That's a cool story, Thirdson. Makes me feel good. Funny how when people want to, friendships can last beyond great distances and great lengths of time. The title you chose says it best... "a friend." Not too many of those running around.
peace,
tj
Posts by teejay
-
1A Friend's Visit
by Thirdson ini had a visit from a friend this weekend that i thought id mention.
i have known b for 20+ years since the time i was working at a company in between college periods.
after i finished college we worked together in the production-engineering department.
-
-
teejay
-
65
The dim people
by Norm inthe dim people.
the new world society.
the chosen, brain dead, scared people.. the watchtower's obedient parrots.
-
-
teejay
Hello, Jan,
I hope you will take the time to explain something to me. You seemed to take issue with AMOS when, among other things, he said, "Logic is as subjective as belief." Based on my experience, I have no problem with this. To me it means (among other things) that in the matter of the existence of god logicians seem to omit from the equation what possibly exists but is as yet unknown.
Based on your comments here and several others of yours I've read, you seem to have much more training in the study of logic than I, so please explain:
From a logical perspective, does such an omission (omitting the possibility of something beyond measurable limits) offend "logical" thought? In other words, does logic merely concern itself with what can be tangibly measured? And are all forms of logic the same, leading to the same conclusion with the same evidence, or can separate trained logicians, working with the same evidence, logically come to different conclusions? Is "logic" a perfect science?To Amos you said, "Logic is distinguished from opinion by not being arbitrary and subjective," that since "there is no real evidence for a God, then it is irrational to believe in one." Again, you may be speaking words with their own particular application in the science of logic, but according to definitions of the word that I've seen, "logic" IS, as Amos said earlier, "shaped by experience, education and belief."
Logic is variously described as a "study"or "art" ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=logic); a "science", "branch" or "mode of reasoning" ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=logic); a "study of principles", a "system of reasoning" ( http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/L0230500.html). All of these expressions seem to require subjective biases, but I could be wrong.
I don't agree that arguing with the absolute truthfulness of a logical point of view is a matter of "deluding" oneself anymore than logicians are delusional. It's simply a different way of looking at the same thing. You said that, "since you (AMOS) have no personal experience about the origins of the universe or life, your intiution (and mine) is useless." Common sense leads one to do nothing more than agree with your statement. Since no one alive was witness to the universe's origins, what's left is for us to guess, whether we base our guess using what tangible evidence exists or base our hypothesis on the same coupled with personal experience, whatever that is.
Finally, you said, "Once you learn what logic is, you may realize that facts and logic makes belief in gods obsolete." That may be true for many who strictly adhere to logical thought, but even for them, there may, I say MAY exist evidence beyond puny man's ability to register at this point in time. Who is to say what presently existing evidence that is beyond our scope, may one day become measurable, making present "logical" viewpoints of god obsolete.
peace,
todd -
65
The dim people
by Norm inthe dim people.
the new world society.
the chosen, brain dead, scared people.. the watchtower's obedient parrots.
-
-
teejay
Logic is as subjective as belief. Two hundred years ago, scientists were not able to measure the existence of viruses and hence did not believe in their existence. The inadequacy of scientific measuring systems does not prove the non-existence of anything. The most you can say is that "at the moment science has been unable to determine whether god exists".
Hello, AMOS, and welcome to the board!
Beautiful! I really like what you said here, as it accurately describes my current religious status. As far as I can understand the meaning of what "logic" is, it's no different than a religion, of sorts. It's a science, a system of beliefs based on an initial assumption, where nearly all scientific studies originate. Personally, based on what I know now it would be impossible for me to say that I was an atheist or was absolutely convinced that there is no god. It seems to me that atheists are as convinced of the unseen as Christians, making the two groups oddly similar, imo.
I thought your analogy of viruses (and what little was once known of them) is very appropriate. Anymore I try to base my beliefs on tangible evidence (maybe you'd like to see a thread where I discussed my views last week http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=8379&site=3). But still, no human or group of humans have all of the answers, so making the leap to "there is not and could not possibly be a god" isn't reasonable to me. As with Christians, so it is with atheists--I think people should be free to believe whatever they want, but dogmatism either way isn't... er... logical.
peace,
todd -
29
To Active COs/DOs
by Maximus ina major news organization is in final process of preparing a tv program addressing the issues raised by silentlambs.
its producers and investigator reporters wish to be fair and unbiased, and are seeking broad input and insight.. another such organization has been attracted to the child abuse issue but does not wish to duplicate what's covered.
they are in the initial stages of examining the blood issue and that of enforced shunning and its consequences, in the light of human rights issues globally.
-
-
teejay
A nation or society of people can be judged by how it treats its weakest, most defenseless members.
So can a religious organization. The WTS is not the organization I grew up in. Maybe it never was.
-
5
first impressions
by teejay inwhen we meet someone for the first time, we notice a number of things about them--clothes, gestures, manner of speaking, tone of voice, appearance, and so on.
we then draw on these cues to fit the person into a ready-made category.
no matter how little information we have or how contradictory it is, no matter how many times in the past our initial impressions of people have been wrong, we still classify and categorize people after meeting them only briefly.. associated with each category is a schema, a set of beliefs or expectations about something (in this case people) based on past experience and that is presumed to apply to all members of that category.
-
-
teejay
Yes I am, larc. Very much.
You make an interesting point concerning the lack of reliability of job interviews, and it's one of the reasons I was posting this. During his lecture the instructor took the time to point out that fact to the class. Most of the students are quite younger than me, of course, and the reality that an interviewer's judgment of them would impact whether or not they got the job will be very useful to them in years to come.
I asked the instructor why the interview process was still such a valued tool of the hiring process, in view of the high likelihood for erroneous conclusions. He said something about federal laws, tradition, etc. Still, for the interviewee, it's something worth knowing.
peace,
tj
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------more:
Schemata can also lure us into "remembering" things about people that we never actually observed. Most of us associate the traits of shyness, quietness, and preoccupation with one's own thoughts with the schema introvert. If we notice that Melissa is shy, we are likely to categorize her as an introvert. Later, we may "remember" that she also seemed preoccupied with her own thoughts. In other words, thinking of Melissa as an introvert saves us the trouble of taking into account all the subtle shadings of her personality. But this kind of thinking can easily lead to errors if we attribute to Melissa qualities that belong to the schema but not to her.
Because other people are so important to us as actual or potential friends, colleagues, and intimate partners, we measure them against our schemata from the moment we meet them. Drawing on our general schemata, we quickly form a first impression. Over time, as we continue to interact with them, we add new information about them to our mental files. However, our later experiences with people generally do not influence us nearly so much as our earliest impressions. This has become known as the primacy effect, the theory that early information about someone weighs more heavily than later information in influencing one's impression of that person.
More to come...
-
41
How Many IN, OUT, etc.
by troubled ini'm wondering how many here are "active jws," "inactive jws," "x-jws," or "never jws.".
i don't mean to be nosy.
i'm just wondering how many are in a situation like mine (still in, but struggling).
-
-
teejay
Hello again, troubled.
I was one of six kids raised by a single mom who learned "the truth" in 1962 when I was five. From then until around my early/mid thirties I was a believer, through and through. A variety of events in my personal life conspired to lead me to do some research of the org's early history, specifically the Society's claim of what Jesus found when he came to inspect the earthly temple in 1918. The rest is history.
I'm more at peace about having a better understanding of many things that bothered me for years, but "happier"? Good question--hard to quantify. It's hard to argue with the built-in advantages of the org.-- the "friendships," activities, answers to all the troubling questions of life, etc. I'm neither df'd or da'd. I go to the meetings every now and then and probably will more so when my daughter ages, to keep an eye on things.
peace,
tj -
5
first impressions
by teejay inwhen we meet someone for the first time, we notice a number of things about them--clothes, gestures, manner of speaking, tone of voice, appearance, and so on.
we then draw on these cues to fit the person into a ready-made category.
no matter how little information we have or how contradictory it is, no matter how many times in the past our initial impressions of people have been wrong, we still classify and categorize people after meeting them only briefly.. associated with each category is a schema, a set of beliefs or expectations about something (in this case people) based on past experience and that is presumed to apply to all members of that category.
-
-
teejay
Free,
You're talking about a stereotype which is a special kind of schema, something that's also covered in the chapter. A stereotype is a set of characteristics thought to be shared by all members of a social category (see norm's The dim people thread). It is based on almost any distinguishing feature, including sex, race, occupation, physical appearance, place of residence, and membership in a group or organization. When our first impressions of people are governed by a stereotype, we tend to infer things about them solely on the basis of their social category and to ignore facts about individual traits that are inconsistent teeth the stereotype. As a result, we may "remember" things about them selectively or inaccurately, thereby perpetuating our initial stereotype.
