Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conventional Logic
8 years ago
“The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it become
rusty.” – Chinese Proverb
Contents:
1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences
3.) The Logician’s Problem
4.) The Rational Machiavellian
4a.) Switching Between Logical & Machiavellian Cognitive Modalities
5.) Closing Remarks
6.) Relevant Reading
Honesty destroys mystery, and with it, the attraction of curiosity. The
Machiavellian hates the duplicitous more than most, and yet,
respectfully appreciates only the cunning. As such, Machiavellians tend
to be in a constant flux of love-hate with their peers. When you are
:
understood, you are unattractive. When you try to help people
understand you, they lose respect for you, you’re making it too easy.
People only value what they work for, be it wages or relationships. Of
course the man of reason is oft deficient in the social realm, and
therefore he does not fully comprehend the games that people play.
The minds of rational men are attuned toward deduction and debate,
not toward subtextual nuance and psychological warfare. This is why so
many men are undervalued if not completely absent in the social game,
superficial social popularity does not care how smart you are. Women
know this innately, and are thus natural improvisers compelled to
manage delicately how others perceive them. Women are sensitively
attuned to their reputation in this way, uniquely so, whilst men on the
other hand are less innately capable of such façades, finding the effort
involved cumbersome and alien.
Naturally idiots care little for reason, for they cannot grasp it, and as for
Machiavellians, the transparency bores them. They despise it because
it is boring, and it is boring because it is bereft cunning. There is neither
fun nor challenge to be had in the absence of mystique, for the cunning
possess a propensity to seek perpetual psychological challenge.
:
Logic bores the playful Machiavellian, for it is too serious, too
predictable and too bland for their social palate, and that which is bland
by dismerit of transparency is accordingly disrespected. There are
those (such as myself) who can switch between a Machiavellian
and logical mode of communication, but this is atypical. Most people
are firmly cunning (indirect and subtle), or transparently direct in their
dominant mode of communication.
The rational not only reduces his power by justifying himself, but
likewise he alienates others by correcting their logical inconsistencies.
Like an autist, the logician’s primary concern is veracity over finesse;
naturally this offends, and thus in matters of persuasion is a grave faux
pas.
Boundless fear pulsates through the veins of the ignorant and the
egotistical, the ignorant fear the unknown and the strongest of egotists
are inhabited by a paranoid loathing for anything that could remotely
challenge their sense of supremacy. If you have ever been disrespected
for sounding intelligent, you were on the brunt end of this. You made
the mistake of thinking you were in fair and open-minded company,
:
while indeed you were not.
Unlike the logician, the idiot does not become pre-occupied with their
thoughts. The intellectual on the other hand is often immersed deep in
abstract thought and thus must “switch into another way of being” to
be socially competent. The thought wavelength symptomatic of higher
cognitive functions would appear to be incompatible with the social
demands of the lower.
As such, the logician must “turn their charm on,” that is to say,
subdue the honest and mechanical thinking part of their brain,
instead turning on their duplicitous social brain. Idiots have little
thinking brain to turn off, they’re always in social mode. Women
likewise thrive in social mode as socialising is their bread and butter,
that is to say, women tend to be socially focused and group-orientated
as they’re more dependant on “the group” than men are. In the
ancestral environment where men could hunt and survive alone, a
woman would almost certainly perish without tribe acceptance.
The merits and demerits of logic are so in-conflict with the merits and
demerits of Machiavellian logic that the rational man’s primary mode of
thought: “logical reasoning” impedes his ability to be socially effective.
One cannot be socially effective without being sufficiently
Machiavellian. Not all Machiavellians are strategists in the strictest
sense, but all socialites are Machiavellian. When you are logical, you are
easy to predict and lack the tools necessary to predict those of a less
rational disposition.
People who understand logic but do not obey its authoritative confines
will try to exploit your logic. They are what I refer to as “Rational
Machiavellians”. They tend to be men blessed with high reasoning
faculty, but adept in the ways of cunning, and as such, can switch
between rational and Machiavellian modes of thought. Such ability is
rare, other than myself, a figure who comes to mind that appears
capable of this is journalist Milo Yiannopoulos. This ability is a binary
cognitive modality that, in my view, all men looking to build or maintain
power should embody.
You see, you can be indubitably wrong about all manner of things, you
can be unfair, and you can have shitty token reasons for the decisions
you make. Yet, if you say it with charm, guile and the expressiveness of
passion, with the correct gambits played it does not matter, you will
win.
Alas, in victory, where logic benefits one, one utilises it to improve the
validity of their argument. Where logic opposes one’s desires, logic is
conveniently ignored, omitted from presentation. Instead, the
underhandedness of Machiavellianism and its emotional rhetoric
peddling is utilised. Rhetoric is convincing in its persuasion because the
majority of people are primarily governed by emotion rather
than reason; hence when certain emotive responses are triggered,
such people are sucked into the asserted viewpoint no matter how
factually incorrect it may be.
People will shit test you to gauge whether you’re worthy of respect,
:
before even deigning to address your logic. If you can’t hold frame, the
socially powerful (who are often stubborn) won’t even get to the stage
of disputing your reason. To dispute your reason, one must respect you
enough as a person to engage intellectually, therefore those who
disrespect you will not dispute your reason, but rather, your character.
Those who use social dominance rather than reason to win their battles
will not be taken seriously by the reasonable. If you are autistically
logical, people will humiliate you, you will seem clueless, and your
appeal will be damaged as you appear socially incompetent. As such,
one must be socially (and manipulatively) intelligent enough to pass
shit tests, as well as possess cogent reason for formulating an
argument that can hold up to scrutiny.
If you attend a debating society or something of the sort, you will come
into contact with philosophical models, logical fallacies and the
structure of argument. But knowledge pertaining to the rules of the
social game, such as how to emotionally endure your opponent,
humiliate them and leave the audience in awe is absent; the
instruction of sophistry and rhetoric is limited, dominated almost
exclusively by a small elite of aristocrats and political families.
Fallacies or not, these methods of sophistry are very effective, and one
is wise to employ them where an otherwise sound debate is not
possible. People are far more enamoured by the outrageousness of
theatre than they are the monotonous recount of reason and statistic.
Should you wish to deploy statistic and hit a home run with your
argument, it is wise to dazzle your opponent first.
5.) Closing Remarks:
Blog Material:
Everything in the Strategy, Power & War Hub – (There are numerous
articles here)
How Women Argue
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments
Book(s) on Machiavellianism:
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the USA
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the UK
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in Canada
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the USA
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the UK
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in Canada
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the USA
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the UK
Buy “The Craft of Power” in Canada
Buy “The Prince” in the USA
:
Buy “The Prince” in the UK
Buy “The Prince” in Canada
: