So what they do with written materials, such as her book, is send it through President's Publications and Way Publications. President's pub would do more of a developmental edit, where Way Publications would do the copy editing/proofreading stages of the publication process. Pres. and Way Pub BOTH check everything that is written against all their other works as needed and make dang sure that what they are publishing doesn't contradict that narrative. However, in the case of the way international they have to keep the narrative tight and in-tact. Otherwise, the skeletons fall out of the closet we will all know where the figurative bodies are buried. It's deep seated dishonesty that drives them and they have to follow the narrative, cause, well....that's really all they have left.
Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative.
Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally,
For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that?
Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources.
In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies.
Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.
Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative.
Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally,
For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that?
Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources.
In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies.
Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.
Excellent points, Twinky!! Amen.
To your point, for many years, I subscribed to and read BOTH the WSJ and NYT. Though I recently let those subscriptions lapse, I still try to hear/read multiple POVs. In fact, I do watch the BBC when I watch the news, but also the crazy on Fox and the crazy on MSNBC. So much bullshonta everywhere. Literally. Bullshonta. Everywhere.
Listening to each other is so important. It seems very few know how to do that anymore. Just listen. Try to understand. You don't have to agree, but you might learn something.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
Awesome post!!
A resounding NO to the first three questions.
A big reason I started questioning all things TWI was I'd been lurking here for at least 5 years before facing my fears and posting here myself. I was so leary of twi, almost afraid on some level. So what I've read here lead to what I post here and really posting here is to expose...but mostly therapeutic for me and my cult recovery. The things I've posted recently that mainly centering around doctrinal points is a prime example. By the time I start a thread I've usually worked the topic enough to to form a kinda of preliminary position and from there I put it here so we can all start poking holes in it. GSC has helped me at least the past 18 years. Approx 5 lurking and 13 posting.
I'd been lurking here for at least 5 years before facing my fears and posting here myself. I was so leary of twi, almost afraid on some level.
...mostly therapeutic for me and my cult recovery. The things I've posted recently that mainly centering around doctrinal points is a prime example. By the time I start a thread I've usually worked the topic enough to to form a kinda of preliminary position and from there I put it here so we can all start poking holes in it. GSC has helped me at least the past 18 years. Approx 5 lurking and 13 posting.
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 to beat out ideas, beliefs, with those who really understand where we're coming from, without risk of sounding weird. Exploring our own ideas and beliefs with others who have been through the same processes, sometimes with different results, can be very enlightening.
Quite often, not just in the "belief" side, I find I don't quite know what I'm thinking or planning till I discuss with a friend, who might say, "But how will that work? What about...?" and then I can clarify to myself what I really mean, flesh out the details.
Well, y'know. Iron sharpens iron. It's good to try our thinking processes against those of others, to help us get rid of the burrs, and to take our plans and ideas from nebulous theory to something firm enough to walk out on.
Dorothy Owens was the wife of the first VP. She was tasked with teaching the hippies who came out to the farm etiquette and song leading.
Despite me taking her name in vain she was a nice lady who was kind funny and always appropriate when she wasn’t being a practical joker which she was really good at.
I liked her, Mrs VPW and Bernita Jess about 1000% more than any of the puffheaded moglets running around HQ.
@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 (!).
Glad to say, I have a much more sound mind now. It's taken real Christian love; thoughtfulness and care from non-Christians; GSC (!!!), and much reapplication of thinking ability.
Not for nothing does 1 Thes 5:21 exhort: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
God clearly expects us to consider all the evidence, test (or "challenge") everything against what God says. Get that? Test against what God says, not test against what some denomination says. Or even what some other type of culture says. And test against "common sense," too. Lotsa that in the Bible.
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.
In light of you latest comment, Twinky, I hope you don't mind me reiterating this comment from page 1 of this thread.
I found Riggleman's description of his long journey escaping Mormonism to be salient in light of my experience "deprogramming" myself from waybrain. If you can borrow this book from a local public library, my hunch is you would agree.
I doubt it will impress anyone, but in agreement with Twinky's post about alternate news sources, I make a point of that. I generally will check through CNN, Fox, BBC AND Reuters. When looking at a story about Europe or points east, I may also check Al Jazeera and Euronews. I often find it interesting to see what they DON'T cover, or mention in passing.
Oh, and the last time I saw all of them covering almost the same thing (Al-J was a bit more general) was the funeral of Queen Elizabeth. In fact, I switched between watching one and another at different points if one's coverage started to stall.
I doubt it will impress anyone, but in agreement with Twinky's post about alternate news sources, I make a point of that. I generally will check through CNN, Fox, BBC AND Reuters. When looking at a story about Europe or points east, I may also check Al Jazeera and Euronews. I often find it interesting to see what they DON'T cover, or mention in passing.
Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative.
Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally,
For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that?
Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources.
In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies.
Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.
Excellent post. US media is pretty garbage and very biased. For a long time I read the Christian Science Monitor due to the influence of a math teacher. Non biased reporting mostly. In the past decade I pick up headlines from Al Jazeera network. Except for topics on the Middle East and Muslim topics they also offer non biased work. For those topics US biased media is fine not much to spin. I do read a lot. Post Way I like a lot of different Bible translations also. The Way sticks people in the 1600s using KJV and the reasoning is mistrust of other Christian translators. The UK has a lot of hate for their own leaders and government right now. And the queens passing was hugely impactful one of the greatest world leaders in my lifetime.
Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative.
Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally,
For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that?
Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources.
In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies.
Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.
There's a saying that religion and politics (r & p) are two things that are not to be discussed in polite conversation. A quote by Johnathan Swift in 1721 may give a possible reason for this, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." Another reason can be the strong emotions that are attached to our beliefs in both r & p.
Applying Swift's quote to r & p suggests that one reason for our refusal to consider the other side is because the side we stand on was never based on reasoning. We know that with both r & p, a charismatic leader can prevent "reasoning" from happening. With twi, a lot of people were drawn in because of the "cheerfulness experienced when first attending fellowships" (as was outlined in a thread), or the "love bombing," or the promise of answers to their questions, or a number of other factors. These were all done so we would take the class.
How much time went by from our first fellowship to signing up for the class where what we were taught morphed into our own personal beliefs. Many of us did not reason into these beliefs, we simply accepted them as truth because of all the hype given to it and vp and twi before, during and immediately afterwards. It's why we could not be reasoned out of them by concerned family and friends.
I believe something similar to this happened a couple of years ago outside of twi when a charismatic person got many to believe in something that was not based on actual evidence. Nevertheless, thousands of followers (aka believers) eventually acted very grievously, not because of proven facts but because they believed their leader (who many thought could do no wrong).
The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side. Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position. In my experience, I think one reason is fear - fear that if what I believe is wrong, my whole way of life based on that belief will fall to pieces. I think that's why a lot of people won't consider the evidence about twi until they realize that what they have believed in is beginning to cause them pain or cognitive dissonance in their life. That's when their minds become open to reason and to considering the evidence.
Anyone have other reasons why we attached strong emotions to our close-minded beliefs which were never grounded on evidence in the first place?
If I bought NFTs with pictures of a guy with a red hat, is that a pump and dump scheme or am I being emotional?
We do a lot of things based on emotions - no problem whatsoever with that. My question was in the context of my whole post (reason, evidence, etc.)
"The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side."
"Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position." Have you seen this happening both in religion and politics.
We do a lot of things based on emotions - no problem whatsoever with that. My question was in the context of my whole post (reason, evidence, etc.)
"The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side."
"Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position." Have you seen this happening both in religion and politics.
I've posted something of the following previously, but it was a while ago and not on this thread.
The radio program that I mostly listen to has, or used to have, a programme between two people of diametrically opposite views, often about quite controversial subjects. It was a series, with different people and different areas of argument, each week.
The first party, let's say A, had about 10 mins to state their case, during which the other, let's say B, could not interrupt. I think they could ask limited questions afterwards to clarify, but not to argue. Then B presented their PoV, again without interruption (and if B got to ask a few questions of A, then A got to ask a few questions of B). But argument as such was not allowed; participants could not say the other was wrong.
And then, A and B had to summarise the view of B and A. Each other party could say whether they thought their viewpoint had been properly summarised, and if not, why not. Usually, the summaries were accepted as reasonably accurate about the other party's PoV.
Finally, A and B were both asked if the discussion had caused them to change or moderate their own view. And in every case, they said hearing the other party's view had caused them to consider things they hadn't before. Nobody, as far as I know, changed their mind, but they all moved to a more middle place than they had been previously.
Listen with interest to what others say, people. They just might have a point, or something you can learn from.
Finally, A and B were both asked if the discussion had caused them to change or moderate their own view. And in every case, they said hearing the other party's view had caused them to consider things they hadn't before. Nobody, as far as I know, changed their mind, but they all moved to a more middle place than they had been previously.
Listen with interest to what others say, people. They just might have a point, or something you can learn from.
It seems so many don’t know how to listen. Too often people listen with a purpose of confirming bias. And the wheels keep spinning, digging deeper into the mud.
I've posted something of the following previously, but it was a while ago and not on this thread.
The radio program that I mostly listen to has, or used to have, a programme between two people of diametrically opposite views, often about quite controversial subjects. It was a series, with different people and different areas of argument, each week.
The first party, let's say A, had about 10 mins to state their case, during which the other, let's say B, could not interrupt. I think they could ask limited questions afterwards to clarify, but not to argue. Then B presented their PoV, again without interruption (and if B got to ask a few questions of A, then A got to ask a few questions of B). But argument as such was not allowed; participants could not say the other was wrong.
And then, A and B had to summarise the view of B and A. Each other party could say whether they thought their viewpoint had been properly summarised, and if not, why not. Usually, the summaries were accepted as reasonably accurate about the other party's PoV.
Finally, A and B were both asked if the discussion had caused them to change or moderate their own view. And in every case, they said hearing the other party's view had caused them to consider things they hadn't before. Nobody, as far as I know, changed their mind, but they all moved to a more middle place than they had been previously.
Listen with interest to what others say, people. They just might have a point, or something you can learn from.
I like the framework Twinky. Not allowing arguments as such would prevent strong emotions from arising and overtaking a participant as can happen in some debates, political or otherwise.
“Stein’s research5 indicates that the closed, fearful world within a cult is designed to promote a relationship of disorganised attachment to the leader
or group: a combination of terror and ‘love’ that is used to emotionally trap
and cognitively disable followers. All such groups arouse fear by employing a variety of threats – dangers in the outside world, predictions of apocalyptic events, harsh criticism or the threat of exclusion. Fear can also be aroused through emotional and physical means, such as guilt, exhaustion and physical punishment.“
“Stein’s research5 indicates that the closed, fearful world within a cult is designed to promote a relationship of disorganised attachment to the leader
or group: a combination of terror and ‘love’ that is used to emotionally trap
and cognitively disable followers. All such groups arouse fear by employing a variety of threats – dangers in the outside world, predictions of apocalyptic events, harsh criticism or the threat of exclusion. Fear can also be aroused through emotional and physical means, such as guilt, exhaustion and physical punishment.“
mmmph
You mentioned from the article: "disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats." These all describe why a follower was "not reasoned into" joining and staying in a cult.
I interpreted the word "reason" in Swift's quote, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" to mean "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" and logic to mean "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (or factually sound)."
I think someone who is exposed to disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats could become quite defensive with people who are trying to reason with them about their loyalty to the cult's leader and their unwillingness to leave.
You mentioned "disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats." These all describe why a follower was "not reasoned into" joining and staying in a cult.
I interpreted the word "reason" in Swift's quote, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" to mean "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" and logic to mean "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (or factually sound)."
I think someone who is exposed to disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats could become quite defensive with people who are trying to reason with them about their loyalty to the cult's leader and their unwillingness to leave.
Right.
But it’s not my mention. I was quoting Alexandra Stein from the excellent article Bolshe linked up thread.
And then, A and B had to summarise the view of B and A. Each other party could say whether they thought their viewpoint had been properly summarised, and if not, why not. Usually, the summaries were accepted as reasonably accurate about the other party's PoV.
1 hour ago, Charity said:
I like the framework Twinky. Not allowing arguments as such would prevent strong emotions from arising and overtaking a participant as can happen in some debates, political or otherwise.
Kinda like "Listening with a Purpose" but for adults.
I know this thread is about the importance of considering evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admitting to the possibility that you could be wrong. My posts have focused more on those people who find this practically impossible to do because unlike the majority of posters on GSC, they have not left twi and/or are not aware of how toxic Waybrain thinking can be.
If I should find it difficult to consider evidence and/or admit I might be wrong on a different matter, it helps to understand why this might be.
The article you mentioned is excellent. One thing it says is, "Disorganized attachment has both emotional and cognitive effects. Emotionally it can lead to disorganized or trauma bonding – a powerful, entangled bond – with the caregiver."
The word "co-dependency" came to my mind when I read this. (Mental Health America describes co-dependency this way: "People with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive."
Without an understanding of co-dependency, a person will not recognize that he/she is in a co-dependent relationship with cult's leaders. This "powerful, entangled bond" will prevent people from considering the evidence provided to them by those outside the cult.
I feel Johnathan Swift's quote is conditional, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." It's kind of like saying you can't get blood from a stone.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
18
7
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
Nathan_Jr 18 posts
Charity 7 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
Twinky
Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative.
Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges.
But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here?
I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally,
For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that?
Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources.
In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies.
Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Excellent points, Twinky!! Amen.
To your point, for many years, I subscribed to and read BOTH the WSJ and NYT. Though I recently let those subscriptions lapse, I still try to hear/read multiple POVs. In fact, I do watch the BBC when I watch the news, but also the crazy on Fox and the crazy on MSNBC. So much bullshonta everywhere. Literally. Bullshonta. Everywhere.
Listening to each other is so important. It seems very few know how to do that anymore. Just listen. Try to understand. You don't have to agree, but you might learn something.
Confirmation bias is willful ignorance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Awesome post!!
A resounding NO to the first three questions.
A big reason I started questioning all things TWI was I'd been lurking here for at least 5 years before facing my fears and posting here myself. I was so leary of twi, almost afraid on some level. So what I've read here lead to what I post here and really posting here is to expose...but mostly therapeutic for me and my cult recovery. The things I've posted recently that mainly centering around doctrinal points is a prime example. By the time I start a thread I've usually worked the topic enough to to form a kinda of preliminary position and from there I put it here so we can all start poking holes in it. GSC has helped me at least the past 18 years. Approx 5 lurking and 13 posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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 to beat out ideas, beliefs, with those who really understand where we're coming from, without risk of sounding weird. Exploring our own ideas and beliefs with others who have been through the same processes, sometimes with different results, can be very enlightening.
Quite often, not just in the "belief" side, I find I don't quite know what I'm thinking or planning till I discuss with a friend, who might say, "But how will that work? What about...?" and then I can clarify to myself what I really mean, flesh out the details.
Well, y'know. Iron sharpens iron. It's good to try our thinking processes against those of others, to help us get rid of the burrs, and to take our plans and ideas from nebulous theory to something firm enough to walk out on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Dorothy Owens was the wife of the first VP. She was tasked with teaching the hippies who came out to the farm etiquette and song leading.
Despite me taking her name in vain she was a nice lady who was kind funny and always appropriate when she wasn’t being a practical joker which she was really good at.
I liked her, Mrs VPW and Bernita Jess about 1000% more than any of the puffheaded moglets running around HQ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks! I wasnt conscious that I was afraid at first. After leaving it all started coming apart in layers almost...not even layers...but layers....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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 (!).
Glad to say, I have a much more sound mind now. It's taken real Christian love; thoughtfulness and care from non-Christians; GSC (!!!), and much reapplication of thinking ability.
Not for nothing does 1 Thes 5:21 exhort: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
God clearly expects us to consider all the evidence, test (or "challenge") everything against what God says. Get that? Test against what God says, not test against what some denomination says. Or even what some other type of culture says. And test against "common sense," too. Lotsa that in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
In light of you latest comment, Twinky, I hope you don't mind me reiterating this comment from page 1 of this thread.
I found Riggleman's description of his long journey escaping Mormonism to be salient in light of my experience "deprogramming" myself from waybrain. If you can borrow this book from a local public library, my hunch is you would agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I doubt it will impress anyone, but in agreement with Twinky's post about alternate news sources, I make a point of that. I generally will check through CNN, Fox, BBC AND Reuters. When looking at a story about Europe or points east, I may also check Al Jazeera and Euronews. I often find it interesting to see what they DON'T cover, or mention in passing.
Oh, and the last time I saw all of them covering almost the same thing (Al-J was a bit more general) was the funeral of Queen Elizabeth. In fact, I switched between watching one and another at different points if one's coverage started to stall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Reddit is a great place to do that efficiently.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Excellent post. US media is pretty garbage and very biased. For a long time I read the Christian Science Monitor due to the influence of a math teacher. Non biased reporting mostly. In the past decade I pick up headlines from Al Jazeera network. Except for topics on the Middle East and Muslim topics they also offer non biased work. For those topics US biased media is fine not much to spin. I do read a lot. Post Way I like a lot of different Bible translations also. The Way sticks people in the 1600s using KJV and the reasoning is mistrust of other Christian translators. The UK has a lot of hate for their own leaders and government right now. And the queens passing was hugely impactful one of the greatest world leaders in my lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
There's a saying that religion and politics (r & p) are two things that are not to be discussed in polite conversation. A quote by Johnathan Swift in 1721 may give a possible reason for this, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." Another reason can be the strong emotions that are attached to our beliefs in both r & p.
Applying Swift's quote to r & p suggests that one reason for our refusal to consider the other side is because the side we stand on was never based on reasoning. We know that with both r & p, a charismatic leader can prevent "reasoning" from happening. With twi, a lot of people were drawn in because of the "cheerfulness experienced when first attending fellowships" (as was outlined in a thread), or the "love bombing," or the promise of answers to their questions, or a number of other factors. These were all done so we would take the class.
How much time went by from our first fellowship to signing up for the class where what we were taught morphed into our own personal beliefs. Many of us did not reason into these beliefs, we simply accepted them as truth because of all the hype given to it and vp and twi before, during and immediately afterwards. It's why we could not be reasoned out of them by concerned family and friends.
I believe something similar to this happened a couple of years ago outside of twi when a charismatic person got many to believe in something that was not based on actual evidence. Nevertheless, thousands of followers (aka believers) eventually acted very grievously, not because of proven facts but because they believed their leader (who many thought could do no wrong).
The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side. Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position. In my experience, I think one reason is fear - fear that if what I believe is wrong, my whole way of life based on that belief will fall to pieces. I think that's why a lot of people won't consider the evidence about twi until they realize that what they have believed in is beginning to cause them pain or cognitive dissonance in their life. That's when their minds become open to reason and to considering the evidence.
Anyone have other reasons why we attached strong emotions to our close-minded beliefs which were never grounded on evidence in the first place?
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I bought NFTs with pictures of a guy with a red hat, is that a pump and dump scheme or am I being emotional?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
We do a lot of things based on emotions - no problem whatsoever with that. My question was in the context of my whole post (reason, evidence, etc.)
"The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side."
"Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position." Have you seen this happening both in religion and politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.alexandrastein.com/uploads/2/8/0/1/28010027/cults_final_ttsep16.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I've posted something of the following previously, but it was a while ago and not on this thread.
The radio program that I mostly listen to has, or used to have, a programme between two people of diametrically opposite views, often about quite controversial subjects. It was a series, with different people and different areas of argument, each week.
The first party, let's say A, had about 10 mins to state their case, during which the other, let's say B, could not interrupt. I think they could ask limited questions afterwards to clarify, but not to argue. Then B presented their PoV, again without interruption (and if B got to ask a few questions of A, then A got to ask a few questions of B). But argument as such was not allowed; participants could not say the other was wrong.
And then, A and B had to summarise the view of B and A. Each other party could say whether they thought their viewpoint had been properly summarised, and if not, why not. Usually, the summaries were accepted as reasonably accurate about the other party's PoV.
Finally, A and B were both asked if the discussion had caused them to change or moderate their own view. And in every case, they said hearing the other party's view had caused them to consider things they hadn't before. Nobody, as far as I know, changed their mind, but they all moved to a more middle place than they had been previously.
Listen with interest to what others say, people. They just might have a point, or something you can learn from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It seems so many don’t know how to listen. Too often people listen with a purpose of confirming bias. And the wheels keep spinning, digging deeper into the mud.
A closed mind confirming bias is a withered mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I like the framework Twinky. Not allowing arguments as such would prevent strong emotions from arising and overtaking a participant as can happen in some debates, political or otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
From the article:
“Stein’s research5 indicates that the closed, fearful world within a cult is designed to promote a relationship of disorganised attachment to the leader
or group: a combination of terror and ‘love’ that is used to emotionally trap
and cognitively disable followers. All such groups arouse fear by employing a variety of threats – dangers in the outside world, predictions of apocalyptic events, harsh criticism or the threat of exclusion. Fear can also be aroused through emotional and physical means, such as guilt, exhaustion and physical punishment.“
mmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
You mentioned from the article: "disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats." These all describe why a follower was "not reasoned into" joining and staying in a cult.
I interpreted the word "reason" in Swift's quote, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" to mean "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" and logic to mean "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (or factually sound)."
I think someone who is exposed to disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats could become quite defensive with people who are trying to reason with them about their loyalty to the cult's leader and their unwillingness to leave.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right.
But it’s not my mention. I was quoting Alexandra Stein from the excellent article Bolshe linked up thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Kinda like "Listening with a Purpose" but for adults.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks, I have edited my post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I know this thread is about the importance of considering evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admitting to the possibility that you could be wrong. My posts have focused more on those people who find this practically impossible to do because unlike the majority of posters on GSC, they have not left twi and/or are not aware of how toxic Waybrain thinking can be.
If I should find it difficult to consider evidence and/or admit I might be wrong on a different matter, it helps to understand why this might be.
The article you mentioned is excellent. One thing it says is, "Disorganized attachment has both emotional and cognitive effects. Emotionally it can lead to disorganized or trauma bonding – a powerful, entangled bond – with the caregiver."
The word "co-dependency" came to my mind when I read this. (Mental Health America describes co-dependency this way: "People with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive."
Without an understanding of co-dependency, a person will not recognize that he/she is in a co-dependent relationship with cult's leaders. This "powerful, entangled bond" will prevent people from considering the evidence provided to them by those outside the cult.
I feel Johnathan Swift's quote is conditional, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." It's kind of like saying you can't get blood from a stone.
Edited by CharityLink 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.