Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.
Knowledge should be humbling: the more you know, the more you should realize you don't know.
Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.
Think it's true on so many levels. The way I see it, is you can challange truth and it will stand no matter what. So even if I believe it to be true, it should still stand to fresh scrutiny no matter where and when that scrutiny pops up. There is a huge difference in how I am now and my former way brained self. With my former cultic based point of view any scrutiny was to be rejected. I used to think that I was able to actually debate points the way international taught but that wasn't really true. I would almost always cosider challenges to my beliefs an attack. We were schooled to do that in TWI. Slogans like truth needs no defence, and others, basically had me in a defensive posture towards any opposing points of view - they were all from the adversary doncha know...lol.
Currently there is nothing I won't put to the test. My beliefs, other's beliefs, it all needs to be challenged to determine if these things are so. We should welcome sunlight into our knowledge, ideas, beliefs, etc.
So even if I believe it to be true, it should still stand to fresh scrutiny no matter where and when that scrutiny pops up. There is a huge difference in how I am now and my former way brained self. With my former cultic based point of view any scrutiny was to be rejected.
The entire thread is pricelessly valuable. And I see your insight here as particularly insightful.
I'm reading Denver Riggleman's new book, The Breach. He is a former Member of Congress and a former religious cult member (his characterization of his experience in the LDS church). Chapter two THREE (Among the believers)in his book is an exquisite telling of him having challenged his religious beliefs and how he developed tangible skills to challenge certain cultic beliefs and actions.
I highly recommend the book. It's not simply a repackaging of current affairs reporting, btw.
The entire thread is pricelessly valuable. And I see your insight here as particularly insightful.
I'm reading Denver Riggleman's new book, The Breach. He is a former Member of Congress and a former religious cult member (his characterization of his experience in the LDS church). Chapter two in his book is an exquisite telling of him having challenged his religious beliefs and how he developed tangible skills to challenge certain cultic beliefs and actions.
I highly recommend the book. It's not simple a repackaging of current affairs reporting, btw.
This is an excellent topic, Twinky. Relevant to every forum from "Doctrinal" to "Doctors in Their Own Imaginations."
So much to comment on here, but I need to start with this, because it showed up in my feed yesterday. (Don't ya just love synchronicity.)
4 hours ago, OldSkool said:
I would almost always consider challenges to my beliefs an attack.
This video addresses this very point, OS.
It's a rather deep dive into cult indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. Lots of visual aids and charts. Informative and entertaining. Lots of answers to why and how this cult control could have ever happened. And I found it helpful in developing compassion for myself and others who have fallen into these traps.
According to this meme, an Eleventh Commandment of sorts, we should challenge everything we know.
At first, this meme seems like something worth knowing, it obviously is a fairly good idea.
Who here can hear this meme and know it?
Who here can then challenge this meme?
*/*/*/*/*
You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
Really? Always? No exceptions?
I do see some value to this meme, but "always" is a strong word.
Is there anyone here intelligent enough to challenge this meme?
The problem is, if you say "Sometimes you don't consider contrary evidence", then every single instance will be the exception, and you'll NEVER consider the evidence you don't like.
The truth will survive scrutiny. It can survive the fire when baser elements burn up.
Mike: According to this meme, an Eleventh Commandment of sorts, we should challenge everything we know.
Nope. Did you even read it? It doesn't say that at all. Where did you get THAT? It says we must be WILLING to CONSIDER evidence and WILLING to ADMIT we are wrong based on the evidence. It says that intelligence is the ABILITY to challenge everything we know.
At first, this meme seems like something worth knowing, it obviously is a fairly good idea.
Who here can hear this meme and know it?
Who here can then challenge this meme?
*/*/*/*/*
Mike: You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
Really? Always? No exceptions?
Fair point. You should only be willing to consider EVIDENCE if you are interested in following it to the truth, whatever that might be. If you only want to confirm your bias and beliefs, ignore the EVIDENCE contradicting them.
Mike: I do see some value to this meme, but "always" is a strong word.
Is there anyone here intelligent enough to challenge this meme?
The meme isn't about what to know, but HOW to know. I used to be stupid enough to challenge this meme, but that was a very, very long time ago. I have since put away those childish things.
The entire thread is pricelessly valuable. And I see your insight here as particularly insightful.
I'm reading Denver Riggleman's new book, The Breach. He is a former Member of Congress and a former religious cult member (his characterization of his experience in the LDS church). Chapter two in his book is an exquisite telling of him having challenged his religious beliefs and how he developed tangible skills to challenge certain cultic beliefs and actions.
I highly recommend the book. It's not simply a repackaging of current affairs reporting, btw.
Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.
45 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:
This is an excellent topic, Twinky. Relevant to every forum from "Doctrinal" to "Doctors in Their Own Imaginations."
So much to comment on here, but I need to start with this, because it showed up in my feed yesterday. (Don't ya just love synchronicity.)
This video addresses this very point, OS.
It's a rather deep dive into cult indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. Lots of visual aids and charts. Informative and entertaining. Lots of answers to why and how this cult control could have ever happened. And I found it helpful in developing compassion for myself and others who have fallen into these traps.
Twinky and Nathan_Jr great posts!!!!!!
I shared this hyperlink on the Determinism / Free will thread – and it’s relevant here too…the following excerpts from online articles are within the first hyperlink on how to spot pseudoscience…
The first thing we need to understand about pseudoscience is what is actual science. There are multiple definitions of science, but I like the one from the science council:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
What is important here is that science is not a thing it is a process. Science is the process by which we investigate the world around us and draw conclusions about how the world works.
The empirical literature has shown that compliance and suggestibility are negatively related to intelligence (e.g., Gudjonsson, 1991). In consumer psychology, there is even a technique called ‘disrupt-then-reframe’: bamboozle people first and they’ll be more likely to buy what you’re selling (Davis & Knowles, 1999)
The framing effect is when our decisions are influenced by the way information is presented. Equivalent information can be more or less attractive depending on what features are highlighted.
I shared this hyperlink on the Determinism / Free will thread – and it’s relevant here too…the following excerpts from online articles are within the first hyperlink on how to spot pseudoscience…
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
What is important here is that science is not a thing it is a process.
Indeed.
But not according to Mike. He asserts an opinionated claim that science is a religion. You can find Mike on Facebook, midst all the facts, truth and confirmed bias.
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Sounds like you need a Bull-Shonta Governor
They’re inexpensive and easy to install
In the artist’s depiction below of how we think the Bull-Shonta Governor would work, if you can believe it:
By adjusting the # 10 thingy you can reduce or increase the fuel supply (the amount of Bull-Shonta), parts 1 through 7 and parts 11 through 13 are explained in the Advanced Class - for serious operators – and there’s a minimum required donation of ¾ of your cognitive skills. Part # 8 we’re not sure of but we think it’s the tension between the 5 senses and revelation faith.
On the back of the box that the Bull-Shonta Governor Kitcomes in, is a visual aid of what the Bull-Shonta Governor Kit should look like if installed properly:
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Sounds like you need a Bull-Shonta Governor
There’re inexpensive and easy to install
In the artist’s depiction below of how we think the Bull-Shonta Governor would work, if you can believe it:
By adjusting the # 10 thingy you can reduce or increase the fuel supply (the amount of Bull-Shonta), parts 1 through 7 and parts 11 through 13 are explained in the Advanced Class - for serious operators – and there’s a minimum required donation of ¾ of your cognitive skills. Part # 8 we’re not sure of but we think it’s the tension between the 5 senses and revelation faith.
On the back of the box that the Bull-Shonta Governor Kitcomes in, is a visual aid of what the Bull-Shonta Governor Kit should look like if installed properly:
The older I get, the less I seem to know. And yet, surprisingly, the wiser I get.
We can get far too hung up on always being right. Relax a little. Take the pressure of "always being right" off. Permit yourself to be wrong, or to not know. Explore, and allow yourself to be interested, maybe intrigued, maybe surprised, by what you find.
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Sounds like you need a Bull-Shonta Governor
They’re inexpensive and easy to install
In the artist’s depiction below of how we think the Bull-Shonta Governor would work, if you can believe it:
By adjusting the # 10 thingy you can reduce or increase the fuel supply (the amount of Bull-Shonta), parts 1 through 7 and parts 11 through 13 are explained in the Advanced Class - for serious operators – and there’s a minimum required donation of ¾ of your cognitive skills. Part # 8 we’re not sure of but we think it’s the tension between the 5 senses and revelation faith.
On the back of the box that the Bull-Shonta Governor Kitcomes in, is a visual aid of what the Bull-Shonta Governor Kit should look like if installed properly:
You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
That's what the legal system is all about. Challenging one person's version of events against another's version, looking at different versions. Everyone gives it their best shot. Eventually, a conclusion is reached based on all the known, established, facts. The conclusion will likely disappoint at least one party.
Sometimes, later facts come to light, such as DNA evidence that exonerates a perpetrator when such evidence was previously not available. Or a principal witness confesses to having lied. Or the missing person or object turns up. Etc, etc.
Mike, would you suggest that such evidence should not be considered? And the previous conclusion (even though based on best available evidence) voided, if later evidence points to a different conclusion? (That's a rhetorical question; I don't expect - and don't want - an answer, though I'd be very concerned if your answer was not, "Yes, of course the later evidence should be considered.")
How many of us once believed in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or the monster under the bed? We matured enough to challenge those beliefs.
How many of us once believed our parents couldn't do anything wrong, or would never tell lies? Or maybe that our teachers at school hated us? And later evidence shows us that our parents do do wrong things and do tell lies (even "white lies"), And that, far from hating you, the schoolteacher was really pushing you to do your homework because ultimately it helped you get good exam grades.
If you did any tertiary education (university, college, apprenticeship), did you change your mind about anything, when you learned the reasons why such an activity was done in such a particular way? Did study enable you to enunciate your intuitions and beliefs even better, or to know that the "something" you always thought was there - was in fact there?
We accept, expect, believe, that professional people are qualified and competent to do their jobs: doctor, dentist, surgeon, accountant, lawyer, bus driver, automotive technician, builder, electrician, etc. There's a rigorous certification process. And if it's thought that the professional may be lacking in competence, the certification is reviewed and may be rescinded.
We accept many of our morals, norms and beliefs from our parents and peers. It becomes our "culture." If we move to a different "culture," (say another country, another state, sometimes just another line of work) do our beliefs change? Or stay the same? Do you expect immigrants to your area/country to stay the same, or to "assimilate" - to acquire the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why? If you were to emigrate to another area/country, would you expect to assimllate the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why not? Why do they do something differently?
Would you look with open eyes to see what that new environment did differently (whether better or worse or just differently) from what you already knew, and try to include the best of what you saw? Or would you just close your eyes and refuse anything other than what you already knew?
We continually learn to challenge what we know, from being a baby, a toddler, a disgruntled teenager, ain ambitious adult. It's only fear that keeps us from challenging what we know: the fear of being wrong, of losing face or reputation, of people thinking less of us. Good friends will challenge us gently. Enemies and bullies will challenge aggressively and rudely.
Perversely, however, the vulnerability of saying "I was wrong" enhances one's reputation in the long term.
And don't forget: there are ways to challenge the bully about his/her own rudeness and behaviour (which is done out of his/her own arrogance, that is, fear of losing face).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
7
18
Popular Days
Nov 15
36
Nov 14
23
Dec 19
13
Nov 16
3
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 8 posts
Twinky 15 posts
OldSkool 7 posts
Nathan_Jr 18 posts
Popular Days
Nov 15 2022
36 posts
Nov 14 2022
23 posts
Dec 19 2022
13 posts
Nov 16 2022
3 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.
Twinky
@OldSkool : I was terrified, too. Embarrassing how afraid of people I had become. Oh really ... what kind of "Christian" organisation leaves people full of fear? Took years to "escape" from myself
Twinky
OldSkool, what a very honest post. I would never have thought you'd've been fearful. Bravo for facing reality and moving on. I do think that a large part of the value of GSC nowadays is trying
So_crates
Knowledge should be humbling: the more you know, the more you should realize you don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Reminds me of that quote:
“You know, everybody's ignorant, just on different subjects.”
― Will Rogers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
According to this meme, an Eleventh Commandment of sorts, we should challenge everything we know.
At first, this meme seems like something worth knowing, it obviously is a fairly good idea.
Who here can hear this meme and know it?
Who here can then challenge this meme?
*/*/*/*/*
You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
Really? Always? No exceptions?
I do see some value to this meme, but "always" is a strong word.
Is there anyone here intelligent enough to challenge this meme?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
On the positive side, everybody's a genius about something.
...maybe not the best things...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Think it's true on so many levels. The way I see it, is you can challange truth and it will stand no matter what. So even if I believe it to be true, it should still stand to fresh scrutiny no matter where and when that scrutiny pops up. There is a huge difference in how I am now and my former way brained self. With my former cultic based point of view any scrutiny was to be rejected. I used to think that I was able to actually debate points the way international taught but that wasn't really true. I would almost always cosider challenges to my beliefs an attack. We were schooled to do that in TWI. Slogans like truth needs no defence, and others, basically had me in a defensive posture towards any opposing points of view - they were all from the adversary doncha know...lol.
Currently there is nothing I won't put to the test. My beliefs, other's beliefs, it all needs to be challenged to determine if these things are so. We should welcome sunlight into our knowledge, ideas, beliefs, etc.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The entire thread is pricelessly valuable. And I see your insight here as particularly insightful.
I'm reading Denver Riggleman's new book, The Breach. He is a former Member of Congress and a former religious cult member (his characterization of his experience in the LDS church). Chapter
twoTHREE (Among the believers)in his book is an exquisite telling of him having challenged his religious beliefs and how he developed tangible skills to challenge certain cultic beliefs and actions.I highly recommend the book. It's not simply a repackaging of current affairs reporting, btw.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks!! Ill follow the link and give it a go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is an excellent topic, Twinky. Relevant to every forum from "Doctrinal" to "Doctors in Their Own Imaginations."
So much to comment on here, but I need to start with this, because it showed up in my feed yesterday. (Don't ya just love synchronicity.)
This video addresses this very point, OS.
It's a rather deep dive into cult indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. Lots of visual aids and charts. Informative and entertaining. Lots of answers to why and how this cult control could have ever happened. And I found it helpful in developing compassion for myself and others who have fallen into these traps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The problem is, if you say "Sometimes you don't consider contrary evidence", then every single instance will be the exception, and you'll NEVER consider the evidence you don't like.
The truth will survive scrutiny. It can survive the fire when baser elements burn up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mike: According to this meme, an Eleventh Commandment of sorts, we should challenge everything we know.
Nope. Did you even read it? It doesn't say that at all. Where did you get THAT? It says we must be WILLING to CONSIDER evidence and WILLING to ADMIT we are wrong based on the evidence. It says that intelligence is the ABILITY to challenge everything we know.
At first, this meme seems like something worth knowing, it obviously is a fairly good idea.
Who here can hear this meme and know it?
Who here can then challenge this meme?
*/*/*/*/*
Mike: You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
Really? Always? No exceptions?
Fair point. You should only be willing to consider EVIDENCE if you are interested in following it to the truth, whatever that might be. If you only want to confirm your bias and beliefs, ignore the EVIDENCE contradicting them.
Mike: I do see some value to this meme, but "always" is a strong word.
Is there anyone here intelligent enough to challenge this meme?
The meme isn't about what to know, but HOW to know. I used to be stupid enough to challenge this meme, but that was a very, very long time ago. I have since put away those childish things.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This looks good, Rocky. Thanks. Adding...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to challenging THAT hypothesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Everybody is a genius about something? EVERYBODY?? Hardly.
Not EVEN a hypothesis. It's merely an asserted claim of imagination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Everybody can at least THINK they're a genius about SOMETHING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Twinky and Nathan_Jr great posts!!!!!!
I shared this hyperlink on the Determinism / Free will thread – and it’s relevant here too…the following excerpts from online articles are within the first hyperlink on how to spot pseudoscience…
The first thing we need to understand about pseudoscience is what is actual science. There are multiple definitions of science, but I like the one from the science council:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
What is important here is that science is not a thing it is a process. Science is the process by which we investigate the world around us and draw conclusions about how the world works.
From: https://jamesrubinstein.medium.com/how-to-spot-pseudoscience-on-the-internet-a-case-study-with-masks-5f5dc14e8cfd
~ ~ ~ ~
The empirical literature has shown that compliance and suggestibility are negatively related to intelligence (e.g., Gudjonsson, 1991). In consumer psychology, there is even a technique called ‘disrupt-then-reframe’: bamboozle people first and they’ll be more likely to buy what you’re selling (Davis & Knowles, 1999)
From: https://thecritic.co.uk/face-masks-make-you-stupid/
~ ~ ~ ~
What is the Framing Effect?
The framing effect is when our decisions are influenced by the way information is presented. Equivalent information can be more or less attractive depending on what features are highlighted.
From: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Indeed.
But not according to Mike. He asserts an opinionated claim that science is a religion. You can find Mike on Facebook, midst all the facts, truth and confirmed bias.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Didn't realize you posted this before, or maybe I forgot. So much bullshonta sometimes, it's hard to remember where and when the snow fell. Need to renew my mind.
Sounds like you need a Bull-Shonta Governor
They’re inexpensive and easy to install
In the artist’s depiction below of how we think the Bull-Shonta Governor would work, if you can believe it:
By adjusting the # 10 thingy you can reduce or increase the fuel supply (the amount of Bull-Shonta), parts 1 through 7 and parts 11 through 13 are explained in the Advanced Class - for serious operators – and there’s a minimum required donation of ¾ of your cognitive skills. Part # 8 we’re not sure of but we think it’s the tension between the 5 senses and revelation faith.
On the back of the box that the Bull-Shonta Governor Kit comes in, is a visual aid of what the Bull-Shonta Governor Kit should look like if installed properly:
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Brilliant! Among your best work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
The older I get, the less I seem to know. And yet, surprisingly, the wiser I get.
We can get far too hung up on always being right. Relax a little. Take the pressure of "always being right" off. Permit yourself to be wrong, or to not know. Explore, and allow yourself to be interested, maybe intrigued, maybe surprised, by what you find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Absolute gene-yuse!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
That's what the legal system is all about. Challenging one person's version of events against another's version, looking at different versions. Everyone gives it their best shot. Eventually, a conclusion is reached based on all the known, established, facts. The conclusion will likely disappoint at least one party.
Sometimes, later facts come to light, such as DNA evidence that exonerates a perpetrator when such evidence was previously not available. Or a principal witness confesses to having lied. Or the missing person or object turns up. Etc, etc.
Mike, would you suggest that such evidence should not be considered? And the previous conclusion (even though based on best available evidence) voided, if later evidence points to a different conclusion? (That's a rhetorical question; I don't expect - and don't want - an answer, though I'd be very concerned if your answer was not, "Yes, of course the later evidence should be considered.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
How many of us once believed in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or the monster under the bed? We matured enough to challenge those beliefs.
How many of us once believed our parents couldn't do anything wrong, or would never tell lies? Or maybe that our teachers at school hated us? And later evidence shows us that our parents do do wrong things and do tell lies (even "white lies"), And that, far from hating you, the schoolteacher was really pushing you to do your homework because ultimately it helped you get good exam grades.
If you did any tertiary education (university, college, apprenticeship), did you change your mind about anything, when you learned the reasons why such an activity was done in such a particular way? Did study enable you to enunciate your intuitions and beliefs even better, or to know that the "something" you always thought was there - was in fact there?
We accept, expect, believe, that professional people are qualified and competent to do their jobs: doctor, dentist, surgeon, accountant, lawyer, bus driver, automotive technician, builder, electrician, etc. There's a rigorous certification process. And if it's thought that the professional may be lacking in competence, the certification is reviewed and may be rescinded.
We accept many of our morals, norms and beliefs from our parents and peers. It becomes our "culture." If we move to a different "culture," (say another country, another state, sometimes just another line of work) do our beliefs change? Or stay the same? Do you expect immigrants to your area/country to stay the same, or to "assimilate" - to acquire the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why? If you were to emigrate to another area/country, would you expect to assimllate the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why not? Why do they do something differently?
Would you look with open eyes to see what that new environment did differently (whether better or worse or just differently) from what you already knew, and try to include the best of what you saw? Or would you just close your eyes and refuse anything other than what you already knew?
We continually learn to challenge what we know, from being a baby, a toddler, a disgruntled teenager, ain ambitious adult. It's only fear that keeps us from challenging what we know: the fear of being wrong, of losing face or reputation, of people thinking less of us. Good friends will challenge us gently. Enemies and bullies will challenge aggressively and rudely.
Perversely, however, the vulnerability of saying "I was wrong" enhances one's reputation in the long term.
And don't forget: there are ways to challenge the bully about his/her own rudeness and behaviour (which is done out of his/her own arrogance, that is, fear of losing face).
Edited by TwinkyLink 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.