- Thread starter
- #2,329
mumstheword
MyPTSD Pro
Narcy people don't use rationale. They use put downs and they don't really care about what's true, the truth is inconvenient to them, they care about appearing right and using their power to sway people and brainwash other's, instead of giving you the facts and letting you make up your own mind.
Plenty of people aren't narcy gaslighters, but they still, unwittingly and without due consideration and investigation, beleive what narcy gaslighters say and, without knowing it, they can be their "flying monkeys", defending the erroneous paradigm because the narcy gaslighters are often very compelling, often charming, they can sound very convincing, and most people believe what they are told and have no suspicion that they might be being lied to or misinformed.
There are some very rich, very powerful, very Machiavellian narcy gaslighters, but if you are observant, and keep an open mind, without just believing what someone, who speaks with authority, says, who doesn't give good arguments that make sense and provide observable evidence, not cherry picked, but, contextual and who are open and welcoming to debate and who's claims stand up to the rigors of sound questioning and challenging, without resorting to name calling, shaming, shut downs, unfounded derision, that sort of thing, well, you can, eventually pick them.
There are patterns of behaviour and a refusal to treat challengers with respect, by providing sound, observable phenomena; instead they resort to emotional, hostile short cuts and triangulation "everybody knows so and so and such and such" they use ploys like that, that are supposed to be arguments, but aren't, they are just "mob rules" and mobs and majorities, aren't always right, the history of scientific discovery proves that majorities can.be wrong. Saying that "well everybody knows such and such" isn't a scientific argument.
Narcy gaslights are masters at creating and perpetuating "echo chambers" to try to convince. Only sound theory with observable phenomena should be admissible in a conversation pertaining to scientific truth, and sound rationale that doesn't have holes and who's proponent's won't refuse to reason and debate.
Plenty of people aren't narcy gaslighters, but they still, unwittingly and without due consideration and investigation, beleive what narcy gaslighters say and, without knowing it, they can be their "flying monkeys", defending the erroneous paradigm because the narcy gaslighters are often very compelling, often charming, they can sound very convincing, and most people believe what they are told and have no suspicion that they might be being lied to or misinformed.
There are some very rich, very powerful, very Machiavellian narcy gaslighters, but if you are observant, and keep an open mind, without just believing what someone, who speaks with authority, says, who doesn't give good arguments that make sense and provide observable evidence, not cherry picked, but, contextual and who are open and welcoming to debate and who's claims stand up to the rigors of sound questioning and challenging, without resorting to name calling, shaming, shut downs, unfounded derision, that sort of thing, well, you can, eventually pick them.
There are patterns of behaviour and a refusal to treat challengers with respect, by providing sound, observable phenomena; instead they resort to emotional, hostile short cuts and triangulation "everybody knows so and so and such and such" they use ploys like that, that are supposed to be arguments, but aren't, they are just "mob rules" and mobs and majorities, aren't always right, the history of scientific discovery proves that majorities can.be wrong. Saying that "well everybody knows such and such" isn't a scientific argument.
Narcy gaslights are masters at creating and perpetuating "echo chambers" to try to convince. Only sound theory with observable phenomena should be admissible in a conversation pertaining to scientific truth, and sound rationale that doesn't have holes and who's proponent's won't refuse to reason and debate.
Last edited: