Posts by paranoia agent

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

paranoia agent

I asked: If god asked you to kill your son would you do it?

Seraphim23 replied: No I wouldn’t

Then you are not a theist

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

paranoia agent

snare&racket: wrote Theory in science has a very different meaning, anyone saying differently is either lying or ignorant to the truth, a scientific theory is a body of evidence,. just think, if a hypothesis like atomic theory or evolution wasn't true you wouldn't have ANY evidence for it, or to put it another way it is impossible to have evidence for evolution if it didn't happen.

adamah: wrote: Theories explain facts (i.e. confirmed observations), but they aren't facts themselves. Even "facts"are subject to change.

‘In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.’ -^ Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1. –

Right so let me alter the question, are scrientific theories prone to changes?

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

paranoia agent

Seraphim23 : If god asked you to kill your son would you do it?

304

Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.

or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.

after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?

paranoia agent

I have a question, is a theory a fact or a series of tests conduted so that the hypothesis is most likely to be true but not entirely as true?

20

How to influence those under psychological coercion

by paranoia agent in

hi, i am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques.

so while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:.

1. do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).. 2. don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.. 3. build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you.

paranoia agent

Frazzled UBM : I think that is important, to be sceptical and find other books that speak against the other, that's what I learned when I left the nutty cult, always study both sides. Dogpatch a while back proposed a debate between Dr Maan vs Hassan which never occurred. Also Dr Maan accuses Hassan of being a not show never responding to criticism, oh the irony! I also have been told that his consultations (according to Dr Maan) are ridiculously overpriced.

Londo111: Who cares if Steven Hassan “ripped” anybody off? If the information is useful and beneficial, I am glad he took different sources and put it together in a palatable form for public consumption. This is information that is transcendent of the source and of benefit of all.

There is nothing wrong with taking different sources and putting it into a book as long as the material is properly sourced, quoted and interpreted. But not Steve no, not only did he not quote some of his sources he claimed them to be his own by not properly sourcing the material, and he just made stuff up as he went, oh and he always won people over. Along this there were problems with publishing his material but I won't get into that. Why did he do all this? Because he is a salesman that wants to sell books and get people to hire him at very high rates and he tells himself that it's ok because he is after all helping people.

What makes Steven Hassan more relatable than others in this field is he’s been there. He was in a cult. He knows what it was like. Thus, he is “one of us”.

He was in a cult or so he says, do you believe in used car salesmen? As for me Hassan has lost all my trust but let's say he is not lying, lets say his past is true, he was in cult and he wrote about it, but he didn't. He just didn't write is life story, he became a psy praticiour and had it not been for his studies in psychology is books would not have the worth that they do.

I was also from a cult, and I can say that there is waaay better material by Psychologists and Sociologists who were never in cults than this con artist, but you don't seem to mind the nonfactual material that he presents, so you think Hassan to be “one of us” (the old true Scotsman fallacy) but he is not part of me.

ABibleStudent: My comments about what causes a JW to remain in the WTBTS can also be the reasons that JWs feel cognitive dissonance, so they do apply to psychological coercion and to helping the cult persona to control the actions of a JW, whether a JW is fully in or partially in.

You might be right and that is my fault, I was referring to the definition of psychological coercion given by Margaret Singer but it turns out there are two definitions. What I am referring to of psychological coercion is the proper term for mind control but it can also be used for blackmail. So yeah I wanted this thread just to focus of those under mind control.

20

How to influence those under psychological coercion

by paranoia agent in

hi, i am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques.

so while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:.

1. do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).. 2. don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.. 3. build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you.

paranoia agent

jgnat: Neurologist do teach that flight or fight situations occur from the amygdala so yeah I do agree, live cat scans of the brains have been recorded during many test and they found (unlike what was thought before that each part of the brain being responsible for something) many parts of the brain were being triggered meaning that the brain is multi functional in its processes unlike any other animal organ. This gave rise to a new school of understanding the brain known as neuroplasticity. I know I am off topic but it's fascinating stuff to ever think of our brains as plastic constantly changing as we age.

As for Hassan, indeed he helped me a lot too, R franz two books were the Pandora’s box but Hassan's books delved deeper into the science of it all. In case we are not on the same page psychology is a science that uses the scientific method, just like physics, chemistry and biology. So psychology is all about findings through tests and statistical analyses released on peer review. The think is that Hassan is better advertised that other psychologists that contributed to psychological findings and books. To the average Joe his books are a revelation but to the psychological community, mostly those in findings regarding social situations and cults find his books partially correct, at times not quoting those who came up with ideas and at times just saying stuff without scientific backing.

Now compare Hassan to Margaret Singer, she released papers that are today studied at universities and other professional education centres like the Theory of Systematic Manipulation of Social and Psychological Influence. In her book Cults in our midst she properly quoted references. Not only that but she tried to add thought reform as part of the mental illnesses to be listed in the DSM, unfortunately the histograms were acute therefore rejected. Unlike Hassan who makes himself look like he has done all the hard work while in reality others have done it for him, just reading his book on how he confronts situations and wins like its some revelation of his and this properly portraits reality, this is what upsets others.

Here is a critic on his last book, enjoy - http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2444

If you want more material and in my opinion better, Janja Lalich has some really good books on cults, if you want a good source of only cult information- http://www.culteducation.com/ - . Of course the broader aspect of cult psychology is studied in social psychology so any social psychology book use in tertiary education is good.

adamah: The analogy is just there to help understand it, in fact almost everything as a psychological explanation that we can assimilate with other situations.

you wrote Think of it: if you COULD manipulate them to act based on what you'd say, they'd still be controlled by another!

Can you elaborate how what you mean by manipulate and controlled by another?

The greatest fallacy in dealing with a cult member is that there's some silver-bullet, some perfect logical argument that serves as the knock-out "one-two punch" that will FORCE them to "see the light". Nope: read accounts on JWN for a bit, and you'll see that most of those who saw TTATT had SIGNIFICANT MOTIVATION forced upon them (eg being DFed, seeing rampant hypocrisy after dealing with elders, death of a loved one, etc) that led them to be receptive to seeing TTATT. Sure, there ARE exceptions of those who saw TTATT without their cog diss dial being raised to '11' by what they personally experienced, but I'd say such cases are in the minority.

I never spoke of a silver bullet, the KO knock out I was referring to was not of converting them but getting them to seeking consonant logical information due to the cognitive dissonance. I don't believe in silver bullets.

For even if members cannot (or will not) verbalize their thought-processes to you, some (not ALL, mind you) JWs ARE content being in, and know exactly what they're doing and why they do it. Many JWs ARE perfectly aware that while it's not actually "the (whole) Truth", they enjoy the benefits of being in the group, perhaps enjoy the power, prestige, and control it affords them over others, or even like the idea of others who will tell them what to do (since they've FUBARed their own lives and are dependent on others as their source of power, AKA sheepol), etc. They've made a perfectly-rational decision that to leave the group would "rock the boat" and leaving the group would be too costly in terms of their family and business relationships, so they make the prudent choice to "go along to get along"; some even THRIVE (I think of my brother, who's an elder and big-deal on the local level, delivering talks at conventions; he truly enjoys his life, as it affords him possibilities he'd not have otherwise as an uneducated male working in the building trades).

Strawman, read the title of this thread.

Of course, the problem is things can and do change in a heartbeat, and then they get to experience first-hand the hazards of blind allegiance to authority, seeing why it's fundamentally a bad idea.

I agree with this. With me it was baby steps.

ABibleStudent: Thanks but this thread was not really about those who are in who partially or fully disagree with the WB&T$

20

How to influence those under psychological coercion

by paranoia agent in

hi, i am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques.

so while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:.

1. do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).. 2. don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.. 3. build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you.

paranoia agent

jgnat

I am not a Hassan fan myself, Hassan is not a pioneer in this and has used many concepts that are not his.

1What does heated argument have to do with right brain/left brain? In a heated argument, logic is out the window and the dinosaur brain takes over (anger/fear/fight/flight). I do think that fear is one of the primary chains that keeps the Witness bound.

If you had ever looked into neurology, neuron pulses occurs more on what side with is considered the emotional side than the both sides which is considered normal. JW use of fear is a component but this discussion is a different factor.

2. I agree to keeping a monotone when talking to the cultist. What does that have to do with being a hypocrite? I'd be more like my genuine self to give my husband a piece of my mind over some idiotic doctrine. There are times I am bland and monotone, and I reserve that when hubby is most in cult mode. No use talking to a robot. I wait until a genuine moment to share how I really feel. I think Witnesses, when most themselves, are open to the genuine feelings of others.

Hypocrisy is when we accuse something that we ourselves do, but the point I was making was that on a subconscious level they feel that a argument has been won simply by the person acting the way they expected to act, get all heated up etc, there are studies on this. Books by Hassan and Singer teach that rapport is very important.

4. I am not sure that cognitive dissonance always have a positive effect. In fear, the Witness may be driven further in to the society to reduce the dissonance.

Dissonance is neither positive or negative, its a state of anxiety cause by two contradictory beliefs. When they are in this state it’s important to have a discussion with them, listen to what they say, in this state of anxiety they will seek consonant information towards the watchtower, timing here is everything, you will need to explain in a calm and non-rude manner so that their consonant information (unless its "yes you are right) is rational.

E.g. jw- You showed me that news article about the WBTS being fined 27 million, this usually doesn't happen

me - but its clearly taught of the two witness rule so how can this stop from happening?

jw - Police need witnesses to, how else will they get evidence

me - as hold as is this case is they manage to pin point who was involved, police have techniques that may not require witnesses to take the stand, such as conduct interviews and detective work, had they reported the matter this would not be an issue

jw - they do report this to the police as soon as they find out

me - as far as I am aware it is not allowed to accuse those who you do not have witnesses for, in that case it is unscriptural to report these matters unless it fits the criteria of the two witness rule, what do you think?

jw - (now in a strong state of mental anxiety) they have changed it and its not like we did it out of bad will, we try and do good, our best, of course we are not perfect so these things do happen.

me - (removing any cult consonant information) I understand that, they are the only religion who takes serious concern of the cleanness of its members and the halls, yesterday I heard of drugging dealing going inside and during church so its definitely better, also I understand that you do all things with good intentions following biblical principles, yet these good intentions are hurting people, victims of paedophilia, the shunning policy does not do good to anybody (I used this because a close family member is being shunned, nice guy who they like), I just think that the two witness rule is not up to date with today’s know how and technology.

Let them have the final say and don’t press on, allow this information to sink in and don't expect any changes, a complete change does not happen overnight but they should be acceptable to more external source information than before.

Also notice that there are many angles to attack their arguments, but I kept it simple and straight to the point without discussing doctrine or past jw beliefs. The tone of this conversation by jw's got heated in this conversation but by being calm and showing genuine interest and concerned instead of a mocking or a shouting context, they stayed receptive to what I was saying.

20

How to influence those under psychological coercion

by paranoia agent in

hi, i am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques.

so while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:.

1. do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).. 2. don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.. 3. build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you.

paranoia agent

snare&racket : I think you misunderstood what I wrote, you see its not just about communicating with those who are under psychological coercion, there needs to be a bond/connection between the two before communicating and there is a manner to communicate it, its all in steps and needs to be timed correctly with the right tone of voice and the correct words, even body image and expression counts. This is all science and what I am talking referring to is discussed in a chapter called Strategies of attitude and behaviour change, book is Intro to social psychology 5th edition BPS BLACKWELL

adamah: Totally agree, but think about it, we to them are monsters, confused not knowing our right hand from our left, the trick is to make them comfortable enough so that they accept you for who you are, a confused monster but likes them for what they are, give them credit, jw's are nice in their own world, they do nice things help other 'brothers' and prevent drugs and possible bad associations like gangs, leave all what’s negative out of the conversation, one is not completely honest but also not dishonest at all.

Its like a boxing match, lets say you are told that your opponent had ten consecutive wins so you decide not to fight but with some convince with others you fight, only to find out that your opponent is this skinny man so psychologically the fight is already over but the bell rings and the skinny opponent swiftly moves and swings an unexpected left hook knocking you out. The first part is jw ideology, the skinny opponent is an ex-jw with good rapport skills, the swift move is the non expectation of a conversation leading natural about something negative about jw's, and the left hook is a topic that has to cause strong cognitive dissonance.

ABibleStudent: wrote To avoid heated debates ask simply questions that help a JW to draw their own conclusions about the WTBTS such as discussing other dangerous cults and asking jWs how they feel. Instead of using a monotone voice I would recommend using a caring and empathetic voice by always thinking of how to reach a JW's authentic persona instead of saying things that cause them cognitive dissonance and their cult persona to react. The end goal should be to help a JW to critically think for themselves instead of a self-serving goal.

Leon Festinger once said "a man with strong conviction is a hard man to change" and "we seek consistencies and avoid inconsistencies”. What he means by this is that if a person puts effort in like time spent and hard labour this persons conviction becomes strong, and when something is presented that is contrary to their beliefs they will seek consistencies that are apart of their world view. This is known as self perception theory and cognitive consistency theory. Inconsistencies are what causes anxiety in the brain or cognitive dissonance and in my opinion the trick is to provide them (at the latter) with an inconsistency so strong like paedophilia or something else that creates (what Ray Franz refers to as) a crisis of conscience.

You see when you and I were jw's we didn't walked around in the truth and thought of if this religion is possibly false, there were other factors at play here. In my opinion long term jw's become low contemplators’, they don’t think it through well because they don't have to, because they found the true religion and their god asks of them not to worry as long their do as told, locking themselves and throwing away the key

33

help with sociologist friend...

by losingit in

i have a friend who is a sociologist.

this person does research on being gay and mormon, and will shortly come out with a book.

we had a lengthy discussion about cults (in general, and jws in particular), and basically the sociologist believes that all religions are cults.

paranoia agent

Depends on what a persons definition on cult is, I found that there are many:

Small group of people

splinter group

secretive group,etc.

I stopped using the word cul alltogher, tell your friend that. Also tell your sociologists friend that there should be a name for religions that are more like the mafia or gangs, you know you can't just walking and just walk out like any other religion, yeah tell you sociologists friend that

20

How to influence those under psychological coercion

by paranoia agent in

hi, i am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques.

so while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:.

1. do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).. 2. don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.. 3. build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you.

paranoia agent

Hi, I am completing a degree in psychology, while doing so a subject on social psychology has some interesting subjects on persuasion and change techniques. So while not all circumstances are different doing so in this manner is the most efficient way:

1. Do not allow the argument to become heated, studies have showed that people tend to use less of the left side of the brain (left side is where all rational and logical cognitions take place, right hemisphere of the brain is all emotion).

2. Don't be a hypocrite, if they get angry and upset they subconsciently expect you to do the same to prove themselves that what they are doing is correct, speak calmly with a monotone voice and try to calm the other person down.

3. Build rapport, rapport can only come from genuine empathy so do not pretend or they will see right through you. Think of the end goal and the logic behind your script of dialogue for rapport, the outcome positive.

4. Time to get them out, they need to be with a friendly state with you, this goes completely against on what Steven Hassan had written but then Hassan rips of many other psychologists. You will something that produces strong cognitive dissonance - the cadence case. Don't let the cat out of the box yet, give the person time to deduce that information, the next day be ready because you will need to rebuke the jw's claims.

One person told me that jw's have good intentions, try not be completely be against and agree (which is true), yes jw's do things with good intentions but these intentions hurt others.