Jedi mind tricks in argument for extreme solutions

pdf of paper here; it will doubtless be implied this is behind the gains of the Right Wing in Europe.

Two things.

1. Methodical outcome. Communal>Individual benefit.

2. Pragmatism. ABC>DEF = G.

I think this works because we imagine trains of thought as spatial physical pathways, and walking alongside someone as they explain the latter creates an ingroup rapport. Walk a mile in their shoes applied to right-thinkers, contrary to the historical merit of shouting down your opponent. Too abstract for me.

Redpill tactics in one gif

X-men and Jews

The actual comics have deeply religious undertones.

Orthodox v. Modern Judaism. I find this approach very interesting, academically.
One is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”: Professor X or Magneto? The other is Anglicized. You don’t need me to tell you, this is my point. It fits perfectly.

For some reason, the films downplay all the character parts with Israel.

Yup gentiles are lesser beingsWhy would the people need guns? It’s not like the Jews ever needed- oh, wait…

Goyim gentiles = inferior to the ‘Chosen People’
Powers = banking? Money is a superpower.

Why do humans argue?

Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.

paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;

“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]

“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]

“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]

Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

I like cogpsych papers, but they tend to miss the wider picture and the subtlety of linguistics in rhetoric e.g. emphasis.
Social signalling, in short. If your social reputation depends on empirical truth, suddenly it becomes the primary priority. This is why politicians don’t have lifelong careers at the top. Ownership is separate from outcome.
A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug

Go long on tantalum

It’s the new wonder coating to all those implants the aging population will need.

That is, if you trust a complete stranger on the internet to make your purchasing decisions on your behalf.
Disclaimer: it would never hold up in court.