cognisonance

Joined

• started 70 topics
• posted 510 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cognisonance

• 
  112

  So tired of life

  by LouBelle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am so tired of waking up without hope.

  so tired of fighting one more day...i just want it to end as painless as possible.

  i truly don't have the willpower or strength anymore..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  South Africa Suicide Hotlines

  Hotline: 051 444 5000

  Hotline: 0861 322 322

  Rest of list
• 
  45

  Disgusted with JW Funeral Today!

  by time2keepmoving in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  my son grew up with one of the young brothers in the kingdom and after graduation both him and my son left the kh.

  the young man who left the hall fell into the wrong crowd and i mean a really dangerous crowd and as a result of him getting involved in illegal activity he was murdered.

  i really feel for this young man, because he was a decent kid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  I never thought about this (how the funeral talks are structured and given). It's more about the religion than it is about the person. Ugh.. that is upsetting! At the same time, despite the outline, I have been to funerals where the speaker was crying thru even the "preachy" parts on resurection and all. This religion is just a mess. So much pain and false hope. Not enough attention on individuals and humanness.
• 
  16

  Investments/Stocks & the Wall St. Casino

  by tootired2care in

  1. social
  2. physical

  the stock market has had a big run-up over the last few years.

  i believe this is in large part because the federal reserve and treasury dept.

  have been pumping it up with fake money--you may disagree.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  I'd suggest you consider, at least, the bogglehead approach.
• 
  4

  Are we all self-deceived?

  by cognisonance in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i recently read a interesting paper in the behavioral and brain sciences journal entitled, the evolution and psychology of self-deception.

  in it (section 5 particularly) it talks about what the researchers claim to be varieties of self-deception (note that the linked paper has peer review responses as well that suggest that there might be some misclassification to what is considered to be "self-deception"*):.

  biased information searching amount of searchingselective searchingselective attentionbiased interpretationmisrememberingrationalizationconvincing the self that a lie is trueself-deception accompanied/unaccompanied by neurological damageof the categories above, i found biased information searching and biased interpretation to be the most interesting.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  I recently read a interesting paper in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal entitled, The evolution and psychology of self-deception. In it (section 5 particularly) it talks about what the researchers claim to be varieties of self-deception (note that the linked paper has peer review responses as well that suggest that there might be some misclassification to what is considered to be "self-deception" * ):

  1. Biased Information Searching
     • Amount of Searching
     • Selective Searching
     • Selective Attention
  2. Biased Interpretation
  3. Misremembering
  4. Rationalization
  5. Convincing the self that a lie is true
  6. Self-Deception accompanied/unaccompanied by neurological damage

  Of the categories above, I found Biased Information Searching and Biased Interpretation to be the most interesting. Here are some excerpts from the article:

  Amount of Searching:

  Perhaps the clearest examples [of biased information search] can be found in research by Ditto and colleagues (e.g., Ditto & Lopez 1992; Ditto et al. 2003), in which people are confronted with the possibility that they might have a proclivity for a pancreatic disorder. In these studies people expose a test strip to their saliva and are then led to believe that color change is an indicator of either a positive or negative health prognosis. Ditto and Lopez (1992) found that when people are led to believe that color change is a good thing, they wait more than 60% longer for the test strip to change color than when they believe color change is a bad thing. Studies such as these suggest that information search can be biased in the amount of information gathered even when people are unsure what they will encounter next (see also Josephs et al. 1992). Thus, it appears that people sometimes do not tell themselves the whole truth if a partial truth appears likely to be preferable.

  Selective Attention:

  Although measures such as reading time provide a good indicator of the amount of information processing, attention can be assessed more directly. Eye-tracking studies provide some of the clearest evidence of where people direct their attention, and such studies have also shown that people are often strategic in their attentional decisions (Isaacowitz 2006). For example, older adults look toward positive stimuli and away from negative stimuli when in a bad mood (Isaacowitz et al. 2008). This attentional bias clearly implicates potential awareness, as some encoding of the negative must take place for preferential attention to be directed toward the positive. This effect did not emerge among younger adults, suggesting that older adults aremore likely than younger adults to rely on selective attention for mood repair. In a case such as this, it appears that older adults sacrifice informational content in service of emotional goals. This strategy might be sensible for older adults who have greater immune challenge than their younger counterparts and thus reap greater benefits from maintaining happiness (see sect. 6). As with the strategy of ending information search early, selective attention can allow people to avoid telling themselves the whole truth.

  Biased Interpretation:

  Despite the strategies just described for avoiding unwelcome information, there remain a variety of circumstances in which such information is nevertheless faithfully encoded. Under such circumstances, unwelcome information can still be dismissed through biased interpretation of attitude- consistent and attitude-inconsistent information. In the classic study of this phenomenon (Lord et al. 1979), people who were preselected for their strong attitudes on both sides of the capital punishment debate were exposed to a mixed bag of information about the efficacy of capital punishment. For example, some of the data with which they were presented suggested that capital punishment was an effective crime deterrent, whereas other data suggested that it was not. Given that the findings were new to participants, logic would suggest that they would coalesce at least to some degree in their attitudes. In contrast, people ended the experiment more polarized than they began it.
  
