This 18 minute (audio only) interview with Maria Konnikova, author of The Confidence Game, provides keen insight into the human psyche including how we fell for Wierwille's con game.
I first heard the interview on my local NPR radio station this evening.
Just listened to it. Good point about our "nature" is to trust others. Can't go through life otherwise very well, but we need to keep our wits about us and ask good questions when something sounds "too good to be true."
Just listened to it. Good point about our "nature" is to trust others. Can't go through life otherwise very well, but we need to keep our wits about us and ask good questions when something sounds "too good to be true."
Thanks for that audio link, Rocky – I look forward to reading Konnikova’s book in the near future. The thing about it being in our nature to trust is a fascinating point. We are social creatures and do have to rely on others for so many things - otherwise we would not even survive past infancy. But I think life is also about thriving not just surviving – because thriving is about growing…developing useful thinking skills among other things. I think surviving and thriving go hand in hand.
Survivingis important – like Twinky and Penworks were saying we need to be wise…cautious…having our BS detector engaged. The world can be dangerous…treacherous…and we will all experience some hardships at times. I am thankful for my mom, dad, siblings, wife, kids, friends, school teachers, mentors, co-workers, books, the arts, the Internet (which includes Grease Spot)…all that good stuff that is passed down or shared amongst us social creatures – because that helps us to survive and thrive. But on the flip side ...sort of relevant here…what about life in a cult? Group think? A “secret” society of social creatures no longer at large? To survive in the hive you must believe all that jive.
I do believe we are hardwired to interact with others but I was also fascinated by Konnikova’s point on how we want to think we deserve good things to happen to us or that we tend to overestimate our powers of discernment and like to think we know a good deal when we see one…I liked her idea of stepping back and looking at a situation as if it was about a third person - like it involved someone else and not me (so it’s not my ego at stake) – what would I say to that person if they asked me what I thought of some product or service. Having experience in security technology I’m familiar with playing the role of the bad guy in order to design a better defense system. A good BS detector may be sort of like that – Konnikova’s third person approach is playing the devil’s advocate in your own thought process – it’s having the bad guy tell you exactly why the design is not perfect.
By his own standards, vpw was certainly SINCERE. Then again, he was quite negative about sincerity. "After all, the guy who tries to sell you the toothbrush with one bristle on it, he's got to be sincere!" "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth!"
According to vpw, sincerity has neither a relation to truth, nor to reality.
Naturally, vpw was WRONG about that. The 2 big collegiate dictionaries in English in the US are the Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage. Their online versions have definitions of "sincere", and they're very different from what vpw said it meant.
1. Not feigned or affected; genuine:sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true:a sincere friend.
3. ArchaicPure; unadulterated.
================================
If one takes the homiletician as some sort of English expert (Why? His degree was in homiletics), then there's a contradiction. The experts say one thing, he says another. The obvious conclusion is that he was wrong-but his definition was definitely self-serving. It made it sound as if one could be "sincere" during dissimulation, while feigning it, while in pretense, with hypocrisy. That's the opposite of what it actually means. Then again, does this surprise anyone at this point?
By his own standards, vpw was certainly SINCERE. Then again, he was quite negative about sincerity. "After all, the guy who tries to sell you the toothbrush with one bristle on it, he's got to be sincere!" "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth!"
According to vpw, sincerity has neither a relation to truth, nor to reality.
Naturally, vpw was WRONG about that. The 2 big collegiate dictionaries in English in the US are the Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage. Their online versions have definitions of "sincere", and they're very different from what vpw said it meant.
1. Not feigned or affected; genuine:sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true:a sincere friend.
3. ArchaicPure; unadulterated.
================================
If one takes the homiletician as some sort of English expert (Why? His degree was in homiletics), then there's a contradiction. The experts say one thing, he says another. The obvious conclusion is that he was wrong-but his definition was definitely self-serving. It made it sound as if one could be "sincere" during dissimulation, while feigning it, while in pretense, with hypocrisy. That's the opposite of what it actually means. Then again, does this surprise anyone at this point?
Interesting points. However, I'm of the opinion that he was mostly disingenuous yet feigned sincerity to sell his con game... of course, he seems to have conned himself too.
Interesting points. However, I'm of the opinion that his was mostly disingenuous yet feigned sincerity to sell his con game... of course, he seems to have conned himself too.
Sincerity is no guarantee for truth, so approach that with caution. But when witnessing, we are to show enthusiasm, en Theos. God is involved there. Now we see.
Interesting points. However, I'm of the opinion that he was mostly disingenuous yet feigned sincerity to sell his con game... of course, he seems to have conned himself too.
Exactly.
He faked that "sincerity" could mean that you were faking-that is, that a "sincere" person could be FEIGNING sincerity and it counts as "sincere." He taught that all around. In real life, sincerity IS no guarantee of truth, but the sincere person at least THINKS what they hold forth is true. They may be honestly MISTAKEN, but there is no attempt to con, to fool, to defraud. vpw held to the opposite, that one attempting to defraud MUST be "sincere."
Benny Hill has made jokes on this subject, but vpw was serious. "The most important thing is sincerity. After you can fake that, you've got it made." -Benny Hill. "Always be sincere-even if you don't mean it. I would never knowingly tell a lie-unless it was absolutely convenient."- Benny Hill.
I think to answer the question is to be in his heart and judge accordingly. I am not qualified to answer the question in the title of this thread. I am qualified, we all are, to have suspicions based on the available evidence.
Here's mine:
Remember how Wierwille said he was in those theological cemeteries... errr, seminaries, and they talked him out of God's Word until he no longer believed the words "holy" or "bible" on the cover? (Honestly, why wouldn't he believe "bible"? But I digress).
I believe that is the last honest thing Wierwille said. Everything that comes after that moment is consistent with a con man using people's hunger and thirst for righteousness for his personal gain. EVERYTHING. Victor Paul Wierwille, in my opinion, was no more a Christian than I am today, no more confident in Genesis through Revelation than L. Ron Hubbard was in Dianetics. He sold a product he did not buy.
I think to answer the question is to be in his heart and judge accordingly. I am not qualified to answer the question in the title of this thread. I am qualified, we all are, to have suspicions based on the available evidence.
Here's mine:
Remember how Wierwille said he was in those theological cemeteries... errr, seminaries, and they talked him out of God's Word until he no longer believed the words "holy" or "bible" on the cover? (Honestly, why wouldn't he believe "bible"? But I digress).
I believe that is the last honest thing Wierwille said. Everything that comes after that moment is consistent with a con man using people's hunger and thirst for righteousness for his personal gain. EVERYTHING. Victor Paul Wierwille, in my opinion, was no more a Christian than I am today, no more confident in Genesis through Revelation than L. Ron Hubbard was in Dianetics. He sold a product he did not buy.
Recommended Posts
Twinky
Interesting article, Rocky.
...Be wise [cautious] as a serpent...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Just listened to it. Good point about our "nature" is to trust others. Can't go through life otherwise very well, but we need to keep our wits about us and ask good questions when something sounds "too good to be true."
Keep our B.S. detectors plugged in!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed... yet, easier said than done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for that audio link, Rocky – I look forward to reading Konnikova’s book in the near future. The thing about it being in our nature to trust is a fascinating point. We are social creatures and do have to rely on others for so many things - otherwise we would not even survive past infancy. But I think life is also about thriving not just surviving – because thriving is about growing…developing useful thinking skills among other things. I think surviving and thriving go hand in hand.
Surviving is important – like Twinky and Penworks were saying we need to be wise…cautious…having our BS detector engaged. The world can be dangerous…treacherous…and we will all experience some hardships at times. I am thankful for my mom, dad, siblings, wife, kids, friends, school teachers, mentors, co-workers, books, the arts, the Internet (which includes Grease Spot
)…all that good stuff that is passed down or shared amongst us social creatures – because that helps us to survive and thrive. But on the flip side ...sort of relevant here…what about life in a cult? Group think? A “secret” society of social creatures no longer at large? 
To survive in the hive you must believe all that jive.
I do believe we are hardwired to interact with others but I was also fascinated by Konnikova’s point on how we want to think we deserve good things to happen to us or that we tend to overestimate our powers of discernment and like to think we know a good deal when we see one…I liked her idea of stepping back and looking at a situation as if it was about a third person - like it involved someone else and not me (so it’s not my ego at stake) – what would I say to that person if they asked me what I thought of some product or service. Having experience in security technology I’m familiar with playing the role of the bad guy in order to design a better defense system. A good BS detector may be sort of like that – Konnikova’s third person approach is playing the devil’s advocate in your own thought process – it’s having the bad guy tell you exactly why the design is not perfect.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
By his own standards, vpw was certainly SINCERE. Then again, he was quite negative about sincerity. "After all, the guy who tries to sell you the toothbrush with one bristle on it, he's got to be sincere!" "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth!"
According to vpw, sincerity has neither a relation to truth, nor to reality.
Naturally, vpw was WRONG about that. The 2 big collegiate dictionaries in English in the US are the Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage. Their online versions have definitions of "sincere", and they're very different from what vpw said it meant.
=======================================
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sincere
a : free of dissimulation : honest a sincere interestb : free from adulteration : pure a sincere doctrine sincere wine
2 : marked by genuineness : true
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sincere
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Interesting points. However, I'm of the opinion that he was mostly disingenuous yet feigned sincerity to sell his con game... of course, he seems to have conned himself too.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Sincerity is no guarantee for truth, so approach that with caution. But when witnessing, we are to show enthusiasm, en Theos. God is involved there. Now we see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Exactly.
He faked that "sincerity" could mean that you were faking-that is, that a "sincere" person could be FEIGNING sincerity and it counts as "sincere." He taught that all around. In real life, sincerity IS no guarantee of truth, but the sincere person at least THINKS what they hold forth is true. They may be honestly MISTAKEN, but there is no attempt to con, to fool, to defraud. vpw held to the opposite, that one attempting to defraud MUST be "sincere."
Benny Hill has made jokes on this subject, but vpw was serious. "The most important thing is sincerity. After you can fake that, you've got it made." -Benny Hill. "Always be sincere-even if you don't mean it. I would never knowingly tell a lie-unless it was absolutely convenient."- Benny Hill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
i agree with Rocky...vpw is a cut way above typical con men....i think in his narcissistic little universe he really believed in his delusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In plain English...
I think to answer the question is to be in his heart and judge accordingly. I am not qualified to answer the question in the title of this thread. I am qualified, we all are, to have suspicions based on the available evidence.
Here's mine:
Remember how Wierwille said he was in those theological cemeteries... errr, seminaries, and they talked him out of God's Word until he no longer believed the words "holy" or "bible" on the cover? (Honestly, why wouldn't he believe "bible"? But I digress).
I believe that is the last honest thing Wierwille said. Everything that comes after that moment is consistent with a con man using people's hunger and thirst for righteousness for his personal gain. EVERYTHING. Victor Paul Wierwille, in my opinion, was no more a Christian than I am today, no more confident in Genesis through Revelation than L. Ron Hubbard was in Dianetics. He sold a product he did not buy.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Word!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.