Tag: philosophy

No psycho

Since Zoegirl seemed surprised at my comment that I tend towards narcissism rather than psychopathy, I thought it perhaps a modicum of evidence might be in order. So, I took an online version of the psychopathy test to see if the results on the Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised were in harmony with my admittedly biased observations. As with all tests of this sort, it is transparently easy to direct the results, but I gave honest answers that my friends and family would generally be able to confirm. The result was as follows:

Narcissus: You scored 12 on Emotional Detachment and 9 on Chaotic Lifestyle. You are not quite a psycho, but you have problems in one of the aspects of psychopathy: emotional detachment.

What I find amusing about the test is that I simply don’t see a reasonable amount of emotional detachment as any sort of problem at all, considering how many problems are observably caused by the way in which so many make use of emotion in the place of reason in their decision-making. It’s not as if I don’t have the same emotions everyone else does, I simply have the ability to take them into account or not most of the time rather than being ruled by them. What one calls emotional detachment another might as reasonably call self-control. Of course, one of my biggest challenges in relating to others over the years has been dealing with what I tend to see as a complete inability to grasp what is quite clearly in their own interest, which was why I had to construct a non-judgmental MPAI philosophical framework before I was able to find any success in convincing people of even the most obvious things.

What I’ve learned that until you can ensure that the clear-cut logical path is not in direct opposition to someone’s emotional inclinations, (or better yet, is at least somewhat in line with them), you will find it nearly impossible to convince them of what a less-biased party would consider irrefutable. This is hardly news, for as it has long been said, “one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” But it is one thing to be familiar with the aphorism and another to actively account for it as a regular practice.

It’s almost a pity I’m not a psychopath, though, as it appears I am Incredibly Well-Read: “Your level of Well-Readliness is 100 %! *Applause* You. Are. Amazing.” If only I’d scored higher and could cook, I might have been a Hannibal Lector. On the other hand, I don’t think much of chianti. Also, note that notwithstanding the reported results, it is a 30+ score that indicates genuine psychopathy, not 20+.

Mailvox: a tale of two atheists

JM writes:

I was born of two avowed atheists, along with two sisters, one older, one younger, and we were raised with the highest of social values and principles, and this was done by taking us to church from our earliest days, and learning morality from Christian religion, even though my parents both deny the correctness of the theology. They considered their options, concluded they could find no fixed means of inculcating moral behavior in us any other way, and chose to use what worked on them and for so many others, while making no personal claims at all about religion, what they believed in, but let their examples show, and let us assume they were connected to the moral lessons we were learning in Church, fully supporting those lessons, but with no means of connecting the dichotomy. I was certain I was an atheist at eleven, but could not come up with any possible way to put together a rational morality without presuming for the sake of argument, a superior being who would ultimately judge our behavior according to an established set of standards….

Of my parents and two sisters, and myself, I alone am a believer, and while I am assailed every time we are together, and challenged at every turn, I can do no more than Galileo did, as he accepted his rebuke, and turned away saying to himself, yet we still move around the sun.

I know science does not give moral answers, I’ve lived through enough of this world to know this for a certainty, yet I know that science does give accurate answers to so many reasonable questions, I don’t deny its validity. I also know that morality is an absolute, and it is fixed, and accept that it is made law, just as a part of Creation, and is a part of God himself. I know much about the history and lineage of man, and accept my place in society, and in God’s will, knowing it is of the greatest consequence of all, and I simply accept it is not subject to dissection by science, or if it is, the beginnings of that work are not within our grasp yet.

It is hard to deal with quantum mechanics, entanglement, dark energy and matter, and also deal with faith and God, good and evil, all as truths, and all directly impacting us, but just because it is hard does not take away the self evident truths which we base our moral standards on, nor does it remove the necessity of pursuing good, because failing to do so inevitably provides the opening for evil to enter into one’s choices and one becomes evil by do it.

I think perhaps it is easier to recognize the limited scope of scientific utility if one’s training is in fields where the state of science is not so much inexact as hopelessly inaccurate. Economists such as Paul Krugman are every bit as convinced of the mathematical verity of their pseudoscientific dogma as Richard Dawkins, but it is much, much easier for the skeptical economist who rejects the various forms of Keynesianism to demonstrate the falsity of mainstream economic science than it is for the skeptical biologist due to the much shorter time frame in which the economists operate. Having witnessed the repeated construction of economic epicycles in order to explain away the theory’s extensive panoply of failures, it is not at all difficult to see exactly the same process at work in biology and even physics.

The choice is simple, Sam Harris’s envisioning of a utilitarian moral landscape notwithstanding. Either there are rules of the game as well as an original provider of those rules or there is no game. Consider the following definition: “GAME – a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules.” No rules, no game. The same applies to life; either there is a purpose to life and a set of rules related to that purpose or there is no purpose and no rules. This is not an original thought, as numerous philosophers of various creeds have pointed out, the choice has always been between God and the Void. Attempting to disguise that choice by appealing to science, self-interest, or collective humanity is doomed to failure by logic as well as historical observation.

The intellectual poverty of Harris’s case can be seen in the arguments of his followers. I don’t know what it is about atheists, but they do seem remarkably prone to thinking that they can argue in ignorance. Consider the following exchange with KH:

KH: Sam Harris made a point in one of his books that God doesn’t heal amputees. I don’t find that to be an “intellectual failure.” He’s right. Just a straight-shooting, blue-collar observation. Christians don’t pray for a worker’s severed arm to regrow. What would you say to counter such a statement?

VD: That’s amusing. You do realize that one solitary point, correct or incorrect, is insufficient to make a book an intellectual success or failure, right? You clearly haven’t read TIA or you would be aware that both The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation are full of logical and factual errors. As for how would I respond, I would ask him what his evidence is for such a statement. Has he done any scientific surveys of amputees and the Christians who know them? There is no reason to believe his statement about amputees to be any better evidenced than his statement that all the research shows corporal punishment to have a negative effect on children’s behavior.

KH: I was simply using one example from Sam’s works to illustrate how I thought he was correct. Another question you cannot answer, Vox, but he can (because he’s right) is: Why don’t we find rabbits in the layers of Cambrian rocks, next to trilobites, if they were all created together? This gradual increase in complexity as you go upward from older to younger rocks is empirically evident. I seriously would need you to convince me on this simple point to believe that his works are an intellectual failure.

VD: One or two correct examples do not suffice to prevent an entire book from being an intellectual failure. The intellectual failure or success of a book is determined by the success or failure of its central thesis; all three of Sam’s books are failures by this reckoning. And, contra your incorrect assertion, of course I can easily answer what is not actually Sam’s point, but one that he cribs from J.S. Haldane: circular reasoning is used in the geological dating of rocks and fossils. Furthermore, there is no “gradual increase in complexity”; you clearly know very little about either the fossil record or geology if you genuinely believe “you go upward from older to younger rocks”. Do you even know what “punctuated equilibrium” means, much less why the concept was developed in the first place?

You must realize that it is as ludicrous to attempt to criticize my critique of Sam Harris as it would have been for me to attempt to criticize Sam Harris without first reading his books.

Neither amputees nor trilobites have much, if anything, to do with the central theses of The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, or The Moral Landscape. But this doesn’t prevent dogmatic atheists desperate to find spiritual leadership from leaping blindly to defend Mr. Harris from substantive criticisms of his works.

And, as we all know, when rabbit fossils are eventually discovered in Cambrian rocks, (actually “Precambrian”, KH didn’t even get the Haldane quote right), scientists will trample each other in the stampede to claim that a) the fossils are not rabbits, b) the rocks are not Precambrian, and c) evolution is “a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific “family tree” that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared” and therefore a single impossible anachronism should not be sufficient to destroy such an important and glorious edifice constructed over so many years by so many famous scientists.

