Oh dear, trouble's afoot at LH

[Lorax]

I was introduced to Hendrickson and his followers by an acquaintance that I happened to meet in my daily life and I just thought I would point out that while I think the theories at issue are ludicrous, the person I know seems like he's well educated and is well above average in terms of intelligence. The vast majority of people that post over at LH are clearly not very bright, or at least not well educated, but I just think it should be acknowledged that relatively smart and well educated people are being sucked into these theories in part because of their intense political hatred of the progressive income tax. This isn't to say that every smart person that hates the income tax will go down the rabbit hole; clearly this is not the case. I just feel the urge to point out that smart people can be seduced by very stupid ideas under the right conditions.

[Famspear]

I was introduced to Hendrickson and his followers by an acquaintance that I happened to meet in my daily life and I just thought I would point out that while I think the theories at issue are ludicrous, the person I know seems like he's well educated and is well above average in terms of intelligence.

I think that's a good point. Hendrickson is intelligent and, while we don't know much about his formal education, he appears to be the type of person who has read a lot on his own. I would argue that he has not used his ability in a positive, productive way, at least with respect to his obsession with the federal income tax.

.....it should be acknowledged that relatively smart and well educated people are being sucked into these theories in part because of their intense political hatred of the progressive income tax.

Another good point.

And hatred is an emotion. What these people are doing is allowing their strong emotions to overcome their ability to reason rationally.

This isn't to say that every smart person that hates the income tax will go down the rabbit hole; clearly this is not the case. I just feel the urge to point out that smart people can be seduced by very stupid ideas under the right conditions.

I agree.

[wserra]

And hatred is an emotion.

As is greed.

What these people are doing is allowing their strong emotions to overcome their ability to reason rationally.

How smart are people who allow their greed and hatred to switch off their intellects?

I can see hatred overcoming intellect in the truly extreme situations - the murder of your child, for example. But over money? And when your actions hurt the people whose wellbeing strong emotion should favor?

You're too kind.

[Imalawman]

And hatred is an emotion.

As is greed.

What these people are doing is allowing their strong emotions to overcome their ability to reason rationally.

How smart are people who allow their greed and hatred to switch off their intellects?

I can see hatred overcoming intellect in the truly extreme situations - the murder of your child, for example. But over money? And when your actions hurt the people whose wellbeing strong emotion should favor?

You're too kind.

Yeah, I agree. Come on, Fam and Lorax, the guy said that "includes" means "limited to". Used a withholding statute to argue wages aren't taxable. That's stupid. If he knew that he was hoodwinking his marks, then fine, I'll cede a certain level of intelligence. If he actually believed what he wrote, then he can't be that intelligent. You remember that board game he thought was the next greatest thing? Yeah, I wouldn't say he's the brightest bulb in the pack.

[Famspear]

And hatred is an emotion.

As is greed.

What these people are doing is allowing their strong emotions to overcome their ability to reason rationally.

How smart are people who allow their greed and hatred to switch off their intellects?

I can see hatred overcoming intellect in the truly extreme situations - the murder of your child, for example. But over money? And when your actions hurt the people whose wellbeing strong emotion should favor?

You're too kind.

Yeah, I agree. Come on, Fam and Lorax, the guy said that "includes" means "limited to". Used a withholding statute to argue wages aren't taxable. That's stupid. If he knew that he was hoodwinking his marks, then fine, I'll cede a certain level of intelligence. If he actually believed what he wrote, then he can't be that intelligent. You remember that board game he thought was the next greatest thing? Yeah, I wouldn't say he's the brightest bulb in the pack.

I don't think I'm being too kind to Hendrickson. I agree that it's not "smart" to switch off the logic and allow emotion to rule in the way Hendrickson has done. But I think we're talking about different kinds of "smart."

I believe Hendickson is highly intelligent. He may not have a lot of formal education. He is narcissistic. A narcissist may have knowledge that is broad among a variety of topics, but not very deep in most given topics. Many narcissists don't try very hard to develop real expertise, real depth, in a particular area of knowledge.

Hendrickson's blather -- such as his argument that "includes" somehow means "limited to" -- is not the result of honest mistake. He strains to reach the result he wants to reach.

In my view, that does not mean that he is not highly intelligent -- in the sense of having raw, brute intellectual capability. I contend Hendrickson is very intelligent, but that he has very, very strong negative emotions about certain things -- and he has allowed those emotions to overwhelm the part of his brain that would provide him with rational, logical thought processes -- in the area of politics and the federal income tax (he might be perfectly rational in some other area of knowledge, such as the subject of what it takes to run a video store or the subject of what it takes to maintain an apartment complex).

Narcissism has been defined as a mental condition characterized by an infantile, delusional belief that "one's self" is omnipotent (all powerful). This belief is not grounded in an acceptance of reality (the reality that the subject is not all powerful), but is rather grounded in some sort of emotion (for lack of a better term). A person who is delusional about his own ability may have a tendency not to "try very hard" to develop real depth of knowledge, real expertise, in a given field (such as, say, federal tax law).

Hendrickson has done an awful lot of "work" -- he's written an entire book -- about federal income tax. So he has done some work. But his "work" has been focused on trying to support a conclusion that he has pre-determined. That kind of work process is not an honest, intellectual search for truth. That kind of work process is an attempt to construct a mental "world," an imaginary "house" if you will, where the rules are just as Hendrickson wants them to be, and the result is just as he wants it to be.

Many narcissists are intellectually lazy. Why try hard, when you believe you are already all-powerful? In an extreme case (such as Hendrickson), this may manifest itself as: Why try to gain academic recognition or credentials or real specialized knowledge, when you already know it all?

While Hendrickson has done a lot of "work," his "work" -- his "construction" -- has resulted in a house of cards, not a real house. He claims it's a real house made of wood and brick, etc., but it's really just a house of cards. He claims it will withstand any wind. In reality, it can be blown down with a minor puff of air.

[Famspear]

Oh, and I would also point out that Hendrickson himself probably wouldn't think I'm being to kind to him.

Remember: I'm the one, a long time ago, who gave him the nickname "Blowhard Hendrickson."

It certainly seems to have caught on.

[Harvester]

There is a dramatic fall-off in traffic at LostHeads, meaning that people are already abandoning CtC and heading off for their next silver-bullet guru.

Pretty quickly, CtC will be as forgotten as Schiff's zero return.

Dream on Infidel Enslaver, we're cluing people into CtC truth every day. Remember, I'm now a lawful non-taxpayer with no issues. Hendrickson is correct re: the statutory meaning of the term 'includes' and no, it's not 'blather.' In the end you have only "the court disagrees" to hang your hats on (not to mention the 7 years and hoops the court jumped to get there). My question to you is . . when the tax truth is finally revealed, made apparent to the masses, will you concede anything to Hendrickson?

Everyone enjoying our economic recovery?

[Removed irrelevant URL]

[Imalawman]

Oh, and I would also point out that Hendrickson himself probably wouldn't think I'm being to kind to him.

Remember: I'm the one, a long time ago, who gave him the nickname "Blowhard Hendrickson."

It certainly seems to have caught on.

Well, I just disagree. I haven't seen anything from PH that evidences "high intelligence". Mental issues? Narcissism? Yes and yes. I look at people like F. Tupper Saussy (sp?) and his body of "work" - he evidenced some high brain power. Hendrickson? Not so much. His trial work shows his lack of intelligence. His briefs, which he wrote, were sloppy and stupid. I've listened to him talk on numerous occasions. My starbucks barrista could run circles around PH. I'm going to part ways with you on this one.

[wserra]

I believe Hendickson is highly intelligent.

Let's see what you cite in support of that conclusion. Correct me if I leave anything out.

Hendrickson has done an awful lot of "work" -- he's written an entire book -- about federal income tax.

True. So did Arthur Porth, Irwin Schiff, Bill Benson, Larken Rose, Lynne Meredith, Otto Skinner and others. Are they all "highly intelligent"?

And that's it. You don't cite anything else.

I'm-a with Ima. Fugediboudit.

[Famspear]

I admit that I cannot identify any data or cite anything to back up my assessment that Hendrickson is highly intelligent, except that he claims to be a member of "Mensa."

Candidates for membership of Mensa must achieve a score at or above the 98th percentile on a standard test of intelligence (a score that is greater than that achieved by 98 percent of the general population taking the test).

http://www.mensa.org/about-us

Assuming Pete is telling the truth about his membership in Mensa, that would be one tiny piece of data. By contrast, my tested IQ is high (almost exactly the same as that of the late Richard Feynman, the physicist), but not high enough for membership in Mensa.

However, my evaluation of Hendrickson is not really based on his claim about Mensa. My evaluation is subjective and is based on "intuition" (as the term "intuition" is used in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests) -- based on watching the videos of him and reading what he has written.

So, I can't really back up my opinion on this one.

[Famspear]

Oh, and I can offer no opinion about Arthur Porth (wow, one of the earliest tax protesters) or Bonita Lynne Meredith.

As far as Irwin Schiff, Bill Benson, Larken Rose, and Otto Skinner: Based on their writings and videos I have seen, I have never gotten the impression that these people are/were "highly intelligent."

Subjectively, I think Hendrickson is smarter than Schiff, Benson, Rose, or Skinner.

Buuuuuuut, I reiterate that I have no hard data.

EDIT: And let me just say that my observation that Hendrickson is smarter than Larken Rose obviously isn't saying a whole lot.

[wserra]

Assuming Pete is telling the truth about his membership in Mensa, that would be one tiny piece of data.

Tiny.

I went to a Mensa meeting once. I found an intensely self-congratulatory bunch of seriously boring people.

[Imalawman]

Assuming Pete is telling the truth

This is where you lost me.

[Nikki]

One of the few redeeming factors of Mensa is that its membership includes Lisa Simpson.

[Judge Roy Bean]

One of the few redeeming factors of Mensa is that its membership includes Lisa Simpson.

And Asia Carrera.

[Arthur Rubin]

I went to a Mensa meeting once. I found an intensely self-congratulatory bunch of seriously boring people.

I resemble that remark. However, it should be pointed out that, at least until 1990, over 3% of the population (would be) qualified on the basis of SAT scores alone. (It's scoring in the top 2% in some intelligence test; as tests and test scores vary, probably more than 2% of the population would be eligible.)

[LPC]

Assuming Pete is telling the truth about his membership in Mensa, that would be one tiny piece of data.

Tiny.

I went to a Mensa meeting once. I found an intensely self-congratulatory bunch of seriously boring people.

As others have pointed out, admission to Mensa is based on doing well on standardized tests. Standardized tests really only measure your ability to do well on standardized tests, and don't (perhaps can't) measure whether you are "smart" in any practical, meaningful way.

[Brandybuck]

I just feel the urge to point out that smart people can be seduced by very stupid ideas under the right conditions.

Oh certainly. Even those with good critical thinking skills get sucked into nuttery. It's how our brains are hardwired. It takes a conscious effort to examine one's beliefs to counter it.

[LPC]

And hatred is an emotion.

As is greed.

I wouldn't characterize greed as an emotion. Greed is more of a mindset, or character flaw, than a feeling like anger or hatred or contentment.

What these people are doing is allowing their strong emotions to overcome their ability to reason rationally.

How smart are people who allow their greed and hatred to switch off their intellects?

That depends on how you define "smart."

There are different kinds of intelligence. There is verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence, but there is also what might be called emotional intelligence, which is the ability to understand your own emotions and the emotions of others.

There is a psychological definition of "wisdom" based on three traits: cognitive, affective, and reflective. Cognitive is pure knowledge and reasoning ability, the ability to reason rationally. Affective is how we empathize with others. Reflective is our ability to see the "big picture" and view things objectively and dispassionately. I think that our ability to understand our own feelings and motivations would fall into the category of "reflective."

Hendrickson has a certain level of verbal ability, which is a form of cognitive ability, but in terms of self-awareness and his "reflective" abilities, as well as his compassion for other human beings, he's into the negative numbers, which means that for all practical purposes he's a dumb as a rock.

[Brandybuck]

My question to you is . . when the tax truth is finally revealed, made apparent to the masses, will you concede anything to Hendrickson?

Question: Is there anything, anything at all, that could possibly lead you to conclude that you might be wrong? The surest sign of delusion is the inability to contemplate being wrong. I myself can think of many things that would cause me to conceded. Such as Petey walking out of prison tomorrow with a big giant apology from the SCOTUS. Is there anything at all you can think of that might change your mind? Or have you become just a big unthinking sessile vegetable?