|
|
2) Lacking ability to understand the authors intentions and premises. E.g. they are likely to "forget" or otherwise totally miss even self-explanatory TITLES of an essay. Later they'll inquire whatever your essay has to do with "apples" when you've explicitly written that it deals ONLY with "oranges."
3) Context and connexions are consistently misinterpreted. Context might as well be an unknown in the vocabulary of the diseased.
4) "Referential Ideation." The diseased is unable to read a text loyally and has a tendency to "read his own opinions into the text." I.e. he sees things that ostensibly are NOT there. He is having DELUSIONS or hallucinations. Unable to grasp the NEW perspective.
5)Words are often not just words, and words only seldomly mean what they ordinarily do. Words do not refer to the thing-in-itself, but the word is only the sum of its associations. E.g. "nazi" is not just a description of a person with a certain, well defined political opinion.
6) In a discussion, whenever the introductory _superficialities_ are done with, everything this person says regarding the subject will be SO wrong that the other party will be having trouble knowing even where to start correcting the diseased. The AMOUNT of errors, small as well as big ones, will seem overpowering. E.g. each and every time he says "what you're saying here is that blah, blah, blah...." it will ALWAYS -- to a higher or lesser degree -- be wrong. Often EXACTLY that phrase is used by the diseased as if to explain to himself the content of the essay.
7) Words or sentences are not evaluated in relation to their objective truth but only on their ego-value, i.e. in relation to how the words reflect on the ego of the diseased. E.g. "The nazi I know said that 2+2=4, the professor that 2+2=5." To support the Nazi's statement would "reflect badly on the person" and he would often support the professors statement regardless of its objective truth. Nazi could be "Russian, Communist, harsh critic, Satanist, Atheist" or anybody "on the other side." Professor could be "American, Liberalist, Libertarian, favorable critic, Christian" or anyone on "our side."
8) Others get the impression that the diseased is consciously misrepresenting their views, i.e. the diseased is LYING about them. Consequently, some will view them as spies or saboteurs, in other words: as ENEMIES. Neurological and psychological tests (e.g. polygraphs) will show that they are not _lying_ in the ordinary sense of the word -- they do it unconsciously.
9) Exaggerated staging of one self. Look for pompous or highly stylized language, overdone signatures, over-use of difficult words, anything "too fancy" or self-important.
10) Any offer about a peace or truce will be accompanied by patronizing, pitying, arrogant, gloating or snide remarks.
11) Anything they do seems intended to create strife and controversy. They incite anger in those they correspond with.
12) Often a single word will be taken completely out of context, yet be presented as if it was terribly important to the argument. This is in some ways equivalent to presenting a straw man. Taken out of context a word can be twisted to mean anything, and it WILL BE.
13) Valid criticisms are seldomly answered, and errors NEVER admitted. Criticisms are never answered properly, e.g. the diseased will often refer back to already established facts (trivia) as if that was going to answer the NEW points brought up. Very evasive.
14) If it is possible at all for the diseased to find something which will "justify" a _summary_dismissal_ of an opponent this straw will be grasped. E.g. "Oh, he's just a disgruntled <insert the blank> and that's why he's critical of it (and hence we don't have to listen to what he's SAYING)" or "he has an agenda (and therefore nothing he says can be right)."
15) Content must always give way to wrapping, image, style, layout and form. E.g. substantial criticism will often be dismissed by pointing out that the opponent is being impolite, in violation of dress-code, is not using the proper lingo or is holding the fork in the wrong hand. This is akin to _ad_hominem_ attacks and are likely fallacies.
16) The diseased will always find it more important WHO says something than WHAT is being said. E.g. "Anonymous criticism cannot be answered", "someone already said that before so I'll not answer you", "you're a <fill in the blank>, so I'm not gonna answer you (you dork)," or "you're just a measly student/trainee/freshman." _Argumentum_ad_verecundiam_, or _The_Appeal_to_Authority_ will work well on these people, even if the source cited is unreliable (they want rules and other people to think for them).
17) Exaggerated focus on details and single words. Compared to the big picture they focus on the smaller frames. Nit picking.
