A moment on the couch with Dr. Z

March 31, 2017 § 17 Comments

I’m a pretty plainspoken guy who just honestly says what is on my mind.  

No, really.

I’m not much interested in psychoanalyzing   individuals over the Internet.  In fact it is something I very much discourage both in myself and others, with varying degrees of success.

But it is probably true that certain modes of   rhetoric have a tendency to follow along with certain psychologies: that, for example, psychologically passive-aggressive people tend to see their own motte-and-bailey approach to argument as virtuous rather than vicious.

§ 17 Responses to A moment on the couch with Dr. Z

  • TomD says:

    On another hive of scum and villainy I’ve just had a ‘discussion’ with a ‘game’ proponent and he went through all the steps predicted, so much so that others are accusing me of being Zippy.

    I think I finally confused him by pointing out of game was what he said it was (bailey), then the Imitation of Christ is a manual for ‘game’, and if it’s not, then ‘game’ is a lie and just an excuse for treating women like objects at best, or male inchastity at worst.

  • Step2 says:

    A paraphrase of Lydia’s response to that same accusation, “I apologize since I try to be aggressive-aggressive.”

    On topic, I haven’t decided yet if your narrow way of measuring freedom based on a common, particular, possible consequence (I presume you will dispute it is a necessary consequence) of your broad definition qualifies as a motte and bailey.

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    I haven’t decided yet if your narrow way of measuring freedom

    You still don’t seem to grasp that Zippy’s contention is that there is no such thing as political freedom. You can’t measure what doesn’t exist.

  • Mike T says:

    I think I finally confused him by pointing out of game was what he said it was (bailey), then the Imitation of Christ is a manual for ‘game’, and if it’s not, then ‘game’ is a lie and just an excuse for treating women like objects at best, or male inchastity at worst.

    Ironically, the Jesus you see in scripture would probably be too much of an alpha male for the majority of church-goers today. One can easily imagine the horror of Him being soooo MEAN to honest merchants merely trying to help people offer sacrifices. And His habit of name calling like whitened tombs and den of vipers? The Judeo-Christ of the Church of Churchianity would never do something like that.

  • TomD says:

    He is the alpha but also the omega – people forget that.

    The Church of Nice heresy is a real one, but the answer isn’t the Church of Game.

  • GJ says:

    One imagines that the Niceness Creed goes along the following lines:

    “We believe in One God, Unjudgmental
    (so stop judging, you arrogant negative judger)…
    And in one dude Jesus Christ, amiable, easygoing…
    who was raised a SNAG by the Virgin Mary…”

  • GJ says:

    Meanwhile, Game exponents want to close the Sluttiness Gap.

  • TheFirstNowell says:

    The problem with trying to psychoanalyze someone is that it is so darn difficult to do. Especially someone you don’t know making an argument on the internet. You are basically just guessing. Heck it’s hard enough to understand the motivations and emotions of those close to us.

    Another time you see this is when watching sports. It always annoys me when the announcers start analyzing the emotional states of the players and attributing the outcome of the game to these imaginings.

  • Zippy says:

    TheFirstNowell:

    Almost all of what passes for psychoanalysis is really self-revelation.

  • djz242013 says:

    > Almost all of what passes for psychoanalysis is really self-revelation.

    He said, analyzing the psychology of those who do psychoanalysis.

  • Zippy says:

    djz242013:

    Cute, but change it up a bit and see if the criticism really works:

    Bob: “Almost all of what passes for psychic readings reveals more about the supposed psychic than his subjects.”

    Fred: “He said, doing a psychic reading of psychics.”

  • […] natural to leap to the conclusion that when we are talking about politics (while refraining from psychoanalysis), the objects of our discourse are […]

  • djz242013 says:

    > Cute

    was primarily just trying to be funny/cute but…

    actually your changed version is not accurate because bob is not doing a psychic reading of psychics, but rather a psychoanalysis of psychics.

    So even though I do actually think you are right that most armchair psychoanalysis is projection, I also think that people who say that are doing armchair psychology, and projecting their own self into what the analyzer is doing.

    … If this regresses any further I will be totally lost.

  • Zippy says:

    djz242013:
    At the very least you are begging the question that psychoanalysis is a well-defined activity compared to psychic reading ;-).

  • “psychoanalysis is a well-defined activity compared to psychic reading”

    I object to psychic readers being mentioned in the same breath with Bernaysian scum like psychoanalysts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading A moment on the couch with Dr. Z at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: