Marshall
Posts:
1,928
Registered:
8/9/06
|
|
Re: How "New Scientist" robbed me
Posted:
Jul 11, 2011 6:54 PM
|
|
On Jul 11, 2:15 am, "Lurker" <spamk...@spamkill.co.uk> wrote:
> Top posting a reply to Marshall:
>
> I've seen this kind of delusion before (anyone who disagrees is
> fundamentally flawed, OP owns the thread, abuse is a form of debate, etc.
> etc.).
Yes, it's not especially rare. Although this guy escalates faster than
most, and with a more flamboyant sort of bile.
> Do you think its a psychopathology or just a character defect?
I would say it is a personality trait. All personality traits are
adaptive in some situations and maladaptive in others. For
example, the gentleman's high degree of self-confidence and
his verbal acumen might make him a good lawyer. It might
be the case that someone with what I might consider a more
reasonable degree of self-doubt and introspection would be
a worse lawyer. On the other hand, the same qualities of
drive and lack of empathy that make a good lawyer might
make a terrible therapist.
I might be tempted to call it a character defect. I'm not
entirely certain he's completely serious, his rhetoric is so
ostentatiously over-the-top. It may be the case that he's just
blowing off steam and rarely if ever behaves like this in
other situations. Or he might act like this all the time.
Beyond mere character defect, though, it might even qualify
as a personality disorder. Maybe he talks to his children the
same exact way he talks to me. Maybe he's unable to alter
his behavior to fit the situation, and this way of acting is a
compulsion. In that case his doctor might consider some
sort of personality disorder. A handful of posts, however
florid, is as nothing to go on, but his writing is consistent
with histrionic personality disorder.
> Is it more common than heretofore or is it just that the internet attracts
> them and makes them more visible?
One must always be suspicious of any impulse we may
have to think that things are getting worse.
I have read some of Underwood Dudley's writings on
mathematical cranks, and it is (very roughly) his opinion
that the nascent crank starts out with a feeling of being
special based on some idea they have. It is the process
of talking with the mathematical community, and their
mystifying lack of appreciation for the crank's specialness,
that causes the crank to "calcify" into paranoia. My take
is that the possibility that the crank might not be special
is, literally, unthinkable, as their personality depends on
this as compensation for whatever childhood deficit
they suffered from: approval, appreciation, affection.
The crank is missing something crucial, something they
needed to mature into an adult, and they try to give it
to themselves by declaration.
The reason I mention all this is because, if we take Dudley's
model of what makes a crank harden over time, then
I'd say that internet may well actually be making things
worse, because it allows the crank to come into more
direct contact with others who refuse to affirm the crank's
specialness more easily. Rather than needing a letter writing
campaign carried out over years, instead we can have a host
of people pointing out our mistakes on usenet in days.
> Entertaining anyway!
> [Did you notice that in his original post he cited the risk of the
> lightspeed journey per trip, not per time.]
Indeed so!
Marshall
|
|
