w00tz`
12-16-2002, 08:27 PM
well, in every type of country or atomosphere, we can identify people by certain strengths and weaknesses, and through that we are able to exploit them, correct?
although you might think it is weird to bring this up, but reverse engineering, other than using physical objects and puzzles, thus solving them, is also very much a psychological challenge. the idea of reversing a person's moment of thought can be logically very strong.
for instance, logical fallicies are related towards arguments. now it is in my opinion that arguments, logical and stimulating, (not bickering between people) but more of a debate.
in this essay, i will define part of social weaknesses that allow for citizen manipulation or mind playing falicies that can identify the type of person.
i am currently pressed for time so i might do about 1 or 2 right now, but if i get positive feedback, maybe i will continue...so lets start:
first of all, a logical fallacy by definition means a misleading or deceptive reasoning. thats all its about, reasoning. but we have to ask ourselves, what really are we reasoning and upon what or whom's views? morals, values...blah blah blah, the reasoning, even though seems like a blockade of pure strength of words and logic, can also mislead and leave holes in the person's characteristic views.
for isntance, a fallacy called "Ad Populum" is used commonly,
cracking reference:
as with most unlettered reversers, you would hear softice: you either crack with it or you dont crack at all. hmmm...lets look at that reasoning a bit more, why start out with massive debugging and power that softice holds, why not use olly and work your way up as you grasp a better conception of how stuff works?
mostly this is related to the majority ruling or feeling, but lets see how we can exploit this into benefiting the knowledgable arguer. for instance, you have landed a job and suddenly there is a US War on Iraq , say this is a country that you particulary hate. your boss reacts vehmently and violently towards those who have oppoosed of those attacks and are anti-war. lets use the "ad populum" against him and exploit his feelings.
well, first he would complain to someone seeing on who cares. thats an open chance, we can analyze this as a result for some one to converse with, or he's lookign for a friend of some kind. hmm....here's where we reverse. you automatically start argeeing with his reactions, and approving of everything he says, even though you despise it. automaticallly, you have reversed your way from simply a worker to one with same intellectual thought, although this seems like common sense, it automatically doesnt ring to a person when it is accomplished. notice we have breached another argument exploitation, feelings, but that will be later (in another essay) gotten into. now, say a person questions the boss's views and feelings, the boss will then AVOID this argument by introducing a different fact, a new persective that by arriving at the consequence of the attack on Iraq, the US has solved another solution., terrorist and the mass weapon threat on the world. The measly worker simply agrees with this solution, forgetting his original argument, but you have automatically seen your boss's character and can now easily exploit it.
now because you support his actions, you have won a specific respect for his views, even though you hate them -- the boss can start thinking of entrusting you with valuable objects, such as the safe or money handling ordeals.
unfortunately, this essay must end as i have an exam to start studying for, but please, give me some feedback and some strengths where I have missed something, soon enough I will show you how to use logical fallicies to counter argue everything.
although you might think it is weird to bring this up, but reverse engineering, other than using physical objects and puzzles, thus solving them, is also very much a psychological challenge. the idea of reversing a person's moment of thought can be logically very strong.
for instance, logical fallicies are related towards arguments. now it is in my opinion that arguments, logical and stimulating, (not bickering between people) but more of a debate.
in this essay, i will define part of social weaknesses that allow for citizen manipulation or mind playing falicies that can identify the type of person.
i am currently pressed for time so i might do about 1 or 2 right now, but if i get positive feedback, maybe i will continue...so lets start:
first of all, a logical fallacy by definition means a misleading or deceptive reasoning. thats all its about, reasoning. but we have to ask ourselves, what really are we reasoning and upon what or whom's views? morals, values...blah blah blah, the reasoning, even though seems like a blockade of pure strength of words and logic, can also mislead and leave holes in the person's characteristic views.
for isntance, a fallacy called "Ad Populum" is used commonly,
cracking reference:
as with most unlettered reversers, you would hear softice: you either crack with it or you dont crack at all. hmmm...lets look at that reasoning a bit more, why start out with massive debugging and power that softice holds, why not use olly and work your way up as you grasp a better conception of how stuff works?
mostly this is related to the majority ruling or feeling, but lets see how we can exploit this into benefiting the knowledgable arguer. for instance, you have landed a job and suddenly there is a US War on Iraq , say this is a country that you particulary hate. your boss reacts vehmently and violently towards those who have oppoosed of those attacks and are anti-war. lets use the "ad populum" against him and exploit his feelings.
well, first he would complain to someone seeing on who cares. thats an open chance, we can analyze this as a result for some one to converse with, or he's lookign for a friend of some kind. hmm....here's where we reverse. you automatically start argeeing with his reactions, and approving of everything he says, even though you despise it. automaticallly, you have reversed your way from simply a worker to one with same intellectual thought, although this seems like common sense, it automatically doesnt ring to a person when it is accomplished. notice we have breached another argument exploitation, feelings, but that will be later (in another essay) gotten into. now, say a person questions the boss's views and feelings, the boss will then AVOID this argument by introducing a different fact, a new persective that by arriving at the consequence of the attack on Iraq, the US has solved another solution., terrorist and the mass weapon threat on the world. The measly worker simply agrees with this solution, forgetting his original argument, but you have automatically seen your boss's character and can now easily exploit it.
now because you support his actions, you have won a specific respect for his views, even though you hate them -- the boss can start thinking of entrusting you with valuable objects, such as the safe or money handling ordeals.
unfortunately, this essay must end as i have an exam to start studying for, but please, give me some feedback and some strengths where I have missed something, soon enough I will show you how to use logical fallicies to counter argue everything.