Mission Accomplished: Jonathan Krohn is no longer a hoax

A few years back, me here at S&MD demonstrated that Jonathan Krohn is hoax. See the studies posted here and here. Well, according to both Politco and Huffingtonpost, Krohn yielded to the moral pressure exerted by my campaign. Granted, he is saving face by referring to his hoax as a matter of “naive[ness]”. But I’m still pleased.

This also verifies my conditional claim, expounded in the second study above: If Jonathan is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome. Since Krohn is a hoax, the anti-cedent of my conditional is false. Now, it is an axiom of human rationality that if the anti-cedent of a conditional statement is false, then the conditional as a whole is true. So: my statement has now been empirically verified.

If Jonathan Krohn is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome

chatterboxkrohn1

Many of you have by now read the New York Times article about Jonathan Krohn. For his sting operation against the Republicans as a deep cover liberal, the timing couldn’t have been more perfect. Just after I (the first one!) break the story that he is a hoax, he gets a major credibility boost from the newspaper of record. I’m not too concerned, however; as Martin Eisenstadt has shown, official news organizations are not immune from being fooled in this manner.

The only arguments I’ve seen that he is not a hoax are extremely thin. For example, some lady named “Kate,” probably herself a fraud (her one identifying feature turns out to be false), thinks that because he is an actor, he must therefore not be a political hoax. Have you ever heard such an absurd argument? This Kate person thinks that being an actor makes it less likely that someone is acting. I’ve heard a lot of idiotic arguments (mostly in favor of Dark Matter), but this one might top them all. Kate, if you’re out there, the only thing maintaining my faith in humanity is my knowledge that you, like Mr. Krohn, are not being genuine.

To return to my major thesis: Jonathan Krohn’s rhetoric is vastly too empty for him to be legitimate. If he really was a “prodigy,” this would mean that his content would be above the level of a twelve year old, not just his speaking skills -his form, if you will. This makes me think of one thing: Chatterbox Syndrome, more technically called Williams’ Syndrome (to me the word “chatterbox”  sounds more technical than “William,” but since when has scientific nomenclature made any sense whatsoever?). Anyway, his words are virtually empty. They are rough, but slightly garbled, parrots of Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest. Plus, this Krohn kid talks way too fast, is way too cheerful, and way too likable by the people he encounters. These are the exact symptoms of Chatterbox Syndrome. Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. It’s in the official dictionary of neuropsychology, under “cocktail party syndrome,” yet another one of its names.

Anyway, it’s really the complete utter lack of information in his words that clinches it for me. “Kate” said that his ideas are his own, but this begs the obvious question: What ideas? His ideas are non-existent, not to mention his factual knowledge. Of course this clincher comes with several lesser supports, such as they fact that he is an actor, and that his alleged book does not actually exist.

All I can say is, if he is not a hoax (unlikely), then his parents and other handlers should be ashamed of themselves for letting the poor boy continue to publicly humiliate himself with empty nonsense platitudes, as he does.

If he is serious, and does not have Chatterbox Syndrome, then I am at a loss. Perhaps he is the first known case of some other neurological disorder. What shall we call it? Krohn’s Disease.