Thursday, November 22, 2012

Alpha Mail: be careful what you wish

I just might give it to you.  Szopen has been complaining that I haven't responded to her attempt to correct me with regards to this earlier post.  She writes:
"VD: this statement is false: "Szopen quixotically asserts that women are as amenable to criticism as men while being totally incapable of logic:"

Because I have stated "you can't use X to achieve goal Y with females", and you interpreted this as "females can't use/understand X".

Now, I expect that you will refuse to admit that you have made an error, but I wonder, what kind of logic you will try to use to prove that from "you can't use X to goal Y" you can deduce "you can't use X"."
First, I regret to dash her expectations.  I am always pleased to admit an error when I have made one.  Responding to substantive criticism is the best way to hone one's intellectual capacities.  Second, it provides me with some modest amusement to have to point out the concept of "rhetorical exaggeration" to a woman, but yes, I will readily admit that all women are not "totally incapable" of logic at all times and in all contexts.  I find it especially amusing because I wrote that statement in response to this comment of hers:

"I'm reading the comments here and I think some of commenters are really nuts. In short, some of commenters would try to convince females, by a way of logic, that females are inferior (they should submit to males etc) and they are surprised or even angry that females won't listen."

Szopen, is this statement true?  Do you really believe that some of the commenters are literally insane on the basis of their comments?  Are you some sort of wonder psychiatrist who is capable of distinguishing the mentally ill and neurologically impaired from the mentally healthy on the mere basis of their blog commentary?  I suggest that she who lives, rhetorically speaking, in a glass house, is in no position to throw any stones.

As for the logical challenge, allow me to rise to it.  The primary link between "you can't use X to goal Y" and "you can't use X" is the ratio between the set of "you can't use X" and the subset of "you can't use X for Y."  This is a little confusing, so we'll remove the negatives and refer to the set as X and the subset as X-Y.  So, the question concerning the legitimacy of substituting (X-Y) for X obviously depends upon the size of Y.

X is the female capacity for logic.  Y is, as per her longer comment, anything that women might find offensive.  We are mutually agreed that one cannot expect women to follow the logic that concerns anything they may happen to find offensive.  And what do women find offensive?  Well, from both her comments and our mutual experience at HUS, we know that women find criticism, among many other things, to be inherently offensive to them.  So, per Szopen, X = (X-Y) in any critical context.  Which, as it happens, is precisely the context I was describing when I commented upon the quixotic nature of her assertion.  For how can women be considered to be as amenable to criticism as men when one cannot use logic as an acceptable means of criticizing them?

And furthermore, does this not support my earlier contentions that one will do better to utilize rhetoric, rather than logic, when attempting to persuade a woman of anything?

But to correct my earlier statement, which was indeed partially false, I will admit that I should have said: "Szopen quixotically asserts that women are as amenable to criticism as men while being totally incapable of logic in any context that is critical of them."

I trust she will be happy now that I have responded to her complaint.

17 comments:

Toby Temple said...

Can't commend your answer. Its just too nerdy.

Yes, Vox's statement -

"Szopen quixotically asserts that women are as amenable to criticism as men while being totally incapable of logic:"

- did not accurately state what you mean to say. But Szopen is just being pedantic about it when she claims that it is false.

A short answer like this would be better:

"My earlier statement failed to convey the message that I intended to express.

However, since your comment made me realize it, here's a pat on your head. Good girl!"

VD said...

Can't commend your answer. Its just too nerdy.

First, you're failing to understand that I am not trying to game the woman, I am providing a substantive response to her, as I do to all. Second, you're making the common mistake of thinking that intelligence is an intrinsic DLV. But there is nothing "nerdy" about this post; what makes a nerd is the way in which they offer their intelligence up as a sacrifice in an attempt to qualify themselves to others.

When intelligence is used, on the other hand, to disqualify others, it becomes a powerful DHV. This is why women respond so well to "wit", which in the social context is nothing more than intelligence utilized to dominate and demonstrate high value.

Your suggested response has a solid basis in Game, but it is inappropriate here - as it would amount to an evasion - and represents lower level Game. Not everything can be usefully reduced to "bring da movies".

Toby Temple said...

First, you're failing to understand that I am not trying to game the woman, I am providing a substantive response to her, as I do to all.

No. What I am seeing is that you are taking the woman's comment too seriously. And no, I am not claiming that you are consciously gaming the woman.

Second, you're making the common mistake of thinking that intelligence is an intrinsic DLV.

Not at all. I am perfectly aware of the neutrality of intelligence.

Your suggested response has a solid basis in Game, but it is inappropriate here - as it would amount to an evasion - and represents lower level Game. Not everything can be usefully reduced to "bring da movies".

Its not about "bringing da movies" nor is my suggested response an evasion. It perfectly admits imperfection.

And yes, your answer was nerdy just from this portion of it:

As for the logical challenge, allow me to rise to it. The primary link between "you can't use X to goal Y" and "you can't use X" is the ratio between the set of "you can't use X" and the subset of "you can't use X for Y." This is a little confusing, so we'll remove the negatives and refer to the set as X and the subset as X-Y. So, the question concerning the legitimacy of substituting (X-Y) for X obviously depends upon the size of Y.

