Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 9:59:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

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.

Deceit is a sign of desperation, George.
You have post-edited my statement.  This is what I actually said:
"No, lying George.  I did not say that I did it first.  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."
Why do you lie so much when you know that I'm only going to catch you. Are you trying to establish a reputation as the internet's biggest liar?

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?

You did not invent the term "psychobabble," George, nor is there any
reason to assume that you were the first to use it here.
You're post, otoh, was an example of psychobabble, and I have correctly
identified and labeled it accordingly.

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.

That's not what transference is, George.  You are thinking of
"countertransference."

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.

You've compared me to both Toohey and Wynand above.
Why do you lie so much, George?

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

That depends upon one's perspective, George.
From my vantage point, I am making a valid psychological observation
about you, which you are attempting to avoid confronting via the use of
deflection.

>

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.

Someone is awfully full of themselves today.

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.

You're nitpicking, George.  You said you hadn't decided if I was Toohey
or Wynand as you felt I had characteristics of both.
Saying that I have characteristics of Toohey is the point -- not whether
you arbitrarily decided to call me "Toohey" or "Wynand."

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).

In my experience, PJR was almost always truthful. His only "lies" were
of the obvious joke variety (like saying that the Donkey drank Sterno),
and those don't count as lies, as they aren't meant to be believed.

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.

Again, I am both repeating and referencing his remark.

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.

No, George.  It's evidence that you lie so damn much that everyone sees
you as a pathological liar.

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.

You don't know that transference is, George.

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.

Which is meaningless.  Every time I ask you why you lie so much is taken
as a lie by you, so you always respond with a "lying Michael." Regardless of how you slice it, the end result is still the same.

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.

A refutation involves presenting evidence to the contrary, George.  Not
merely a denial of what someone has said.

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."

All you've managed to say is that you call me "Lying Michael" when you
claim that I have lied.  You then cite the previous statement I'd made
as the lie you are referring to.  You do not even so much as attempt to
disprove my so-called lie.
Labeling a statement as a lie is not refutation.  It is a variant of
IKYABWAI.

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.

What about this pronouncement which appears within the same quote: "and
an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it [and] learn how to
do it successfully."

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.

We were talking about a statement made by PJR, George.  I said that the
frequency with which he used it directly corresponded to the frequency
of your lies which prompted its use.  You claimed that it was a
preemptive tactic to somehow stop you from calling attention to any lie
that he supposedly made.
What has the make-believe "Bandar-Log" got to do with it?  Or the fact
that you and your Donkey are the only people here?

-- 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 stated: "and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it
[and] learn how to do it successfully."

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.

OMFG!  You are misusing the word.  Stop it.
That is COUNTERTRANSFERENCE.
Transference is when one projects characteristics of a third party onto
their analyst (conflating the analyst with their father, for instance).
Amateurs!

>
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.

Self-analysis is one of my favorite pastimes, George -- whether in a
group like AAPC or in private.
My only problem with your "analysis" is that you aren't particularly
knowledgeable on the subject, and are, quite frankly, terrible at it.
--