Before I begin I’d like to provide some explanation regarding the site name. I chose natrocious and I know it isn’t a word. It might even be a stretch to call it a portmanteau. I chose the word as an expression of my exasperation with an individual who was a poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect. This person was certain that natrocious was in fact a word, and at that moment in my life the disagreement over the legitimacy of a word succinctly captured my growing frustration with the world. Not the world in its entirety but the segment whose genetics had endowed them with a fifty-fifty split of ignorance and certainty.
Natrocious reminds me of the danger these people present to the rest of the planet, and these persons will figure predominantly in a discussion of the law of probably. I shall call them the Natrocites, with the assumption that the opening paragraph provides enough detail to generate a mental image of someone you know who fits the description.
There is a difference between a stupid person and a Natrocite and the distinction is important. Stupid people are usually stupid because of circumstances beyond their control. Typically a combination of no education opportunities, shitty genetics, poor nutrition, and some sort of trauma. Sometimes stupid can be cured with a correction of one or more of the circumstances listed above.
Sadly though, we aren’t yet in possession of technology advanced enough to correct a genetic deficiency and so sometimes there’s fuck all that can be done to enhance some people’s mental acuity.
But I’m not talking about those people. I’m talking about Natrocites. Natrocites have made a choice to remain ignorant. In fact, they spend inordinate amounts of energy nurturing their ignorance. I don’t know why the Natrocites behave this way. Maybe their psyche is so fragile that any amendment to what they believe will crash their hard drive. There may be other reasons like naked ambition that I’m missing but I’m confident that Natrocites are terrified that change is going to facilitate their hard drive crash.
So, let’s look at a couple of examples of natrocites and the law of probably.
In and around the year of our lord 1500 there was a man named Copernicus. Copernicus is best known for his model of our solar system that placed the sun and not the earth at its center, but he was much more than an astronomer. He held a doctorate in canon law and was a physician, translator, diplomat and economist. In between sorting out the solar system he also found the time to develop a quantity and then a quality theory regarding money. The quality theory eventually became known as Gresham’s law.
The natrocites were probably the people staring at him and his books with fear and loathing, all the while venomously whispering, ” blasphemy.”
About 100 years prior to Copernicus there was a French woman named Christine de Pizan. She was an anomaly for her time. She wrote and published under her own name and she advocated for female education in “The Treasure of the City of Ladies,” and female historical significance in “The Book of the City of Ladies.”
The Natrocites were probably the people staring at her and her ink well while venomously whispering, “slut, harlot, witch.”
In both examples I’ve provided, the Natrocites possessed both the means and the opportunity to educate themselves to astronomy and perhaps take a moment to consider that women might actually be worth educating. But they chose instead to maintain their familiar status quo, not by ignoring but by attacking both science and an enlightened social opinion.
Because Natrocites hate it when facts and sensibility get in the way of their feelings.
The thoughts and writings of Copernicus were junk science and fake news according to the Vatican. The thoughts and writings of de Pizan were # me too education sacrilege to damn near everyone.
Turns out though that Copernicus and de Pizan were both right on the money. Call me crazy but I think some consideration should be given to the idea there’s an historical parallel and perhaps a lesson that’s applicable today.
But that idea won’t occur to the Natrocites because then they would need to change. They would have to shut down and reboot with a new operating system. Worst of all they would have to accept that their previous operating system was flawed.
And then of course there’s the self-service component. We all have a built in survival instinct that by its very nature is self serving. This instinct is amped up considerably in Natrocites.
I’ll elaborate.
Say a normal person and a Natrocite were to walk into a conference room. The purpose of this room is to introduce twenty new employee’s to one another. The normal person would listen to the names and titles and try and grasp how everyone was going to work together. The Natrocite would listen to the same information and mentally compose a list of who they need to attack, because those people are most likely to fuck them over and take their stuff.
As soon as the meeting was over, the Natrocite would then retreat to a private sanctum and begin to look for and invent flaws and shortcomings in the people they consider a threat.
Natrocites are remarkably adept at this process and in no time at all can convince themselves that their perceived competition are dickbags who deserve a good screwing over. Once free of any guilt or factual constraints the Natrocites get to work with backstabbing, conspiracy stories and office purges. In the right circumstances and unless they are forcefully stopped they evolve to organizing mass train rides and concentration camps.
Because they’re scared of something. They’re scared of change, they’re scared that people different from them have equal value and they’re scared of becoming irrelevant. I don’t know if the Natrocites appreciation for power is intellectual or intuitive. Either way they understand that having power means allowing only changes that provide them with benefit. To assist them in acquisition, Natrocites are fortunate to own a painfully low bar as far as ethics or truth are concerned. Alternative truth comes in handy in the pursuit of their # me me movement.
A few last thoughts on the law of probably.
If you can’t have a disagreement without vilifying your antagonist then you’re probably a Natrocite.
If you cannot under any circumstances admit you were wrong then you’re probably a Natrocite.
If you prefer to be stirred and not shaken then you are probably a Natrocite.
If you’re compelled to take something you don’t need because if you don’t then someone else will, then you’re probably a Natrocite.
If you can dismiss any reality you find disagreeable then you’re probably a Natrocite.
And I have to say that Natrocites are lazy fuckers. Cooperating and sharing is hard work. Compromising requires intellectual effort. Examining morality of motivation might require sacrifice and not lying to yourself might demand accepting an unfavorable assessment of your own importance.
But Natrocites would rather be perpetual pricks. It’s easier and it’s sustainable.