You said, "It makes my blood boil. Unfortunately it also puts me on the defensive which prevents them accessing my real personality. Great fun at job interviews!!" By being stereotyped, other's interaction with you is altered which, in turn, changes your reaction to them. In other words, the stereotype takes on a life of its own as the way you are perceived leads directly to THEIR behavior toward you, which, in turn, causes YOU to conform to the stereotype. It's a bad cycle, difficult (but not impossible) to stop, especially if you're aware of the phenomenon.
I don't know how long you've been visiting JW.com, but we've seen this happen in the not-too-distant past. It's very interesting, and very common.
peace,
tj -
65
The dim people
by Norm inthe dim people.
the new world society.
the chosen, brain dead, scared people.. the watchtower's obedient parrots.
-
-
teejay
However, to brand in a certain way; [e.g., stupid, brain-dead]individual members of any group without even knowing them personally, is the height of presumptuousness.
I could not agree more, Ustabee. It's easy to generalize about a group of people. That way we don't need to expend any further mental energy to get to know individuals within the group. The problem comes when, for example, saying that the membership of the WTS is dim-witted, stupid, etc.
That viewpoint fails to take into consideration that there are JW.com posters who, were it not for their regular and insightful participation here, would have all the appearances of those same dim-witted and stupid JWs, and we know that is not the case. While many people continue to attend meetings, give talks, go in service, even serve in positions of authority; that in no way means that they are not as fully aware of the truth about the WTS as the most enlightened of US.
True wisdom does not lie in judging by outward appearances or making broad, sweeping generalizations. We can't ever say what or how a person thinks about a matter until we talk to them personally.
tj
-
5
first impressions
by teejay inwhen we meet someone for the first time, we notice a number of things about them--clothes, gestures, manner of speaking, tone of voice, appearance, and so on.
we then draw on these cues to fit the person into a ready-made category.
no matter how little information we have or how contradictory it is, no matter how many times in the past our initial impressions of people have been wrong, we still classify and categorize people after meeting them only briefly.. associated with each category is a schema, a set of beliefs or expectations about something (in this case people) based on past experience and that is presumed to apply to all members of that category.
-
-
teejay
When we meet someone for the first time, we notice a number of things about them--clothes, gestures, manner of speaking, tone of voice, appearance, and so on. We then draw on these cues to fit the person into a ready-made category. No matter how little information we have or how contradictory it is, no matter how many times in the past our initial impressions of people have been wrong, we still classify and categorize people after meeting them only briefly.
Associated with each category is a schema, a set of beliefs or expectations about something (in this case people) based on past experience and that is presumed to apply to all members of that category. For example, if we see a woman wearing a white coat who also has a stethoscope around her neck, we might reasonably categorize her as a doctor. Further, we might conclude that she is a highly trained professional, knowledgeable about diseases and their cures, qualified to prescribe medication and so forth. These various conclusions follow from most people's schema of a doctor.
Schemata serve a number of important functions. For one thing, they allow us to make inferences about other people. We assume, for example, that a friendly person is likely to be good-natured, to accept a social invitation from us, or to do us a small favor. We may not know these things for sure, but our schema for friendly person leads us to make this inference.
Schemata play a crucial role in how we interpret and remember information. For example, in one sturdy, some subjects were told that they would be receiving information about friendly, sociable men, whereas other subjects were informed that they would be learning about intellectual men. Both groups were then given the same information about a set of 50 men and asked to say how many of the men were friendly and how many were intellectual. The subjects who had expected to hear about friendly men dramatically overestimated the number of friendly men in the set, and those who had expected to hear about intellectual men vastly overestimated the number of intellectual men in the set. Moreover, each group of subjects forgot many of the details they received about the men that were inconsistent with their expectations. In short, the subjects tended to hear and remember what they expected to.
From Psychology - an Introduction by Charles Morris with Albert Maisto, Prentice Hall, 1999
more to come...
-
1
the RENAISANCE
by crossroads ini've been reading rev.
my question would be are we now in the.
thousand year rule of christ?
-
-
teejay
Mark, here's what I think...
I think the author of the book of Revelation stumbled upon a poppy field, or the poor lad had his prison food spiked with mushrooms or something like it. <g> just kidding.
Actually, when I was exiting the org, I had a similar thought to the one that you suggest... that the book was fulfilled in earlier times (the second century? the Dark Ages?) and that people looking for it's fulfillment NOW in the 20th century were no different than Jews looking for a messiah who has already been here.
Now, I think it's a nice story with potential for a Hollywood summer blockbuster, if they ever have the nerve.
peace,
todd