The Evident Cognitive Decline of the Self Professed Logical Thinker

 "Axiom One: all men are mortal. Axiom Two: Socrates was a man. Ergo all men are Socrates" -- Anonymous

So, I've noticed an odd increase in the issues with the sorts of people on the net who claim to be the voice of reason. Claim to be the sorts who bring about slow rational thought to tense discussions. The ones whom the only way to disagree with them is to be a frothing at the mouth lunatic

Which is odd, as they seemed kind of silly to start off with. So the fact that they have somehow managed to become... well... more zombie hard like is just weird. As I did not think they'd be compatible with that sort of appearance

The Usage of Intelligence as an Aesthetic 

"People are more inclined to believe quotes attributed to Anonymous" -- Anonymous 

A common issue that has gone on for a while, is the notion that intelligence is something that can be worn. Like a hair style--or a way to paint up your face, or a three piece jacket. That one can easily determine who is and is not intelligence by vibes alone. By the words they prefer to use. By their cantor, rhythm and flow of dialogue. By maintaining an aloof air to indicate a confidence that is thought to be well founded

When in reality, Intelligence is something that can be worn like a book jacket. Claiming that because what it is you are attempting to use as a coat or mantle must serve that purpose because what you are wearing is called a "book jacket"--and the notion that you, a grown person cannot wear a book jacket as a coat, is the other person denying the truth of how language operates. Denying reality itself--as this item attempting to be used as garb is flat out called a "jacket"--it is in the name of what it is, a "book jacket"

This sort of attempt to wear intelligence shows up in many different forms. From people who insist on using multi-syllabic words (often incorrectly) and people who claim usage of certain vocabulary indicates a lack of understanding of reason in one corner. As though the conclusion that one is using the wrong words, should indicate they are not describing the mechanisation. As though properly memorising the names in their most respectful manner is an inherently required bit of reasoning out various concepts

Operating under the notion that chairs are comprised by the nature of what it is to be a chair--and without being able to properly name all the anatomical elements of the nature of a chair, one is unable to ever sit down

People can sit down, without ever considering if chairs hold some intrinsic set of properties that exist on their internal level

The sorts who wear the aesthetic of intelligence as a book jacket being worn as a coat on their person have taken to mimicking noises they understand make them sound intelligent

Sometimes, it is incorrectly used multi-syllabic words. Other times, it is "Tik Tik Therapy Speak". Though very often it is the attempt to name and call Logical Fallacies--but incorrect

 Intelligence as Righteous Valour

"Righteous valour is like uber eats. It has men ride in here, not understanding themselves as capable of blunder. I don't even need to an app on my phone" --Frigyth the Grumpy, Musings Before Ketchup

In a way, this whole intelligence as an aesthetic both comes from and enforces the notion that there is an inherent moral correctness to being intelligent. That the more correct one--factually and morally--is able to be determined by who is the most the most correct

This is why many of the sorts who wear the intelligence aesthetic like a book jacket being worn as a coat on their person will more often argue about the appearance of intelligence in the person they intend to argue against. Instead of the ideas

Intelligence does not indicate somebody is a better person. It does not indicate they are a worse person ethically. At the same time lacking of intellect does not indicate somebody is a wholey vile creature of unimaginable evil. Nor does lack of intelligence indicate some greater noble existence

Intelligence and having a clean soul are two completely separate unrelated concepts. That not only have any causation between the two--but there isn't even a meager amount of correlation between the two

Heavily intertwined is the commonly held axiomic belief to these sorts that being factually incorrect is the same thing as being morally incorrect. That it can be hard to tell where one part of that mixing up of concepts ends and the other begins

That if they are determined to be factually wrong--that means they are a bad person. With them not able to accept they are a bad person--as they are the hero of the story (in their story at least). So, since they are not the grand villain, it must, ergo, suggest they are also factually correct

When they say, "why can't you admit when you are wrong"--it has often got nothing to do with any form of factually incorrect notion being present. More so a declaration that you should view them as the hero of destiny here to save the day from the darkness of not being exactly like them in thoughts

Which... results in the facts of the situation being ignored--and instead them focusing on your red right hand--or various physical malformations. Perhaps the trio of crones whom you took prophecy upon to gain your current position? Perhaps a mole in an area that has it look like a nipple for which to nurse the devil's child on the ethereal milk that must come from it. Perhaps the slant of your forehead is the wrong way? Or your eyes are just not the eyes of somebody who is correct

More often than not it is more, "you write like a crazy sounding person"--as though being mentally fit has a written portion of the medical examination one must pass

Ignoring how much of proper science sounds like something a crazy person would come up with. The further you get into science, the more and more it just sounds like total lunacy

If you attack how reasonable they are being--you are saying they are an inherently bad person. If you point out how they aren't correct... you are, somehow, pointing out how they are not reasonable

These sorts do not understand that observation trumps prediction from logical rationalisation. It doesn't matter what the "reasonable outcome" you have came to--if the observation does not reflect this--then it is not a correct way to continue to go forward

 

Photocopy of Photocopy

"I decree that what it is I desire, shall be the only part of reality" -- The Awakened Light of Tomorrow, Songs of Screaming [REDACTED] 

The weird part of this all... is the decay has happened quite a bit more than I expected it to have occurred

See, none of these "people of rational" are taking observation of situations and out comes into effect. The ones that do, are discounted from being considered a "people of the rational"--and kicked out for not reporting the reasonable outcome. Usually be reporting the observable outcome in several situations

This results in a lot of things being said, being parroted by other people. Sometimes going through a game of telephone

Many people on the internet understand an "Ad Hominem" as referring to any time somebody says something that makes them feel bad. With many places in the internet incorrectly reflecting its definition as meaning "usage of insults"

The actual definition of Ad Hominem is the usage of something about a person, that has nothing to do with the current matters being discussed. For example, suggesting somebody is incorrect about the structural integrity of steel on account of them having brown hair

Ad Hominem is a reflection of the concept of Bike Shedding. Where in the construction of a nuclear power plant, the most important detail to determine is what colour the bike shed next to the plant would be painted. Painting the bike shed the wrong colour would have disasterous results

In the case of how Ad Hominem is suppose to refer to... a person having an incorrectly shaped nose should not be used to determine their understanding of the cardiovascular system of humans. Yes, you could point out how that nose might interfere with them breathing correctly, and their own inability to breath correctly would affect their own cardiovascular system, which would be said to call into question if we can trust what they are saying on the topic

But a person's own ability to have a health cardiovascular system does not discount them from being incorrect when talking on the subject of cardiovascular systems. Then being incorrect would be what you'd have to determine is incorrect

But between a photograph of a photograph of what smart people look like, mixed with a game of telephone in how that stuff operates--mixed with people refusing to confirm if observable outcomes match their expectations...

Well... the Self Declared Rational People are... uh... well, looking even more silly than the time they were used to aid in the rise of Fascism via their own actual naivety underneath the outward attempt of a facade of knowing 

Note: I'm not fully happy with this article. It seems like it is missing something