'll restrain myself to just two:

Recently I met a guy who is good friends with many in my social circle. I had always heard what a genius he is, and I'm sure in terms of IQ that's completely accurate. Yet when the topic of IQ came up that evening, he completely denied its existence, called it racist, and became angry to the point of violence. He also told me on a different topic that since he "holds philosophical positions for a living," I shouldn't bother arguing with him. I thought that was quite apt. Not "I seek philosophical truth for a living" or "I study philosophy," but "I hold philosophical positions." A moment of revealing and unintentional honesty in an otherwise bizarre encounter.

Another friend, who believes in IQ and racial differences in it, was highly unconvinced when I attempted to explain Vox's points about rhetoric from SJWAL. He insisted it makes a person less persuasive in the long run if they say something technically untrue, like saying "always lie" instead of just "lie." In fact he increasingly insisted in a louder and louder voice, with more vigorous hand-gestures, and more emotional, exaggerated language, until Sig. Other pointed out how what he was doing just proved our point about how rhetoric works. He remained unconvinced, of course.

Anonymous LES September 14, 2016 8:50 PM  

It seems to me that dialectic rests on rhetoric. If you don't like, trust or respect the person your having a dialogue with then you won't believe his facts even if they are true.

Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 8:56 PM  

@164-I don't think you know what "dialectic" means. Look it up.

Anonymous LES September 14, 2016 9:12 PM  

OK...
noun
1.
the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.

And?

Anonymous LES September 14, 2016 9:18 PM  

@ 165 You probably don't respect or trust me because I wrote "your" instead of "you're".

Blogger Nathan September 14, 2016 11:32 PM  

tublecane,

"You can't define it, or rather you can't make other people accept your definition. Not concerning a word like that. It's too useful to too many people as undefined."

I get your point. Fair enough. If people use it though, its only fair if you insist they say what they mean. And then, its nice to have something to offer them from yourself.


Blogger tublecane September 14, 2016 11:59 PM  

@168-I agree; it is nice.

Blogger Bosefus September 15, 2016 12:08 AM  

By Vox's metric 31% of Demons have been pursuaded by facts and 40% of Repubes. It may be sequiter to say MOSt and non sequiter to say only 2% cannot handle facts. Obviously unreliable fact handling by 2% of black coke dealers is a no true Scottsman argument. (I learned all this reading Vox which reliably follows facts so chalk this one up up to his late night rhetoric.)

Blogger Ponce Du Lion September 15, 2016 1:50 AM  

I'm going to prove that they are stupid. After rationalize they came with egalitarian creationism. Because rationalization occurs when feelings are against facts, the rationalizers if intelligent, will be aware of the ostracizing fearing nature of those feelings, accepting the facts in private and joining alt-think anonymously. By the size of the alt-right and by the extent of alt-think political support(vote is anonymous) we can say that most people is stupid because they're accepting the rationalization magical creationism publicly and privately, of course supposing they are rationalizating and that all isn't plainly cause of two cognitive styles:
Sensing/concrete-thinking/memory Vs Intuition/abstraction/systematization.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 15, 2016 2:09 AM  

@131 tuberman

What you said is true, and also obvious to me.

Yet my point was to suggest how I see VD using Rhetoric against SJW Rhetoric with a deeper logical understanding underneath.
----

Been reading the Aristotle rhetoric.
He defines it like this in the beginning (me paraphrasing):

Future - used to urge people to do/ not do something
past - used to defend/attack someone
present - used to praise/censor someone

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2016 2:11 AM  

@167-I didn't notice the "your," and this isn't about trust; it never was. Dialectic can proceed without trust, except a basic, shared interest in the truth. That's part of the point. Another part is that rhetoric is even less about trust, so I don't know why you would bring that up shortly after asserting dialectic rests on rhetoric.

At best rhetoric and dialectic are analogous. Dialectic is to discovering truth, rhetoric is to persuading or arguing with others over a position you already hold.

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2016 2:14 AM  

@172-Sorry, I meant to put "as" between "truth" and "rhetoric," instead of a comma. Dialectic is to discovering truth as rhetoric is to persuading someone of a position you already hold.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 15, 2016 2:22 AM  

@164 LES
It seems to me that dialectic rests on rhetoric. If you don't like, trust or respect the person your having a dialogue with then you won't believe his facts even if they are true.
---
You've hit upon a big one here.
Read this in the first part of Aristotles Rhetoric.
"his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses."

Blogger tublecane September 15, 2016 3:02 AM  

@174-Did you read what you just quoted? What you're talking about is "ethos," one of the main attributes of effective rhetoric. What does that have to do with dialectic?

