Liberal Debating Strategy – Rabbit Bluffs And Threats Of Authority

The Narcissist page had a comment by a leftie looking to rebut the analysis of narcissists:

The irony – your picture of a narcissist is the very epitome of your “K-psychology” individual. I know that having people coming to you for advice feels good, but you don’t have a clue about these individuals lives… For all you know, THEY could be the narcissist. Stick to the pseudo-scientific political theory or I WILL follow up and report you to the relevant authorities.

Notice that “will” is in all caps, and he will take the time to find the “relevant” authorities. This dude means business.

Several themes you will note when dealing with liberals are demonstrated here.

Nobody can deduce the truth, so nothing should ever be done, and nobody can offer any sort of analysis.

This is rooted in liberal amygdala dysfunction. The amygdala is the structure that relevance weighs all the data and is supposed to guide you to the truth, or as close to it as you can get. If your’s functions, you use it regularly to get as close to the truth as you can, and then you make a decision and do the best you can. That is how life is supposed to work.

But what if it didn’t work? What if studies showed that your amygdala couldn’t read faces or perceive threat, as studies show of liberals? Suddenly, you live in a world where you can’t know anything – nor can you imagine that it is possible to know anything. Suddenly, nobody can know anything, and the world is completely unknowable. To this character, this is a totally viable criticism.

Second is the rabbit bluff. If I don’t stop, he will report me to the “relevant authorities.” Not he will show me where I am wrong. Not he will track me down and we’ll have it out. Rather, he will report me to someone who will initiate a conflict with me.

I love this, because I am still functioning in a K-mode, where I am thinking in terms people describing reality. My initial reaction was, for a moment, to wonder what authority he thought would care about some random person’s analysis of narcissists. Then I realized, “Oh, that is just the rabbit bluff!” There is no authority – he is just probing for the reflexive flight from conflict that rabbits are prone to.

r-selection is about avoiding all adverse consequences. Because of that, rabbit social status fighting is all about trying to generate threats of creating adverse entanglements for their adversaries, and hoping the adversaries will reflexively retreat.

At its most extreme, it looks like this. You post a comment on a web board they don’t like, and they immediately threaten to notify the relevant authorities. The only thing funnier is that there are actually rabbits who will flee in the face of that – and they are often the ones who use the strategy.

What is interesting is you can begin to see the genesis of this strategy in the rabbit’s childhood. This was a rabbit who, as a child, adopted this strategy because it worked. As a result, he never actually had to fight. He lived in a pseudo-r-selected environment of free victories, where every time threat arose, he screamed, “I’ll tell!” and the threat went away.

Kids grow in closet proximity to, and most frequent consistent contact with, siblings, (thus this type of consistent conditioning is most likely to arise in the sibling environment, as opposed to the intermittently transient chaos of school where associations change with each class each year, and interactions will be less consistent).

Because he was so quick to go to this, and because it was so ridiculous (and thus not logically generated, but rather reflexive and blind to logic) I would assume this was a sibling (who would probably claim to be the bullied sibling in his mind, but who was probably an authority-tattling bully himself). He was probably a younger or smaller (he couldn’t fight his siblings physically) brother to maybe one but more likely two or more stronger and maybe smarter older brothers (more brothers equals more opportunities for conditioning). There would also have likely been a triggerable parent (I would guess mother, due to lack of discipline and masculinity in this offspring), who was a bit of a nasty harridan that the other siblings feared (to make the threat with authority frightening).

That he appears a liberal, and thus a bit of a triggerable narcissist who sees the world as unfair, might mean there is one other younger brother (losing status as “the baby,” to a younger brother who you must then watch enjoy the benefits and maternal favoritism which you feel would have been rightly your’s, had the little interloper not have intruded on your world, is a theme I have noticed develops envy very effectively). This brother is substantially younger than him (because he needed long enough to be “the baby” and develop his threaten-with-authority reflex with his older brothers), and likely smarter than him, to help trigger his envy and disdain for those with superior ability (substantially younger would rule out physical ability).

In that environment, the threat of “telling authority” can often arise as a programmed behavioral pattern, after daily repetition and exercise of the related neural pathways. [On rereading that prior to posting, I recalled having seen a similar analysis of an individual in my early twenties. Feeling I was smart enough to know without experience, I dismissed it as a shot in the dark, because I didn’t understand fully how conditioned and reflexive such behavior was. If you live long enough, and encounter enough cases of such reflexive behavior with their relevant family histories, you will find such ridiculous urges tend to be conditioned, and they tend to be conditioned by a very small number of highly similar circumstances during a short window in childhood in those predisposed to such conditioning. The analysis may be off about the number of older brothers (one could be enough) and there may not be a younger brother (he could be a rarer natural/genetic narcissist with high-envy, absent the younger brother who stole mom’s attention/favoritism), but the overall outline is right, and probably the highest probability circumstance. Behavior can often be understood in such a manner. If you don’t believe this now, at least file this possibility away, and see if as the years go by you do not discover the same insight on your own.]

Always watch out when you run into the programmed robots. In my experience, they are among the most dysfunctional individuals. Their behavior is reflexive rather than logical, and thus they often end up acting illogically when their reflexes are triggered by stimuli which may not in reality call for the reflex. Then, as things go south, they trigger even worse, they behavior becomes even more panicked and illogical, and before you know it, they have infected your life with their crazy.

As this commenter shows, by threatening to tell the internet police that I am pontificating about narcissists without a license, their behavior will often have nothing to do with reality. It will have everything to do with child-like urges toward vengeance and sibling rivalry that have wrapped themselves in reflexes which more often than not end up making their lives a non-stop tornado of chaos and anarchy.

In short, treat them as if they have a toxic radioactive waste symbol tattooed on their forehead.

If I wrote the laws, they would.

If you want to destroy liberalism, point them here, becasue the reviews on this page will seel anyone on r/K Theory