UPDATE: KH emailed again to complain that I did not directly answer the question about why we don’t find rabbit fossils next to trilobite fossils. (He also complained I didn’t answer the first one, which is simply not true.) The reason I answered the implied question rather than the direct one is because the direct question is very stupid. But, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, the reason we don’t find rabbit fossils next to trilobite fossils is not because they lived in different eras, (even assuming that they did, in fact, live in different eras), it is the same reason we do not find giraffe fossils next to sperm whale fossils. Barring the discovery of the hitherto unknown Sylvilagus oceanus maximus, the present state of scientage indicates that rabbits are land animals and trilobites are marine animals.

The war on human nature

It is not a new one. Sam Harris’s moralistic brand of scientific utopianism is merely the latest in a long line of philosophical ideologies that end up killing large numbers of people in an attempt to remake them. One thing I have discovered in delving deeper into what can be broadly labeled “scientific humanism” is how little its advocates realize that they are only beginning to consider important concepts that have been active matters for intensive debate by economists for two centuries.

Consider the following quote from Ludwig von Mises from Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, published in 1920:

“All socialist systems, including that of Karl Marx, and his orthodox supporters, proceed from the assumption that in a socialist society a conflict between the interests of the particular and the general could not possibly arise. Everybody will act in his own interest in giving of his best because he participates in the product of all economic activity. The obvious objection that the individual is very little concerned whether he himself is diligent and enthusiastic, and that it is of greater moment to him that everybody else should be, is either completely ignored or insufficiently dealt with by them. They believe they can construct a socialist commonwealth on the basis of the Categorical Imperative alone. How lightly it is their wont to proceed in this way is best shown by Kautsky when he says, “If socialism is a social necessity, then it would be human nature and not socialism which would have to readjust itself if ever the two clashed.”

It’s interesting how many philosophical ideologies, including scientific humanism, rely upon one form or another of this illogic. One sees some form of this argument not only made by the secular humanists of the New Atheist cabal, but also by the advocates of global corporatism and AGW/CC activists as well as the Ricardian free traders. (There is, of course, a certain amount of ideological overlap between these groups.) Ironically, those who are prone to relying upon these utopian and purely philosophical arguments almost inevitably claim to be realistic empiricists despite the fact that the observable and empirical evidence tends to be stacked rather heavily against them.

But it isn’t their ignorance that makes them dangerous. The danger lies in their inability to recognize the logical consequences of their arguments. Those who believe in the perfectibility of Man are inevitably bound to find themselves eventually advocating the culling of imperfect men.

Mailvox: the student exhibits mastery

A sends in an after-action report of an encounter with a self-styled champion of evolutionary psychology:

Evolutionary Psychology has always been a thorn in my side, and while I agree with the fundamentals of Game, I’ve never thought of it as any proof positive that EP as a whole was viable. I’m admittedly not an expert on the subject — both my degrees are in the field of humanities — so I always find myself drawn to your blog when EP (or any evolutionary field for that matter) is the topic of conversation.

I typically don’t post to forums, including Vox Popoli, as I see my time quickly get sucked away by the activity, but recently at another forum I found myself compelled to post because I so strongly disagreed with the statements of another poster who is an adamant supporter of both TENS and EP. When it came to EP, rather than get sucked into an assumptive argument, I took a page out the VP book and just flat-out questioned the science behind evo-psych, including its ability to make measurable predictions, etc. His response managed to simultaneously be laughably predictable and surprising to me. As to my challenges to EP, this is all he could muster:

“I didn’t expect you to be credulous towards my claims, and unfortunately I don’t have carefully compiled case studies to present…Psychology is enormously complex, and it would be unrealistic to expect the sort of definite predictions that can be made of simple systems…this comment of yours is analogous to saying that because a meteorologist’s predictions are only accurate 50% of the time, meteorology is not science. You have a right to such an opinion, but while holding such an opinion, it would be unlikely that you would develop much understanding of the science of meteorology.”

This retreat was of course entirely expected, but the part that threw me for a loop is what he continually fell back on as his defense — a claim that my discourse with him was entirely predicted by him based on evo-psych:

“However, I have discussed the pattern of events occurring in our dialog on this forum in the past, and anyone who paid attention can observe for themselves whether things play out as I’ve described. My response to you was more for the purpose of illustrating the pattern to long time readers here, than for the purpose of persuading you that I’m correct.”

In summation, his attempted defense was that our discourse was not one of simple and genuine disagreement, but rather a challenge for pack dominance. That he could not back up these assumptive claims or his ex post facto prediction seems typical of the dogged defenders of EP. Previously, I would have engaged in a discussion of the minutiae of social behaviors, but this time I went directly to the foundation of these pet theories and happily watched as he engaged in foolish hand-waving. I just wanted to drop you this email to say thanks to you and the Ilk for providing me with a vital technique for taking guys like this to the woodshed.

I was greatly pleased to be apprised of this fine example of foundational sapping put into action. While I am often disappointed by the poor quality of argumentation exhibited by commenters on this blog who, despite literal years of examples having been set before them, still a) rely upon emotional rhetoric, b) attempt illegitimate logical shortcuts, c) fail to comprehend the argument they are criticizing, and d) inappropriately apply otherwise effective techniques, so it is a real pleasure to read a correct and competent application of one of my favorite techniques.

Foundational sapping is extremely effective because it simultaneously attacks both the argument and the individual presenting it without utilizing any unfair ad hominem or committing any other logical fallacies. And because it is based on the sound principle of MPAI, it is applicable in most circumstances. Not all, but most. Very few individuals actually know anywhere nearly as much as they pretend to know, and intelligent, educated people are far more prone to engage in intellectual bluffing than most because a) they have a larger knowledge base from which to bluff, and b) they are often quick enough to latch on to a hint and use it to conceal their lack of relevant knowledge. But despite their pretensions, they usually provide indications that they don’t have a firm grasp on their subject; in the first quote, for example, note the ungrammatical use of the word “credulous”. Lofty language used improperly is a strong sign of an intellectual charlatan.

This is why I constantly stress the importance of asking questions in debate. (Granted, I don’t do it often in the comments, but that’s because I have set the stage with my post and will usually recognize when a predictable counter-argument is being made. Most of my questions are intended to confirm that someone is making an expected counter-argument.) While the conventional Socratic method is less effective than most people seem to imagine, mostly due to its common use of false constructions to which the interlocutor is required to agree, its focus on the use of questions to pin down the interlocutor’s precise position renders it an important part of one’s intellectual arsenal.

Some readers will have noticed that those who consider themselves to be defenders of “science and reason” not only dislike asking questions, but in some cases even claim they have no need to know, let alone understand, what their interlocutor is saying. (Look up the borderline retarded Courtier’s Reply, by way of example.) This is why they either avoid debates or get repeatedly trounced by every half-competent opponent; an unwillingness to understand the argument made by the other side is almost perfectly synonymous with making a commitment to lose the debate.

Foundational sapping requires not only understanding the argument being made, but more importantly, understanding the basic assumptions that support it. As A discovered with the would-be champion of evolutionary psychology, very few individuals possess even a rudimentary comprehension of the basic assumptions that provide the foundations of their argument, so the easiest and most reasonable way to defeat the argument as well as incidentally destroy the credibility of the individual presenting it is to ask questions that concern those foundations. And when the interlocutor rapidly retreats into hand-waving and strange self-laudatory pronouncements, you will know that not only have you won the encounter, but that the interlocutor knows it as well. As does everyone witnessing it.

Of course, the converse side of utilizing this method of debate is the awareness of how easily it can be turned against you if you are foolish enough to take untenable positions with the notion of bluffing your way through. I don’t recommend doing so; the ability to say “I don’t know” is not an admission of weakness or stupidity, but rather an important sign of intellectual integrity and intelligence. On a tangential note, argumentative bluffers always suspect everyone else is bluffing too; they invariably interpret a failure or refusal to initially provide supporting evidence is certain proof of an inability to do so. Baiting and trapping this sort of individual is so easy that a child could do it.

The best thing is that on those rare occasions when you find yourself in a discussion with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, you will usually learn something that is either interesting or useful. Even if you end up getting your head metaphorically handed to you, the experience will allow you to make more effective arguments in the future. One should not enter into argumentative discussions with a “win or lose’ mentality, but rather a “win or learn” one. There is no shame in being bested by someone of superior intelligence or information, the only shame is in the inability to either admit that one has been bested or learn from the experience.

Incompetent biologists

The butterfly collectors should probably leave the metaphysics and philosophy alone considering that they can’t even do their own jobs properly:

A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well. Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild….

Dr Diana Fisher, of the University of Queensland, Australia, compiled a list of all mammals declared extinct since the 16th century or which were flagged up as missing in scientific papers. ‘We identified 187 mammal species that have been missing since 1500,’ she wrote in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. ‘In the complete data-set, 67 species that were once missing have been rediscovered. More than a third of mammal species that have been classified as extinct or possibly extinct, or flagged as missing, have been rediscovered.’

That is a stunning record of professional incompetence, one that is surpassed only by Keynesian economists. Clearly one can safely ignore pretty much everything these intrepid scientists declare about one species magically transforming into another one as well, considering their proven inability to determine if a specific species even exists or not. And, needless to say, this raises some serious doubts about the assertion made by various members of the profession that God doesn’t exist either. If you’re not capable of correctly ascertaining the existence or not-existence of the Vanikoro Flying Fox of the Solomon Islands, then logic dictates you should steer very clear of the debate about the existence of God.

Killing the meat eaters

Reading this philosophical ode to trans-species totalitarianism, one is reminded that Hitler, too, was a vegetarian:

It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation. The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species. I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.

But what about the plants? Do they not also live? This monstrous proposal is dependent upon the commission of mass herbicide? One has no other choice but to conclude that the Athenians had it right. The best response to a philosopher is to provide him with nice, hearty draught of hemlock.

The amoral essence of atheism

You can lead an atheist to logic, but on the evidence of this professor of philosophy, it’s going to take him at least a decade to follow it:

In a word, this philosopher has long been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t.

How I arrived at this conclusion is the subject of a book I have written during this recent period (tentatively titled Bad Faith: A Personal Memoir on Atheism, Amorality, and Animals). The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument ‘hard atheism’ because it is analogous to a thesis in philosophy known as ‘hard determinism.’ The latter holds that if metaphysical determinism is true, then there is no such thing as free will. Thus, a ‘soft determinist’ believes that, even if your reading of this column right now has followed by causal necessity from the Big Bang fourteen billion years ago, you can still meaningfully be said to have freely chosen to read it. Analogously, a ‘soft atheist’ would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of ‘New Atheists’ (see Issue 78) are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Why do I now accept hard atheism? I was struck by salient parallels between religion and morality, especially that both avail themselves of imperatives or commands, which are intended to apply universally. In the case of religion, and most obviously theism, these commands emanate from a Commander; “and this all people call God,” as Aquinas might have put it. The problem with theism is of course the shaky grounds for believing in God. But the problem with morality, I now maintain, is that it is in even worse shape than religion in this regard; for if there were a God, His issuing commands would make some kind of sense. But if there is no God, as of course atheists assert, then what sense could be made of there being commands of this sort? In sum, while theists take the obvious existence of moral commands to be a kind of proof of the existence of a Commander, i.e., God, I now take the non-existence of a Commander as a kind of proof that there are no Commands, i.e., morality.

Now that Marc “Moral Minds” Hauser has been exposed as a scientific fraud and Sam Harris has spiraled off into weird neuro-Buddhist utilitarian psychophilosophy, it is well past time for atheists to stop avoiding the rational consequences of their godless belief systems and admit what was always obvious to everyone from the start. As I have repeatedly explained to the sort of maleducated overestimator of his own intelligence that actually believes that there is a genuine dilemma to be found in Euthyphro, the essence of morality is, and has always been, God’s Game, God’s Rules. Therefore, no God = no Rules. It takes some serious education to sufficiently confuse an otherwise intelligent individual to the point that it takes him more than a decade to recognize this basic and patently obvious logic.

Hard Atheism isn’t a bad name for the concept, but there is already a more accurate one. It’s called Rational Atheism.

Answering questions

What is your favorite color?
Straw blonde.