18) One will most often observe a break-down in rationality at the late stages of the logic. Will often happen when the diseased comes to a point in the discussion where he has to think for himself, i.e. where he cannot go by memorized facts anymore. Once out of the "shell of superficialities" (memorized facts) he CAN be indentified.
19) Anosognosic behaviour. Often the diseased "will not know that he does not know something." Often the best arguments will be brushed away, not because the diseased can't understand the argument, but simply because he does not know that he is walking on thin ice. Normal people would say "hey, you may be right, but it's really over my head to judge in this matter." E.i. normal people will KNOW when they do not grasp, say, a mathematical solution, but anosognosics do NOT exhibit this self-understanding.
20) Extreme skepticism. Often you'll hear "the highest knowledge is knowing that you don't know anything." This will NOT necessarily correspond to the degree of pontification, preaching and appearance of the diseased. These persons are clearly NOT completely anosognosic, because they DO HAVE an faint suspicion that they really do NOT know anything; this, incidentally, is a very accurate diagnosis! Skepticism is often used as a justification mechanism, i.e. they do not ACT like skeptic or doubtful people normally do, but they use the skepticism as a wall to lean their backs against, when it IS proven that "they do not know and can not know."
21) Everything is dualized. Everything is perceived as (antagonistic) dualisms, i.e. good vs. evil, black vs. white, dog vs. cat, etc. E.g. should another person say that he's fond of tall girls, the diseased would infer that this person HATES short girls. Binary thinking.
22) The fallacy of Bifurcation will often be committed, i.e. everything is presented as having _only_ two possible alternatives. E.g. everything is perceived as either "right or left wing," "good or evil," "black or white," and everything must be fitted into this simplistic model. Binary thinking.
23) Cannot understand or conceptualize non-dualist ideas (especially Eastern thinking). They are bad dialectics. When thesis meets anti- thesis there is a synthesis, but the synthesis is NOT always a compromise or mixture, but often a completely THIRD alternative. The idea of a third alternative is not likely to be understood by the diseased.
24) Poor deconstructionists. Cannot "ground" things in physical reality. May take (mytho)poetic language literally. Mysterians.
25)"Sage on Stage" behavior. Will often present themselves as being very smart, having secret knowledge or great education, but what they are saying specifically will often be old news, nothing really new, uninteresting, just not very profound at all, banal, and not worth mentioning. Inaccurate even.
Note regarding "matrices." A matrix like the one just shown tend to
pose serious problems for someone unacquainted with such lists. It is impossible
to say whether a particular klippoth will exhibit all the symptions above
or only some. It would be unlikely that _all_ the signs fit on a person,
and it is worth noting that even though _some_ of the above characteristics
fit on a person it does NOT automatically make him a klippoth. Thus, there
is absolutely NO reason to conclude "...but <whimper> then we're _all_
klippoths." It is also worth noting that such a lists is _analytical_ in
its nature (breaking things down into small components) and this may cause
one to miss the big picture here. To ultimately be useful the above list
would have to be "learnt by heart," i.e. it has to be internalized and
_felt_; as you will notice many of the points are essentially overlapping
which illustrates the impossibility of making a clear cut algorithm for
spotting these individuals -- it just doesn't work that way. This requires
an insight into the nature of the klippoth and it does not come automatically,
only by experience. It's like getting to know a new word and all the help
you get is from a dictionary which explains the word with other, synonymous
words, yet to really understand the _real_thing_ it will require getting
accustomed to the word. Thus, this list is only a _pointer_ to the real
phenomenon, but when something like the following happens, you have probably
gotten the message: you're reading a post and suddenly you're struck by
the hunch that "there's something WRONG here!" Following this hunch you
discover that the text you're reading actually corresponds to several points
on the list above. The better you get you'll be able to spot the klippoths
faster. At the beginning you might not be able to spot them and only _too_
late you'll discover that the psychic vampire have backstabbed you or suckered
you into a discussion which is essentially draining. Getting better at
it you'll only have to read one post or even just a few _lines_ of text
and you KNOW who they are.