Anonymous Anonymous September 15, 2016 3:41 AM  

You are factually right in one part but generally wrong, because you concentrate on the wrong statistical frequency.

Let's assume your ratio of 1 to 8.5.

If there are 1 White criminals per (let's say) 1000000 White persons and 8.5 Black criminals per 1000000 Black persons, what does it say about Black persons? Nothing.

999991.5 Black persons per 1000000 are not criminals, so you can't generalize at those rates.

What I am saying is that those liberals look at it in a different way.

Blogger SciVo September 15, 2016 3:49 AM  

tublecane wrote:@174-Did you read what you just quoted? What you're talking about is "ethos," one of the main attributes of effective rhetoric. What does that have to do with dialectic?

I think he's referring to pseudo-dialectic, which is the closest that most people will ever get to reason, and especially super-rhetoricians (which he's awesome). So look at e.g. AGW and how the vast majority of people are just trusting someone to tell them about science, because they're literally incapable of telling the diff.

Blogger Shimshon September 15, 2016 5:48 AM  

Good stuff. Wish I had been around when the commenting was hot.

Regarding the 20/5/2% estimates, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the reality fit those numbers closely. Just an quantization of what MPAI means practically.

It certainly explains why so many people I've encountered in my five decades of life who I consider to be fairly intelligent are still so utterly dogmatic on so many things. I was NEVER like that.

I've used Vox's points on rhetoric to good effect, and I'm not really all that capable in wielding it. I don't even try to persuade so much. I use it more to expose the idiocy and outright hypocrisy of those I engage.

One recent example from someone on FB wondering why on earth Trump supporters stand by him after Ivanka promises he will deliver six weeks of maternity leave (ouch, but I. Don't. Care.).

ME: Because of his positions on trade and immigration, period.

(((HIM))): Yes, a lot of people are voting for Trump based on his positions on trade and immigration. Personally, I disagree with those positions, so for me it's not a reason to vote for Trump. (A Jew who lives in Israel.)

ME: X, do you believe that Israel should restrict non-Jewish immigration?

HIM: I believe I should mind my own business regarding the immigration policies of other nations.

Important lesson in debate. Always assume you're dealing with a rhetorical or worse. Deliver a rhetorical shiv where it really hurts. Few are as sentient as this guy (he actually conceded my point). But a good rhetorical blast will dissuade many from even responding (and obviously at that point, you've won, as you've most likely left them impotent and "trembling in rage" at you).

Anonymous Eric the Red September 15, 2016 8:19 AM  

@7 dc.sunsets...

I always like reading dc.sunsets comments... intelligence and insight.

So trust of the current society must break down before there is any chance it can be reformulated along ideas promulgated by the alt-right. In this case maybe Pepe the Frog IS more sinister than the serfs can imagine, because it undermines TPTB with sarcasm, humor and most especially contempt. I'm sure that was part of the Cultural Marxist agenda during the 1960's. The populace needs to develop a feeling of contempt for those aspects of society that it formerly trusted. Although the Narrative may indeed only change endogenously, perhaps a little more rhetorical persuasion can help speed it along. If the AR can stumble onto a few symbols that undermine equality, multiculturalism, neo-keynesianism and military adventurism, the leftist edifice could come crashing down in short order.

Anonymous Eric the Red September 15, 2016 8:37 AM  

@7 @18 dc.sunsets...

I always like reading dc.sunsets comments... intelligence and insight.

So trust of the current society must break down before there is any chance it can be reformulated along ideas promulgated by the alt-right. In this case maybe Pepe the Frog IS more sinister than the serfs can imagine, because it undermines TPTB with sarcasm, humor and most especially contempt. I'm sure that was part of the Cultural Marxist agenda during the 1960's. The populace needs to develop a feeling of contempt for those aspects of society that it formerly trusted.

I would question the premise that the Narrative changes only endogenously. I have no evidence, only a hope that a little more rhetorical persuasion can help speed it along. Since the left will always push the social envelope into something more egregious, then an AR symbolic meme should attempt to get ahead of it and make it contemptible before the left shoves it down everyone's throat. That could also have a retroactive effect on aspects already in place. If the AR can stumble onto a few symbols that undermine equality, multiculturalism, neo-keynesianism and military adventurism, the leftist edifice could come crashing down in a kind of exponential crescendo.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 15, 2016 11:17 AM  

I'm sure that was part of the Cultural Marxist agenda during the 1960's. The populace needs to develop a feeling of contempt for those aspects of society that it formerly trusted.

I wonder if Robert Crumb is still drawing comics, or if he's totally retired? The old 1960's and 70's underground comics that I found years ago in a box in someone's garage were definitely subversive of middle class culture. They were also funny.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts