Explicitly identifying the child mentioned by the seer as her own issue, Iokaste’s statement points to the fact that if Laios was killed by his child and if Oidipous killed Laios, then she is now married to her child and Oidipous to his mother. So intent is she upon refuting the prophecy, however, that she does not properly consider its implications. For all her intellectual acuity and thirst for independence (as must have also been true of the philosophers whose language she speaks), she makes the argument that prophecy is worthless without having tested its premisses with sufficient care and without allowing for sufficient time to pass. Her carelessness with respect to the proposition she means to challenge robs her own position of integrity; she is overconfident and her argument is no better than self-deception. The shortcomings of Iokaste’s argument indict contemporary public speakers of overconfidence, carelessness, and self-deception. [Md] [Mpea] [Gt-a]