Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:51:14 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:05:31 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

Of course this all goes back to my having called the Donkey a
"second-hander" (like Peter Keating in Rand's "The Fountainhead").  As
if to prove my statement, Will turned around and seconded it back to me.
In similar fashion, my having compared George to Ellsworth Toohey on
several occasions, is being second-handed back to me as well.

>

But then
George is the one who claims that "tit for tat" is his personal "system
of ethics."  It's also his justification for his stock in trade rebuttal
of "IKYABWAI."

>
Got it: you say that comparing someone to a Randian character is
"psychobabble" and that you did it first.

>
No, lying George.  I did not say that I did it first.

Oh? Let us look at what you did just say in this thread:
MMP (Jan. 31) - "In similar fashion, my having compared George to
Ellsworth Toohey on several occasions, is being second-handed back to me
as well.
MMP (Feb. 1) - "No, lying George.  I did not say that I did it first."
Of course, now by your rules I can't even call you Lying Michael for
that, because you called me "lying George" first. That's your (and
PJR's)  "preemption game" in a nutshell.

Your post was a
steaming pile of nonsensical psychobabble.  My post was a clinical
evaluation of your personality based on the content of your posts.

Back when you wrote your many posts on me, I told you they were
"psychobabble" - now you're using my term against me. Is it evidence for
my analysis to label this poest of yours an example of IKYABWAI? No.
Then why do you think it's evidence for yours to do the same thing to my
posts?

It is, however, telling that you've cried "preemption!" in dozens of
threads over the years -- followed by your typical IKYABWAI response.
>
Face it, George.  Every post you make is an IKYABWAI.  You are
apparently incapable of independent thought, and your only recourse in
an argument is to stamp your foot and bawl out "Nuh uh!  YOU ARE!"
>

All that tells me is that you're getting defensive, and your
defensiveness is causing you to engage in transference.

>
Do you really believe that pointing out an example of IKYABWAI is a
defensive act?

Your post is a textbook example of transference (where the subject
starts trying to psychoanalyze the analyst) which exhibits classic
defensiveness.

I compared you to Ellsworth Toohey, so you turn around
and shout "I'm not Toohey, YOU'RE Toohey!"

Whatever yuu called me years ago, Lying Michael, I have not concluded
that you're Toohey. Therefore I have NOT said that, even once.

Which only shows that you have the emotional maturity of a 5-year old --
and only a fraction of their imagination.

And you insist that you are not getting defensive? Fascinating.
anip

I identify more with John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- as I'm more of
the passive resistance martyr type.  But even that isn't a very good
match.

>
It's quite revealing that you'd identify with Rand's most perfect (IHO)
character, but don't think he's good enough either. But I'm afraid I
can't see any match at all, other than Galt convinced a group of people
to move to a hidden site and
waited for the world to die without them; which you claim to have done
to aapc.

>
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that.  Thank you for pointing it out.

You're welcome. Please try to listen to what you're being told, and you
may discover a few more gems.
snip

What is the point of trying to fit me into a mold that was cut out for
somebody else?
>
RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT: The answer, of course, is that it provides
you with an excuse for stamping your foot and shouting back "I'm not
Toohey!  YOU'RE Toohey!"

Once again, Lying Michael, I have not identified you with Toohey.

As to my alleged "lying."

>

This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.

>

"Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR
would often put to George.

>
So you're copying "PJR" again (which is probably one reason Will came up
with the theory that you're mostly a "second-hander" like Keating.

>
We've been over this in the past, George.

Indeed we have. This phrase is the classic instance of PJR's use of the
preemption game: He would begin most posts to me and others with "Why do
you lie so much, X" - and then when X caught him in a lie, he could
shrug it off as "IKYABWAI" (as if that were some kind of proof that he
was not lying).

>
I'm not copying PJR.  I'm referencing him.

You copy him every time you begin a post, to me or to anyone else, with
the above line.

When a catchphrase like "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is picked up by
various members of a group, it's a strong indicator that there is more
than a grain of truth behind it.

Yet if all the "various members" using a term are tied to the person who
began using it (whether PJR or yourself), it is evidence of nothing more
than those ties.

In terms you might better be able to understand, I am not just asking
you why you lie so much -- I am pointing out that others here have
accused you of doing just that.

Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George
immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.

>
No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a
lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.

>
Really, George.  You're acting like a butthurt little boy again.

Note to self: the subject continues to deny he is engaging in
transference.

When I pose the rhetorical question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?",
you respond in typical tit-for-tat fashion by addressing me as "Lying
Michael."

No, Lying Michael. The only time I call you Lying Michael is when you
have told a lie in the paragraph I am immediately responding to - it
makes them easier to find, when someone does a search.

An adult would choose to refute the point I'd claimed they'd been lying
about -- assuming that my accusation was untrue.

Indeed it does. Which is why every paragraph I write with that uses the
term "Lying Michael" contains a refutation of what the lie I am pointing
to.

Refutation goes a much
farther way to establishing one's innocence than yet another variation
on IKYABWAI.

That is correct.

And where is the archival evidence to back your statement up?

Do a search on the group for "Lying Michael". For older statements, do a
search on the group for "Pedodragon lie."

One only has to look at this particular exchange to see that you are
simply repeating back what I said to you, and redirecting it back at me
(IKYABWAI).

As previously noted, you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of
expressing a single original thought.
>

I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to
becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent
(actually both of George's parents were abusive).

>
No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you
tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children
try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,
as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked
for them.

>
Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
>
Don't you realize that I can easily reference the statements you've made
in *this* thread?
>
Here is what you said, and I quote:
>
"Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once."

Exactly. "Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to
escape punishment" (not just abused children, but all children) -- and
whether they learn to be liars depends on how successful their attempts
at lying as chilsewn were.

It seems that George
has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much,
Dunce."

>
I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you
project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when
you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious
preemption as unconscious projection, but
there was no point trying to explain all that to him.

>
You are wrong, George.  It's merely the recognition of something that is
obvious to everyone here

If you still had "everyone" (Team Monkey and your assorted Bandar-Log)
here in this group, they would be quoting and sharing your post back and
forth, and that would be all people would be able to read. However, as
you have already noted, "everyone" is not "here" - they have all gone
away to your facebook group, leaving just you, me, and my colleague.

-- that you are a pathological liar.  In one
post in this thread, you claimed that abused children were prone to
becoming liars in adult life.  When I referred to your statement, you
denied it, claiming that you'd only said that all children lied at one
time or another.  I only had to return to the beginning of this thread
to pull your original statement and post it here for all to see.

That is the post we are now discussing. However, However, Lying Michael,
the statement you found and put back in the thread (thank you for doing
that) says exactly what I claimed it does; while your paraphrase was
shown to be another lie and misrepresentation.

You lie.
Not once.  Not twice.  But over and over again.
>
The sad part is that I don't think you're even aware that you are doing
it.  Lying has become such an ingrained part of your personality
(including lying to yourself), that you subconsciously falsify your
perception of yourself, and others, on a continuous basis.

Now, all that sounds like things I have said about you. But rather than
slip into the preemption game by caling it IKYABWAI, I think it would be
more productive to simply note that you're engaging in transference
(trying to analyze your analyst) and move on.

>
Take your comments on "My Father's House"

snip
Oh, indeed I shall - but not in this thread. I understand how it feels
to be the involuntary subject of analysis, so I can understand why you'd
want to change the subject and try to analyze your analysts.
Nevertheless, that is an unproductive path that will not help either of
us.