What is your quest?
To finally play Fifth Frontier War. This maywill require finishing the VASSAL mod. I’ve got the map and infantry counters done, now I just have to finish the spaceships.

How do you manage your time with all the activities you are engaged in (reading, writing, gaming, soccer, family, work)?
I work in exceptionally fast bursts, punctuated by long periods of doing little more than reading. I drop the sports, writing, and gaming whenever necessary. Also, I have essentially eradicated my social life since I find that I tend to prefer solitary pursuits these days.

Who’s your second favourite Ilk after me of course?
Bane.

What is your IQ?
Over the so-called “genius” threshhold. Some people can’t seem to figure out that the 132 IQ Mensa requirement (Stanford-Binet) is a floor, not a ceiling.

Why do you hate science?
I don’t hate science. I have great respect for the scientific method, although I am cognizant of its conceptual and practical limits. The problem is that my contempt for scientists who dishonestly make use of bait-and-switches wherein they appeal to the authority of the scientific method without actually utilizing it in any way is often mistaken for a dislike of science by the modestly intelligent.

Why do you hate socialism?
Because it is an economic absurdity built on a false premise of value, an ideological monstrosity constructed upon the worst aspects of human nature, and a form of societal organization that is both intrinsically inefficient from an economic perspective and reliably dangerous from a political one.

Why are you a racist?
It depends upon how you define “racist”. There is no question that there are divergent human populations; the genetic science is settled in this regard and only a scientific ignoramus would deny that race, in the form of a genetically homogeneous groups of homo sapiens exists. But to acknowledge the existence of racial diversity is not tantamount to a belief in general racial superiority. Each race has various strengths and weaknesses. None are intrinsically superior on average; the relative superiority of one race in comparison with another completely depends upon the metric selected. Ergo, I am not a racist.

Why are you a sexist?
Because I don’t believe sexual equality exists, or ever has existed, in any material, spiritual, or legal form. And it never will exist.

Why did you leave the US?
Because I anticipated that it was going to go through some very difficult times in the near future and I didn’t want to be around a bunch of deluded and disappointed people in the process of discovering that they were not, in fact, the most wealthy, most powerful, and most free people on the planet. My philosophy is that it is best to leave Rome before Alaric arrives.

Why Italy?
First, collapse would be redundant. Second, the food is good and the weather is nice. Third, I always wanted to learn the language.

If planning a visit to Italy, what places do recommend and what places should be avoided?
Go to Rome, Venice, and Verona. Avoid Milan and Florence.

What are good times of the year to visit Italy?
In the early spring or late fall. But I hate crowds, especially crowds of tourists, so I’m quite happy to have to wear a jacket in order to be alone in a piazza. Also, my tolerance for cold is higher than most.

At what age did you embrace your Christian faith?
27.

Do you think Brown is right, that the Permanent Portfolio always makes sense?
No. No investment philosophy always makes sense. Stocks can take 30 years just to break even.

If you and Chuck Norris got into a fight, who would win?
At our respective peaks, Mr. Norris. I might have a shot today since I am younger and closer to my peak speed and strength.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Seven.

Can God create a rock so large that He is unable to lift it?
Yes.

Why do birds suddenly appear every time you draw near?
Upon visiting the shrine of St. Frances of Assisi in the winter of 2001, I realized that the pattern of the trees in the grove were planted in an unusual way that suggested hermetic purpose. After eight months of close daily observation, I discovered that the shadows they cast spelled out a certain word on the autumnal equinox. Speaking that word at sunrise on a particular date gave me the gift of Gramarye. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of testing it with a extraordinarily loquacious starling and now that many of the birds around the world know I can understand them, the little bastards simply won’t leave me alone.

Is Alex Jones your mentor?
No. I’m not a fan of radio talkers.

Have you ever gamed a Japanese invasion of the west coast ~1942?
Not per se. I have played War in the Pacific, the computer game published by Matrix Games, but I didn’t try invading the West Coast.

What is your favorite caliber handgun?
.40 caliber. No particular reason, I just don’t like 9mm and I’m accustomed to forty.

If one of your feminist critics decided they wanted to have sex with you anyways, would you? That is if you weren’t married and said feminist was HOT. Would you? And by hot, I mean swedish bikini blonde hot…

Hypotheticals are irrelevant; as it stands I already have Norwegian bikini blonde hot. And having recently visited both Stockholm and Olso, I can state with assurance that Norwegian is much hotter. So, no.

My daughter just started playing soccer and I’d like to know where you learned so much about the game. What can I do to learn enough to be useful to her development in the game?
Playing it for 25 years. Go join a rec team and learn how to play it. It’s a simple game and it’s not hard to pick up on the tactics even if your technical skills are hopeless.

When does the next installment of Summa Elvetica come out?
I have to write it first. I have no idea.

Blue Hurricane or Amaretto Sour?
I have to go with the Windex. It’s the umbrellas, you know. But I’ll take a proper Sex on the Beach with Chambord, chilled but sans ice, over either.

Why do we like a person we’ve never met, so much?
It’s the charming combination of total arrogance with a complete unwillingness to take myself seriously. Humanity isn’t merely flawed, it is ridiculous.

Favorite books?

Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco. The Dark is Rising by Susan Cooper. A Horse and His Boy by CS Lewis. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein.

How many comments do you have to delete from people who have no business commenting in the first place? Are there ever idle threats?
About three or four per day on average. Not really. The sort of commenter who gets himself banned is much more given to claiming martyrdom and superior debate skills than issuing threats.

Why do you hate?
Because I feed on the dark side of the Force.

How do you conceptualize God?
A model builder sitting outside a globe of space-time and checking it out from time to time when He feels curious. I find it hard to imagine that God is as completely consumed with interest in His Creation as many atheists and Christians assume. I’m not claiming He’s indifferent or completely hands-off, I’m just saying that it’s possible the Deists were not entirely off-base.

Holden Caulfield, misunderstood genius, or spoiled brat prick?
Spoiled brat prick. He desperately needed a beat-down or three.

More to come as needed….

Letter to Vox Day VIII

Luke continues our dialogue. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t going to end anytime soon. I will respond before the end of the month, but in the meantime, I will put a few of Luke’s commenters straight:

1. Vox happens to be a genius by the dictionary’s numerical definition. Nevertheless, Vox does not believe he is a genius because he rejects that definition in favor of alternative and less specific definitions that are based upon uniquely superlative intellectual accomplishments. Writing the occasional novel, demolishing the central New Atheist arguments, and correctly anticipating the global financial crisis are certainly intellectual accomplishments, but they are neither unique nor superlative.

2. As will eventually become clear, Vox is not rejecting any of the suggested criteria out of concern for their potential effect on his theories. As a general rule, it is a mistake to project one’s own predilection for intellectual dishonesty on others; at the very least, one should wait to see what the justifications are before passing judgment.

3. Vox has no authority on these matters and has no problem whatsoever with having his epistemology examined or exposed. This accusation is ironic, for as Luke and many of the VP readers know, it is usually the atheist camp that prefers to avoid epistemological examinations.

4. The fact that you don’t understand a point Vox made is not prima facie evidence that Vox is being obscure or even insufficiently clear. If a majority of the readers understood it without any trouble, logic dictates that you consider the probability you are either insufficiently informed or insufficiently intelligent to understand it.

Turnabout is fair play

I’m on the other end of the interview for a change:

Mr. B.A.D.: Does your greater intelligence give you grace for dealing with people less capable than you, or do you spend most of the day sighing and irritated?

Vox Day: Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it took me a very long time to learn to regard people of relatively normal intelligence with sympathy and amusement rather than simple contempt. What still remains annoying are the people of moderate intelligence, say the 110 to 120 range, who simply don’t understand that they are closer to the normal people to whom they condescend than I am to them. So it’s annoying when they assume I’m talking gibberish just because they aren’t capable of understanding something.

This was for Facebook or Myspace or something. I’m not entirely clear on why, but I have to admit that it was the first time I have ever thought about fictional characters and with whom I might identify.