It reminds me of Sheldon Cooper.

Yohami said...

"one cannot expect women to follow the logic that concerns anything they may happen to find offensive."

True for most people, specially true with women. And then most women fail at logic in general, and when the subject is sensitive, the work/effort needed to grasp logic just makes things worse.

Like you had to do some complex math work when a mosquito is biting you, and half the time the math favored the mosquito. You would just hate it.

Yohami said...

"It reminds me of Sheldon Cooper."

Bazinga.

Anonymous said...

Like you had to do some complex math work when a mosquito is biting you, and half the time the math favored the mosquito. You would just hate it.

Nice. I might have to use that.

I used some simple logic on a woman recently complaining about the 'lack of female CEOs' as proof of 'subtle discrimination'. I said CEOs are typically well above average intelligence, likely with I.Q.s between 120 and 130. There are 4x as many males with I.Q. of 130 as there are women. Right off, there will be a much larger pool of male candidates based upon intelligence alone. This does not take into consideration women taking time off for children, putting less time in and have less interest in the top job.

Conversation changed to a lighter topic. Logic has a way of shutting down female opinion.

Anonymous said...

The post above was by me.

Apollyon

pdwalker said...

Bwahahahahaaahahaaaaa!!!!

facepalm said...

When intelligence is used, on the other hand, to disqualify others, it becomes a powerful DHV. This is why women respond so well to "wit", which in the social context is nothing more than intelligence utilized to dominate and demonstrate high value.

Ten thousand words of dense logic to avoid admitting a minor mistake. There really is something funny about that, but nothing witty.

Michael Maier said...

I love this post. It's just brilliant.

So where is she in THIS thread? Or she off nursing her red bottom?

Susan Walsh said...

Szopen's first comment at HUS:

I love this blog. I read it despite I have no real interest (not only I am not a girl, not only I am married man, but in addition I am married man from different continent and country).

Kathy Farrelly said...

And I thought that I must have been mistaken in thinking that Szopen was a man..

Thanks for that Susan. :D

Toby Temple said...

Szopen is a man!?

szopeno said...

1) Do you try to offend me by suggesting I am female? I do not feel offended, I am just curious.

2) Your logic is wrong.

I am not native English speaker so I accept that I may not express myself clearly in English and you might misunderstood me. But I still cannot understand how it is possible that you have misunderstood me.

"Y" is not criticism, is a statement which is considered a priori stupid by readers. In OTOH, it is a statement which is considered so absurd, thatno one will even care to listen to arguments.

and what do women find offensive? Well, from both her comments and our mutual experience at HUS, we know that women find criticism, among many other things, to be inherently offensive to them.

This part is blatantly false and hence the rest of your reasoning is faulty.

My experience that you can state criticism in a way that is offensive to females (or males), or in a way that is not offensive.

Quite frankly, as I stated in other comment, I find more than 90% of human population to be incapable of understanding logical reasoning. HEnce, since this statement is false, then the rest of your reasoning is false too.

Females are perfectly capable of accepting criticism, if this criticism is stated properly AND this is the same with males (though from my experience, males are more capable of dealing with criticism even if stated in deeply offensive manner).
But this is even not the point. My statement was not about criticism at all, in fact.

Now, to illustrate my point more clearly:
"You cannot use logic to convince males that they should not f* around, because they won't listen"

You can argue that the statement "you cannot use logic to convince males to not f* around" is false, and in fact, you CAN use logic to convince males they should not f* around.

But you cannot argue that this statement implies "males cannot use logic". You cannot also argue "from my experience, males love to f*, so I agree to change my statement to >>males cannot use logic to anything which is important to them<<"


Do you really believe that some of the commenters are literally insane on the basis of their comments?

No. This was my personal epxression of utter amazement at other people's comments. I read several threads in a round and was more and more surprised by statements by many commenters.

Let me rephrase it to you:

Original: ""I'm reading the comments here and I think some of commenters are really nuts. In short, some of commenters would try to convince females, by a way of logic, that females are inferior (they should submit to males etc) and they are surprised or even angry that females won't listen.""

It is the same as:
"Any reasonable person should not be surprised that females (or, in fact, males) will listen when he/she tries to convince them that they are inferior." (in fact no matter whether using logic or not)

If you think otherwise, you have EQ way below population average.

I rest my case. You, VD, have made logical error, and it seems to me that you are unable to understand this error because you have some assumption (based on selective experiences) that you are not aware that may be false. Hence, you interpreted my statement in a way that fit your assumptions. Just exchange "females" with "males" in my statement and think whether you would think in such a case that I wrote that "males are incapable of logic"

But I don't care anymore.

szopeno said...

Oh shit, I wish there would be edit button here... The sentence "HEnce, since this statement is false, then the rest of your reasoning is false too. " should be deleted, not to mention a lot of "the" and "a" should be added.

Rollo Tomassi said...

Reality has a masculine bias.

Yohami said...

Szopen

"Females are perfectly capable of accepting criticism, if this criticism is stated properly"

What do you mean with "properly" ?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.