gnothe seauton.... or look like a fool

[fpb]

This was meant to look a bit weird. The opening two words are the famous Greek motto "know thyself", in the possibly less famous Greek original. I just thought it might catch a reader's eye. Because the point is not exactly a novelty. Make an effort to know yourself. Seek to be aware of the kind of thing you are. Try and have at least a little understanding of how you react and of the way you do things. Or else you will, if you are lucky, become matter for mirth. I know it's tough. I know I'm not a particularly good example. But good Heavens, there are worse than me.

Take inverarity. Every now and then I poke my nose in his LJ, mainly to see whether the next Alexandra Quick novel is coming along. (So far, bad news.) And just now I had the experience - I guess these things must sooner or later happen - of finding out that, after the way he had treated madderbrad and me, and probably others too, inverarity still imagines that he could find someone to debate him on fundamental issues and challenge his views.

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

This is regarding his post about atheism? I see what you mean - calling for contrary views while having a track record of ranting like a child and locking the doors when actually faced with an opposing opinion. An opinion that he can't counter. To which he can only respond "I was wrong". Which is something that Inverarity just can't do. He'll do *anything* to avoid it.

Still, he's far from the only intellectual coward on the Internet. There's a lot of people, on and off-line, who can't pass that crucial test of maturity.

He's an interesting chap though. I've greatly enjoyed psycho-analysing the people I've met in the gutter end of the online HP fandom ... what's been unique in my entanglements with Inverarity is how completely *unhinged* he's become when reminded of his 'loss' in a discussion. Like many people on the internet his practice is to slink away, drop a topic, hang up his hat, rather than utter those adult words "you're right, I'm wrong". The three times that I've come back after a time and resumed an issue that he abandoned has resulted in a torrent of child-minded abuse that I've rarely witnessed (and never in such contrast with the author's demonstrated 'sane' intelligence). There's something about rubbing his nose in his failure (part of what's interesting is how, each time, he's shown that's *exactly how he views the second act*, which is quite disclosing) which he just can't handle. He goes to pieces.

Make an effort to know yourself. Seek to be aware of the kind of thing you are. Try and have at least a little understanding of how you react and of the way you do things.

That's one of the greatest sources of amusement in observing Inverarity these days. Occasionally his posts will include some proclamation or statement as to his own impression of his self which is so at odds with how he's actually *acted* that it does, indeed, inspire mirth.

Studying cases like Inverarity really make me wish I'd taken psychology. Do we have here a simple case of someone who just "doesn't like to lose"? Is it that simple? The man who has written in his blog things like "And I hated losing. I really, really, really fucking hated losing." simply allowing that drive to overbalance everything else? To the point where he devolves down to cave man, spits the dummy, rants, throws mud and fills up the moat? I do think that's been the case with some of his posts (to me), where he's lost control. It's really interesting. Particularly when it's just *so simple* to say "oh, you have a point, I was wrong." All that stress that can avoided by civilised folk!

On the other hand, once you've locked out the people who dare disagree, I guess things are pretty calm inside the sheltered enclave too, a whole lot less threatening to one who needs protection from admitting to error.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Having formed his own little court with people like tealterror0 and anthonyjfuchs, who are hardly likely to take him on man to man, he probably feels more comfortable issuing that kind of challenge. And mind you, the article itself is incredibly bad. He claims to only have found arguments for God that a child could see through; he seems wholly unaware of the classic Thomist five ways, or even of Kant's distinction of the noumenal and the phenomenal, which postulates supernatural reality at the very least for the rules of morality. He claims to want more than that, when in fact he could find it in a first-year theology course in any seminary. I know that there are some embarrassing people in the Christian ranks, but I simply refuse to believe that he has never met anything but total ignorami on such matters. And that, for a start, gives me a very unpleasant feeling about engaging him in debate on this matter, even if he claims he wants it.

Psychoanalysis, yes. The point seems to be that to him, a lack of consistency between his views and proven fact is an experience so horrible, so hideous, that when it happens his immediate reaction is to run and hide (the debate suddenly ceases, and there is a great peace upon the earth). But if anyone ever tries to engage him again on the issue, the reaction is, as you say, both vicious and horrified. And that is what is interesting. Nobody, indeed, likes losing - a game, a gamble, or an argument. But people get used to it. After a few days, even of the most dramatic argument, you either accept that you were wrong, and start acting accordingly, or get used to the idea that your opponent really will not change his mind on a matter, and, again, start acting accordingly. The strange thing is that Inverarity never does. The wound of having been found wrong never closes; if you get back to it months afterwards, he acts as you say. I think this is psychologically significant. And another thing that is is that he projects his own behaviour upon you. It is not he, but you, who squalls and screeches, who loses any contact with adult standards of behaviour, who behaves like a selfish screeching child; to the point that he used the same photo of a screaming toddler for the both of us, and no doubt for other people who displeased him, too. Again, this is behaviour that would raise the attention of any psychologist worth their salt.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

A while ago I proffered the notion that our Western society's values are based on Christianity, something with which I'm fairly comfortable. I think the overall topic was on the separation of church and state. The person to whom I was speaking was insistent that religion had nothing to do with society's values. I've forgotten his argument; I'll have to ask him to reiterate next time we meet (he's not Inverarity, so I should be safe in doing so :-)).

And another thing that is is that he projects his own behaviour upon you.

Projection! Of course! As soon as I read that I was reminded of the psychological term, thank you. Wikipedia tells me that Freud first conceptualised the condition as a 'defence mechanism'. That's certainly how Inverarity is employing it, you've nailed it.

I love the screaming toddler picture. I've encountered it a few times since my expulsion and it's cracked me up each time, I can't think of the ranting Inverarity without visualising that perfect self-portrait he selected for himself. :-)