Howdy Cathinfo.  I've posted on here a few times a few instances of my interactions on the Vox Day blog.  The guy is not a Catholic, but he has moved into the spectrum of Christianity in the last ten years.  "Progress, but not perfection" as Al Franken once said.  

Most of my problems have been with his wife, but we'll see if he takes this one personally.  I doubt it.  I don't even think he will notice my post, unless he feels the inclination to single me out for criticizing him.  

In any event, another weekend shift begins, and I try to find something to amuse myself with for the next TWO 16-hour shifts.  

And I found that Vox Day has decided to post an explanation as to the purpose of his blog (which I often read).  I've come to the decision that I should try giving the man some advice, and now I will wait with bated breath to discern whether or not he will take or reject it.  

I like most of his ideas.  But sometimes, he comes off as an arrogant little cuss who's failed to grow out of his teenage know-it-all-ness.  

If he or his wife Spacebunny decide to retort harshly, it should make for an amusing couple of days.  Otherwise, I shall contemplate sandy white beaches and seagulls until the end of my Sunday shift.

- - - - -

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-purpose.html


Smiley asks about the meaning of it all:

What is your goal when you discuss something with someone here? For them to admit that they are significantly less intelligent than yourself?

As some already answered, the fundamental reason this blog exists is to amuse myself. But my primary goals when discussing something with someone here are to a) force myself to articulate my thoughts in a manner that others can understand, b) unearth any flaws in my reasoning and expose any errors in my information and my assumptions, and c) reach the most logically sound conclusions on the basis of the most solid evidence available.

None of this has anything directly to do with making people admit that they are less intelligent. That is completely unnecessary, as it is already statistically inevitable in the overwhelming majority of cases. As always, it is wise to have a look at the numbers before leaping to groundless conclusions. Sitemeter reports 7,876 average daily visitors here this morning. Even if we allow for this blog's particular appeal for those possessing above-average intelligence, let us say three times more, this means that there are most likely between 10 and 20 people here who are either at or above my level. And, so long as no spatial reasoning is involved, there are likely even fewer at or above my functional level.

I don't walk people into traps and show them to be incorrect and/or relatively unintelligent in order to get my intellectual rocks off, I do it because they are annoying me by wasting my time and everyone else's with their stupid and obviously fallacious arguments. I find such arguments to be petty and irritating, and the only reason I address them at all is because so many other people readily fall for such nonsense unless they are conclusively shown how intrinsically nonsensical it is. With a few masochistic exceptions, most people have the good sense to learn to shut up and think twice before mindlessly yapping away again once they have had their noses rubbed in their own intellectual excrement.

Serious questions are completely fine. Admissions that one doesn't understand something and would like a detailed explanation are fine too. But if you are going to challenge me and claim that you are correct, you had damn well better be ready with a solid and defensible case. I've been writing columns for 10 years and blog posts for 8 years with the knowledge that hundreds, if not thousands, of people would be going over them with a fine-toothed comb in search of any error, however minor, that they can exploit in order to discredit me and my conclusions. So, in addition to the advantage of raw cognitive firepower, I also have considerable experience in structuring arguments as well as anticipating how people will attempt to disprove or otherwise discredit an argument.

Now, I love it when someone surprises me with something clever that I hadn't previously considered. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to be shown to be incorrect and I have openly changed my opinion on far too many things for anyone to credibly claim it does. I used to believe in the drug war, I used to believe that women should have the right to vote, I used to believe there was solid evidence for evolution by natural selection, I used to believe in monetarist economics, I used to believe in free trade, I used to believe Socrates was a great philosopher, I used to believe the USA was the freest nation on Earth, I used to believe the North was right, I used to believe that the Bible was a load of feel-good nonsense designed to serve as an intellectual crutch for those too psychologically weak to face up to the nihilistic reality of the universe.

Of course, I believed all those things for the same reason I believed the crust was the best part of the bread. Someone told me once and I never thought the matter through for myself. So, I recognize when someone is not expressing the fruit of their own intellectual labor, but is merely parroting what they have been told by someone else, because I have been there and I have done that.

- - - - -

My response (comment 104):

Laramie Hirsch    2/25/12 8:46 AM

Vox, you're a snot.

Your lack humility in the attitude of your writing, and often your words lack charity.

However, some circles out there deserve a nice full onslaught of contempt pointed right at them, and this is one of the reasons I enjoy reading your blogs. Plus, I agree with a lot of your ideas.

I liked Summa Elevitica. I hope you develop the characters into further books.

But yeah. The arrogant vibes I sometimes detect from your posts strike me as masturbatory.

You like the Bible? Humility and charity.

His way of speaking reveals a man slightly too enamoured of his own brainpower, or perhaps of discursive intelligence in general. "Cognitive firepower" is not the be all and end all of man's spiritual development, nor is it even the pinnacle of intelligence...

All true.  Though, I might hone it down to "Cognitive firepower is not the be all and end all of a man's spiritual development, nor the pinnacle of wisdom."

It remains to be seen if he is simply always writing tongue-in-cheek, or if he truly is trapped in this self-absorbed pattern he displays.