  Lord et al. (1979) discovered that this attitude polarization was a product of biased interpretation of the data. People who were in favor of capital punishment tended to accept the data as sound that supported capital punishment but reject the data as flawed that opposed capital punishment. Those who were against capital punishment showed the opposite pattern (see also Dawson et al. 2002). This selective skepticism appears to be self-deceptive, as it is attenuated or eliminated by self-affirmation (Cohen et al. 2000; Reed & Aspinwall 1998) and cognitive load (Ditto et al. 1998). These findings suggest that people have potential awareness of an unbiased appraisal, given that they appear to be relying on their motivational and mental resources to be differentially skeptical. Thus, selective skepticism appears to be a form of self-deception rather than simply an objective devaluation of new information to the degree that it is inconsistent with a large body of prior experience (see also, Westen et al. 2006).
  
  As a consequence of this selective skepticism, peoe are able to encounter a mixed bag of evidence but nevertheless walk away with their original beliefs intact and potentially even strengthened. Because they are unaware that a person with a contrary position would show the opposite pattern of acceptance and rejection, they are able to convince themselves that the data support their viewpoint. Thus, it seems that by relying on their considerable powers of skepticism only when information is uncongenial, people are able to prevent themselves from learning the whole truth.

  Reading this made me think a lot about how as a JW I may have been self-deceiving, I thought about how many probably are still self-deceiving, and then also considering how even today, I still may be self-deceiving. It's probably very difficult to avoid. I wanted to share this with everyone here because I think it is very interesting to consider the psychology that might be involved with believing the way JWs believe, especially any sentiment that involves not doing independent research (or reading information presented by former members) for fear of what they might find. This sentiment to me bears much resemblance to the aphorism, "What I don’t know can’t hurt me," which is referenced in the article as well.

  In short we self-deceive when we avoid telling ourselves the whole truth, when we avoid unwanted information.

  *The peer review commentary that disagrees argues that a distinction exists between self-deception and things that shouldn't be considered "deception". For example is it Self-Deception? Or Self-Bias? Or Self-Persuasion? Or Wishful Thinking? Or Just not caring about the truth? All of these are argued to be different, even subtly, from out right self-deception where the deceiver is also the deceived (i.e. wishful thinking does not entail anyone trying to deceive, so one cannot be a deceiver and deceived; self-bias is acting a way that is selectively biasing and misinforming compared to self deception which is keeping uninformed about unwanted information).
• 
  13

  WT 15 July 2013 - "Look at the Artwork!"

  by The Song Remains The Same in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was just browsing this new issue and trying to make head and tail of what they are talking about, and noticed the final article tucked away on-line;.

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/watchtower-artwork/.

  not sure if anyone commented, but it takes me back to the discussions on god's earthly org chart here.. this is what they have to say.... "how many times have you said that to yourself or to others when you opened a new issue of this magazine?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  Lars....

  Umm.... I see how that looks like a baby's face, but could you possibly, just possibly be expressing a thought that is a non sequiter, jumping to conclusions, and a hasty generalization that because the artwork appears to have a black child's face that therefore this was both purposeful and by freemasons?

  I call bull shit on this one.
• 
  28

  You CAN continue associating with wordly/disfellowshipped family members AND get a higher education

  by Anony Mous in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quotes:.

  -- therefore, explain that a parent's decision an a child's associates would not be based on religion, but on the young one's conduct ... it will probably help if you acknowledge that this does not mean that all other youths whom your children are around in the neighborhood or at school are no good.

  some of them may be pleasant and decent, as some of your neighbors, relatives, and workmates are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  Well, you didn't have to choose between your family and your religious beliefs because you don't have any religious beliefs.

  Hmm...

  You're right. It's not like I chose to become an athiest. I'm an athiest because I simply lack belief. Therefore, I had nothing to choose between. So when it comes to me, these words aren't lies (of course not all former members are athiests...)

  At the risk of moving the goal post... But what about my JW parents and friends?

  Here something just "happened" to me. I gained education about scientific matters that led me to lack belief in any metaphysical concepts. No choice involved to come to that position. My parents on the other had, they do have a choice. They can choice their beliefs (which means to shun me) or they can choose me (which betrays their beliefs).

  If no one should have to choose, then why is the WTBTS forcing my parents to choose via persuasively coercive mind control techniques? This quote maybe isn't a lie, but rather a hypocritical statement.

  Of course the article's context is talking about changing one's religion (again something I didn't do, I just stopped being religous and stopped being spiritual). My parents also aren't trying to change their relgion. Still, a statement about noone should be forced to choose between family and beliefs should be a concept that applies just as much to my parents situation as it does to someone that is switching religions.
• 
  28

  You CAN continue associating with wordly/disfellowshipped family members AND get a higher education

  by Anony Mous in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quotes:.

  -- therefore, explain that a parent's decision an a child's associates would not be based on religion, but on the young one's conduct ... it will probably help if you acknowledge that this does not mean that all other youths whom your children are around in the neighborhood or at school are no good.

  some of them may be pleasant and decent, as some of your neighbors, relatives, and workmates are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  These two quotes:

  No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family

  This is the OTHER side of the "freedom to choose" equation.

  The subject of that sentence is the person who feels pressured to worship in a manner that's not heart-felt.

  However, the words that aren't stated (but are well-known to be the case, even if unspoken) is that the REST of the family IS equally free to make the choice NOT to associate with the non-believer: they don't have to associate with the one who's questioning the faith (and hence, everyone elses). And even if one of the family members experience some remorse or guilt over shunning the questioning family member, THEY likewise don't have to choose between family or religious beliefs: they ALSO could be shunned as well, if the burden of making that choice is too much for them to bear. The Witnesses will put them out of their misery, and shun them, as well.

  And:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/126156/1/JW-Children-Lie-in-Custody-Cases

  Are very, very interesting! That referenced tread is very long, but brings up the idea that sometimes we are convinced what we think is being said isn't being said after all since our biases or intuition – which can often be faulty – is at play. This idea is similar to how we preceive optical illusions. I'm taking a class in irrational behavior right now and it brings out that our eyes spent millions of years evolving to see what is really there physically, yet we still can be illusioned. Is it possible that we can be illusioned in our cognitive, concious thinking, something which is more abstract and certainly hasn't had as much time for evolution to tune as effectively as something like vision? Not only is this possibe, but we'd be more likely to be illusioned cognitively, than visually.

  At first glance, no one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family certainly sounds like a lie!

  But is that a lie? This is related to one of my other posts about why propagandize/appeal to emotion when criticizing JWs/WTBTS, where I challenge if we should be quick to assert (when it comes to statements like this) that the WTBTS lies. I'm not arguing that we can't find examples where they (representatives of the WTBTS) are lying, I’m sure we can, but this specific statement (the one in blue highlight), is it a lie? To define a lie, it is a statement that is intended to deceive or made with knowledge that it is not factual.

  I was DF'd over non-doctrinal grounds. I had the opportunity to return to the religion and enjoy association with my family and friends. However, I also did not believe the religion anymore (or any for that matter, I’m now an atheist). Thus I was presented with a choice between my beliefs (i.e. I don't believe the religion, I lack belief in the supernatural) and family (i.e. requiring me to either believe something I don’t – is that possible? - or to act like I believe).
  
  I’d like someone to play devil’s advocate here. Someone please tell me how I was not forced to make that choice? I’m having a hard time not seeing this as a lie. But I also don’t want to be quick and just assert that they are lying when it might be more nuanced than that, in a strictly rhetorical way. In short, I don’t want to jump to conclusions.
• 
  23

  The resurrection fantasy, the last desperate illusion?

  by Slidin Fast in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as people get older they inevitably lose more of their friends and family.

  the doctrine that binds them to the truth like superglue is the doctrine of the resurrection.

  they ache to see their dead rise.. so ... i die.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  This is a very poignant thread. I just realized that those pictures of welcoming back a resurrected loved one at a grave site means that everyone would be standing ontop of the remains of their dead loved one. Imagine, being resurrected and digging up the grave site to see your own dead remains. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
• 
  57

  Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

  by Oubliette in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  My idea is to catalog the most common and blatant examples of logical fallacies and other rhetorical errors in WT publications, catalog them and then create a number of secularized examples of each. This could be a great tool!

  I like that idea. Where would you display this list? Forums are not the best, well forum, becuase posts get stale and fade.
• 
  57

  Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

  by Oubliette in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cognisonance

  Consider the following article, w11 8/15 pp 3-5 :

  Do not become an “Internet Eve.” Be critical and suspicious of the information. Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?

  Now, this advice is generally good. We should find out who authored information on the internet, what credentials they have, what sources are used, if we can verify the sources, and if we are talking about scientific matters, how current is the information. On the surface, this all seems good and well. But notice that I missed one of the four points they bring out?
  
  Yes, that’s right; I did not enumerate “Why was this published? What motivated the Writer? Is there any Bias?” Now this advice is still helpful because sometimes people have something to gain from what they say (for example, someone testifying or endorsing products) that casts doubt upon the testimony or endorsement. But this is bad advice for evaluating arguments. 1
  
  Why would the Watch Tower Society want members to ask those questions? Do you think it is because they want readers to evaluate court testimony or endorsements? Or is it possible that they also want you to filter argumentation based on these questions as well? If that is the case, this would be an Ad hominem (Circumstantial) attack. 2
  
  For JWs this fallacy can take the following form:

  1. Former members have a vested interest in criticizing the Watch Tower Society.
  2. Information we come across online can be from former members.
  3. Therefore, such criticism should not be trusted.

  The key point to remember is that someone’s argument should stand or fall on its own merit, not because of the source of the information.
  
  To provide a non-JW example consider the following:

  1. A study into the health risks of mobile phone[s] involved mobile phone companies.
  2. Therefore, the study cannot be trusted. 3

  ---

  1 Curtis, Gary N. "Argumentum ad hominem." Fallacy Files. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html>.

  2 Bennet, Bo. "Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)." Logically Fallacious. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial>.

  3 "Rhetological Fallacies." Information is Beautiful. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/>