Since you asked me to, I decided to try it out, MG. I'm using the tool that you say is a "worthy contributor a to discussion."
Here's A.I.'s response when I asked about the predicted trustworthiness of someone who would choose to post under moniker 'Mental Gymnast.'
It is kinda funny. What do you think, MG?The term "mental gymnast" is typically used pejoratively to describe someone who engages in convoluted or overly complex reasoning to defend a position or argument that might be inherently weak or flawed. This often involves using elaborate, often misleading, rhetorical maneuvers to justify a point, much like how a gymnast performs complex physical maneuvers. The negative connotation of the term suggests intellectual dishonesty or the prioritization of winning an argument over seeking the truth. Therefore, if someone self-identifies as a "mental gymnast," it raises questions about their commitment to honest discourse and the soundness of their arguments. Here are several reasons why such a self-identification might lead to distrust:
1. Implied Intellectual Dishonesty
The primary concern with someone calling themselves a "mental gymnast" is the implication of intellectual dishonesty. Mental gymnastics often involves twisting facts, employing logical fallacies, or cherry-picking evidence to support a preconceived notion. This kind of behavior undermines trust because it suggests that the individual is more interested in manipulating information to fit their agenda rather than engaging in a fair and truthful exploration of ideas. Trust is foundational in any discourse, and the admission of being a "mental gymnast" can indicate a predisposition towards deception and manipulation.
2. Complexity Over Clarity
Another reason for distrust is the preference for complexity over clarity. The essence of good argumentation and communication is to present ideas as clearly and straightforwardly as possible. By contrast, mental gymnastics often involve obfuscation—making arguments so complex and convoluted that they become difficult to follow. This can be a deliberate tactic to confuse the audience or to hide the weaknesses in one's position. If someone prides themselves on being a "mental gymnast," it suggests they might deliberately complicate matters to avoid scrutiny, which is antithetical to genuine intellectual engagement.
3. Avoidance of Logical Consistency
Logical consistency is a cornerstone of reliable reasoning and argumentation. Mental gymnastics often involve shifting goalposts, applying double standards, and other forms of logical inconsistency to maintain a particular stance. If someone identifies as a "mental gymnast," it signals that they might not adhere to consistent principles or logic, instead bending rules as needed to support their arguments. This lack of consistency erodes trust because it indicates that their arguments are not grounded in stable, reliable reasoning.
4. Evasion of Genuine Engagement
Engaging in mental gymnastics often means avoiding genuine engagement with counterarguments. Instead of addressing objections head-on, a mental gymnast might deflect, distract, or create straw man arguments. This evasion is problematic because productive discourse relies on the honest and direct engagement of differing perspectives. If someone admits to being a mental gymnast, it suggests they might habitually avoid substantive engagement, opting instead for rhetorical tricks to sidestep challenges. This behavior undermines the possibility of reaching mutual understanding or truth.
5. Perception of Ego and Arrogance
Self-identifying as a "mental gymnast" can also be perceived as a form of intellectual arrogance. It implies a sense of superiority over others in terms of one's ability to navigate and manipulate complex arguments. This perceived arrogance can be off-putting and can lead to distrust because it suggests the individual places their ego above the integrity of the discourse. Moreover, this attitude can alienate others, creating an adversarial rather than collaborative environment for discussion.
6. Erosion of Credibility
Credibility is crucial in any form of argumentation or discussion. By admitting to engaging in mental gymnastics, an individual essentially admits to a lack of intellectual rigor and honesty. This admission can significantly damage their credibility, as it suggests that their arguments cannot be taken at face value and must be scrutinized for hidden flaws and manipulations. Trustworthy communication relies on the presumption that individuals are presenting their arguments in good faith; self-identifying as a mental gymnast undermines this presumption.
7. Promotion of Relativism
Mental gymnastics often thrive on relativism—the idea that truth can be bent and shaped according to one's needs. This approach undermines the objective search for truth and can lead to a form of moral and intellectual relativism where all viewpoints are seen as equally valid, regardless of their factual or logical foundation. This relativism can be deeply unsettling in serious discourse because it implies that there are no stable truths or standards. If someone prides themselves on being a mental gymnast, it suggests they might subscribe to this form of relativism, further eroding trust in their arguments.
Conclusion
In summary, the term "mental gymnast" carries a strong negative connotation that implies intellectual dishonesty, a preference for complexity over clarity, logical inconsistency, evasion of genuine engagement, perceived arrogance, erosion of credibility, and promotion of relativism. These traits are antithetical to the principles of honest and rigorous discourse. Therefore, if someone self-identifies as a "mental gymnast," it raises significant concerns about their trustworthiness and the reliability of their arguments. Trust in communication relies on the expectation of good faith and intellectual honesty, both of which are called into question by the admission of engaging in mental gymnastics.
For what it's worth, my reaction is still meh. For obvious reasons, I still think it's insulting to quote A.I. as a credible source in a general discussion with another human being.
