A Dialectical Approach To Emotional Manipulation

In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.

With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.

Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.

dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…

Continue reading

Advertisements

Culture: How Does It Affect Us?

On expression,

[Also included in this section is a lengthy introduction that will be foundational to upcoming sections. I might seem to use culture and society interchangeably, but society should refer to a people’s culture, accounting for their demography while culture is an ideologically constituent part of a demography. Cultural ideology on a whole encompasses the theological and philosophical realms.]

An innate desire to creatively and artistically express oneself is among the fundamental of human wills. I’ve often emphasized my theory of cognition and religion and culture being as one closely woven net, almost like an inseparable fabric. As a result of my insistence of the mentioned, I’ve managed to offend many people. Culture encompasses the various demographic intricacies operating in one’s immediacy – these include popular theological and philosophical ideas, geography and race and complex environmental feedback mechanisms. Religion refers to the majority religion among a demography that influences their theological ideology as mentioned above. Cognition, in this context, is defined as an individual’s ability to perform tasks of reading and writing, comprehending and reproducing information effectively and efficiently with respect to some statistical benchmark. Like gravity, IQ and other metrics of cognitive ability are all relative – and it wouldn’t do justice to compare the IQ of a chimpanzee with a gorilla. Just like the animals, I believe every civilization, over time, with the aforementioned factors of complexity, developed a standard cognition among their people that we call today as average – like the international average IQ of 100. Inductively reasoning from present-day IQs of many civilizations might be key to understanding their culture and religions.

Metrics such as the popular IQ measure an individual’s ability to perform specialized tasks by narrowing down with the specifics at hand. It is iterative and systematic. You could train your brain with IQ tests for a couple weeks leading up to your counsellor’s appointment and pull off a few 10 or more points on your existing IQ. Such cognitive metrics measure how well your brain has specialized – from the time of birth, that is. I believe as one gets older and leaves childhood, IQ is no longer a complete and holistic measure of one’s cognition. Therefore, a fair measure of brain function would be accomplished through divergent reasoning. Divergent tests measure the collocially-called creativity metric – also a statistical measure of how well an individual’s brain is divisive. As one progresses in age with experience, this divergent and rather chaotic type of cognition manifests into convergent cognition. Everything from the simple essay prompts to analytical problem solving can be employed in the task of measuring this lesser-known type of cognition.

Continue reading

Quirks of Being Intelligent

Intelligent people are often very unique. Their uniqueness stems likely from their principles and motives which in turn stem from  their past experiences – whether pleasant or unpleasant. Moreover, they become unique because they can’t naturally exhibit or emulate the typical behavior of the average person.

Good at humor or interpreting humor:

I just read somewhere that humor is an elementary cognitive function. Developing and interpreting humor requires a good level of cognitive ability. Someone with a high level of cognition may even laugh at something which apparently wouldn’t be funny just because that individual is capable of relating what he’s perceiving with something he knows. This relationship the individual builds in the mind results in humor. You may relate to a bottle of wine with an incident of your friend throwing up drunk.

Anxiety or some mental disorder:

Anxiety is a good indicator of intelligence. Yep! Thank your anxiety because this ‘fear of the future’ comes off your ability to process current events and come up with a plausible extrapolation of what could happen next. This could also be a by-product of overthinking which again involves developing possible explanations (hypothesizing) based on known information or assumptions. People with a low level of anxiety when tasked with something new likely lack intelligence but hey – I’m not throwing off theories! This is my opinion of how anxiety may be correlated with intelligence. Mania can also be another mental disorder associated with intelligence. This ability of a person to rapidly process stimulus and thoughts may backfire when not desired leading to this condition.

Annoyance/Irritability:

I personally get very irritated by petty things when I’m already frustrated. The trend from there is exponential – much like a runaway! I get annoyed by the wind and also believe me – cursed the weather for being ‘drunk AF’. I personally believe that the tendency to become easily irritated by some external stimuli or thought indicates the extent to which a person expects structure or order. The reason why one expects structure in the world around them would come down to how a person’s brain is wired – such as a brain wired for performing the scientific method (a systematic approach of doing science). This brain would crave logic and consistency with it’s thoughts (assumptions) and any anomaly in it’s word may be deemed as annoying. A gust of wind from an odd direction may be annoying as it wasn’t expected and ruined the brain’s expectation of how it (wind) should ideally behave.

Verbal intelligence:

This is purely my personal opinion. I believe verbal intelligence such as the ability to use appropriate vocabulary, synonyms interchangeably or appropriately, implementing parallelism in sentences may be correlated with intelligence. Furthermore, processing words (talking or writing) at a high rate could also sum all of our above ideas. I say this because processing words as a whole requires you to rapidly look up vocab from your memory, process simultaneous streams of information and retain them so you can go back and re-think them.

Spontaneity:

Lastly, I blame spontaneity for my inability to concentrate. I believe this to be a by-product of the ability of the individual to process information rapidly – allowing them to come up with the most fascinating of ideas in the most random of situations. These situations sometimes may deem that idea or activity inappropriate making the individual crave for it. This leads to distractions as the mind actively anticipates when it possibly may get to perform it.

Laziness:

When the brain is capable of optimizing something it wants to do in the near future in a way it allows for it to be performed in a shorter time – the brain comfortably procrastinates. Also, laziness may be the result of one’s personality. Some traits may include appreciation of what’s around them (because they know so much about them) and a lack of urgency about performing the anticipated activity (because they know how to optimize it and make it more rewarding when it’s performed i.e., find shortcuts).

There are lots of other personality traits and quirks in smart people but these are the best that would come to my mind.