#1a) Self-proclaimed Experts: Despite the presence of someone else
with substantial education, years of expertise and even some level of acclaim
in the topic of discussion, people who repeatedly preface their objections and arguments
with phrases like "I don't understand why you just can't..." or "I don't even know what that means, but it seems to me like..."
Such admission of a total lack of qualifications should clearly negate the validity of such a person's argument, and
cause them to close their mouths, but that never seems to happen. That's not to
say that experts\authority should not be challenged, or that speculation does
not have a place, but one needs to be able to back it up with solid evidence or equally authoritative
opinion from another source, or be able to clearly demonstrate that room exists
for doubt in the conclusiveness of the actual expertise.
#1b) Actual experts in a
field who obtained their professional stature and acclaim by utilizing
methodology and emphasizing proof of concept, but upon reaching a pinnacle of
success abandon that methodology and start making pronouncements contrary to
the professional body of knowledge and actual documentation and evidence, and
prefaced such proclamations with statements such as "I think it unlikely that..."
Thinking something unlikely is a
proof of nothing. This is an illusion that frequently accompanies fame\notoriety, overconfidence, narcissism, and occasionally a Juris Doctorate.
Winning an argument doesn't make you right. It just means you are adept at arguing. Winning arguments
(outside of a court case or legal negotiation) is almost never a "likeable"
characteristic from the perspective of anyone other than yourself.
#2) A failure
to learn from one catastrophic error after another. (i.e., "compulsive stupidity
who retain the individuals exemplifying #1 in the same position of
responsibility for more than a single year.
#4) Drivers who need to come to a complete stop, before starting to turn
the steering wheel for a same-side-of-the-street turn onto a side street. Really?
People who simply cannot understand that a lack of substantiated evidence is simply
a failure to prove a hypothesis or
theory, not disproof of a
theory, premise, method, etc.
#6) This oft-repeated
motivational comment\justification: "You
have to increase the base of a pyramid to increase the peak." This statement demonstrates a complete
ignorance of geometry and an addiction to poorly-conceived cliches. Increasing
the base of the pyramid only flattens the angle of the sides. The peak only increases
in size, when the total proportionate area contained at the peak is also
enlarged. Adding at the bottom of a pyramid actually
decreases the percentage of the amounts at the peak relative to the whole.
The justification for adding to the base of the pyramid should just be that every amount helps, or that
additions at the base of the pyramid represent a brand new contribution to the whole, which in the case
of sales or donations might hopefully be cultivated to produce larger, future contributions.
People who presume to know your motivations without having ever spoken with you
about the relevant subject, or in some cases without having even met you.
This practice is called "imagination."
#8) Dogmatists: People who "know" the Truth, the absolute
truth, and nothing but the truth. ( Religious dogmatists
please see:1 Corinthians 8:2, John 1:10. Absolute knowledge is by
definition incompatible with the
concept of faith. Other dogmatists: Go away.)
#10) Squash (the gourd, not the
game). I think it is actually a really fat weed, but maybe during the Great
Depression, somebody got it reclassified as marginally edible, and afterwards, no
one ever got around to revising that classification.
(If you are wondering, only #10 was meant to be funny)