I think there’s a lot more evidence linking transgenderism and raging narcissists

submitted by Chunkeeguy from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]soundsituation 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've met a handful (well, only on reddit) that are quite skilled at rhetoric and sophistry. In my opinion that does signify some degree or type of intelligence; it also signifies above-average Dark Triad traits, of which narcissism is one.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, to some degree, there is an intelligence involved in rhetoric, even if the premise of one's argument is complete nonsense. But I think there's a larger argument about the nature of intelligence(or maybe wisdom) and truth - IE, if the premise of your argument is utter bullshit, and you continue arguing it, you're either 1. Too stupid to realize this, or 2. A pathological liar/narcissist. I believe that to be truly intelligent you have to have the ability to evaluate yourself and those around you accurately. Argumentation and rhetorical strategy can be learned, even by people who are otherwise not very bright.

Your point is fair though, and I have seen those types on reddit.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have seen those types on saidit too.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've met a handful (well, only on reddit) that are quite skilled at rhetoric and sophistry. In my opinion that does signify some degree or type of intelligence; it also signifies above-average Dark Triad traits, of which narcissism is one.

There are cases of some people who are actually smart, and some people just happen to sound smart because they are taught specifically how to think in certain ways for a specific subject. A more objective measure of intelligence would be to see how one adapts to the situation. A person can be taught how to be skilled in rhetoric and sophistry (a.k.a convince people of bullshit), but they can also be utterly incompetent in arguing objectivity.

Considering that TRA arguments revolve around such a mundane subject which people don't actually study, I'd say they hit a weak point in society and they're not good at rhetoric and sophistry, because we can all see right through their bullshit without the need to do a lot of research.