Sogol

 Caino hypocriens typically thinks using the opposite of logic, which I have decided to call sogol. Sogol is running a train of thought in reverse. You start at the conclusion and lay track behind the train until it backs up into something that justifies the conclusion. 

 (Some say that pales and darks are different species. The world isn't that kind. Timeocratic man and Democratic man are different species. Golden age men and silver age men are different species. This analysis may not apply to higher species of Caino.) 

 Sogol is immediately detectable by anyone logical, assuming only that they think to check. 

 "It's not hot outside, therefore the thermometer shows a low temperature." (He's inside and doesn't even have a window.) Having laid track to the premise, he backs the train up and pretends he started there. "I believe it's cold because I read the thermometer."

 Logic is defined by curiosity about conclusions.
 Sogol is defined by prefabrication of premises.  

 Finding the temperature by reading the thermometer, as contrasted with finding the thermometer reading by deciding the temperature in advance. A logical mind can learn, grow, change. A sogical mind is stale and trapped. They might win parochial political battles but they always lose the war.

 "I'm a good person, therefore I can't have done anything bad." "I can't have done anything bad, therefore I'm perfect." (Voila, Pride.) Perfectly sogical. 

 In sogol, circular reasoning is a feature, not a bug. It means you have two fixed conclusions which both imply each other - difficult to get any grit into those gears! As long as the full chain of reasoning stretches beyond typical inferential horizons, it works great. The only invalid move in sogol is one that doesn't lead to the intended prejudice. 

 "Anyone suggesting I'm imperfect disproves the idea that I'm a good person, which is mean." Then, at this point, they prove they're capable of using logic, they simply don't care to: "Only a bad person would do a mean thing, therefore you're a bad person." 

 You might think sogol is about affirming the consequent, but it works precisely because it superficially appears logical. The premise they assert really is necessary for their fixed conclusion, as far as they know.

 The capacity for logic is a necessary pre-requisite for the use of sogol. They don't pick random justifications. If the premises weren't obviously invalid the arguments would in fact be sound.  

 Sogol always gives off a distinct stench of [can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep]. The conclusions can't change, only the reasons proving those conclusions. If neither could change, or if the premises didn't imply the conclusions, they would look crazy or plain stupid. However, as you disprove premises, they can confabulate an endless parade of new premises which justify the pre-conceived conclusions. "I went and looked at the thermometer, and it shows a high reading." "Oh well the thermometer must be broken." (Popper was right.) "I'm outside right now, and sweating buckets." "Weird hormonal disorder you have there." "You're here and sweating too." "Are you blind? *wipes forehead* No I'm not."

 "I'm not a racist, therefore I would never be mean to someone considered brown." The adversary of this person can then use sogol to re-define what 'mean' means until the anti-racist is doing whatever they want. 

 "Darks only perform poorly in school due to pale oppression, therefore they must have the same IQs as pales." Perfectly sogical. 

 "I want to eat, therefore I must be hungry." 

 "I want/believe X, therefore X must be justifiable." 

 Originally dogmatists were simply those who believed truths were knowable.
 Originally skeptics were simply those who believed beliefs were unknowable.
How did [dogma] become the insult, and [skeptic] the praise? Sogicians behave dogmatically. Logicians behave skeptically. Sogicians confidently trust their conclusions and that premises can be found to support them. Logicians trust instead in premises, distrusting conclusions unless it's necessary to continue trusting premises.

 Sogol is comfortable.
 Growth hurts.

 The lesser purpose of studying sogol is to learn to recognize and disregard sogol faster.

 The greater purpose is to focus even harder on logic. Knowledge really is power; the easier it is to pursue logic, the easier it is to become intensely vital. 

 Stupid details section: Logical premises are themselves conclusions, and need to be further justified by antecedent premises. You do, however, eventually run into things which can't reasonably be doubted or mistaken. Normally sogolists don't blatantly lie as with sweaty guy above. It might be clumsy but there's always some form of plausible deniability. From these bedrock premises a logician can build a solid foundation, supporting a soaring structure limited only by their skill with logic. 

 I've met many who have literally never tried logic the right way around and don't know what it's like.