logansrun

Joined

• started 268 topics
• posted 2,970 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by logansrun

• 
  33

  "Brainwashing " thread......Part 2

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, if a friend comes up to us and says, ?you?re an idiot!?

  and we feel sad and angered after this incident we are likely to say that our friend made us feel sad and angry.

  we made ourselves feel sad and angry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  shotgun,

  Ah, you're comparing apples and oranges! Physical pain is one thing, cognitive/emotive stimuli is another. What's the expression? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?" Too true.

  B.
• 
  33

  "Brainwashing " thread......Part 2

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, if a friend comes up to us and says, ?you?re an idiot!?

  and we feel sad and angered after this incident we are likely to say that our friend made us feel sad and angry.

  we made ourselves feel sad and angry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Actually, Brummie, how "brainwashing" relates to the A>>>B>>>C model of human cognition is only incidental. Although it may be of interest (or not!) to many here, I think it's real important application lies in the day-to-day experiences we all have. How many times do we say to ourselves, "Gee he really made me upset" or "Damn, the weather is making me so depressed!" It's all our B's follks!

  B.
• 
  33

  "Brainwashing " thread......Part 2

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, if a friend comes up to us and says, ?you?re an idiot!?

  and we feel sad and angered after this incident we are likely to say that our friend made us feel sad and angry.

  we made ourselves feel sad and angry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I realize some might take exception to my statment:

  To greater or lesser degrees we also experienced a number of non-Witness stimuli: going to school, at work, with ?worldly? relatives, the media, in our day-to-day interactions with others in life. All these elements, not just the Witness part, help form our belief system and thinking processes.

  ...by stating that the Witness religion tries to limit non-Witness stimulit, or at least non-Witness stimuli which might threaten the prescribed Witness worldview. This is true. But, I would reply, this attempt at limiting "contaminating influences" is far from perfect; there is always "leakage" that gets through to individual JWs. In fact, there's quite a bit of it.

  One could further state that the Witnesses are trained to interpret this "leakage" of worldly influences in a manner that is favorable to the Witness worldview. But, for this to happen requires that each individual JW at B (belief) choose to accept the standard Witness line of thinking when they are told to do so at A (activating event). The choice, ultimately, is still in each individual (adult) Witness.

  Bradley
• 
  55

  "Brainwashing" does not exist

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the term "brainwashing" is sometimes thrown around this forum and i thought i'd briefly comment on it.

  the idea that a group or person can actually make you think, act and feel in a certain way is highly dubious.

  i'm not saying it's impossible, but i highly doubt that any ex-jws have ever experienced "brainwashing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I started another thread to continue this topic....

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/82312/1.ashx

  Bradley
• 
  33

  "Brainwashing " thread......Part 2

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, if a friend comes up to us and says, ?you?re an idiot!?

  and we feel sad and angered after this incident we are likely to say that our friend made us feel sad and angry.

  we made ourselves feel sad and angry.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I thought I?d comment further on ?brainwashing? and why it really could only exist in certain circumstances. First, though, I thought I would put forward a suspicion ? not an argument, but a suspicion -- that we all would do well to think about. As ex-JW?s who have been hurt ? to varying degrees ? by the WT organization it is in our personal interest to make the religion that has caused damage in our life look as bad as possible. The worse the WT looks the better for us! Since ?brainwashing? is certainly bad in the minds of most people we may have very personal motivations to label the JWs as brainwashers since this has the common effect of making us feel a revengeful glee, or perhaps further justifies our complete and utter hatred for everything the JWs stand for. I?m not saying that this is the case, just a possibility. All of us have our biases in this regard, and with this in mind we would do well to examine our motivations for our labels. This is a personal matter, not open to proof and I will therefore not dwell on it.
  

  Nevertheless, there are more scientific and common-sense reasons why I do not believe in brainwashing on the normal adult level. The thrust of my argument against the notion is how thinking actually occurs in the brain. Many of us believe that external events ? what people say to us, for instance ? causes us to feel/think/act in a certain way. So, if a friend comes up to us and says, ?You?re an idiot!? and we feel sad and angered after this incident we are likely to say that our friend made us feel sad and angry. This seems like common sense, but it is not true. Our friend did not make us feel a certain way. We made ourselves feel sad and angry. Let me explain.

  Borrowing the language of psychologist Albert Ellis, let us label our friend?s statement ?A? for activating event. Label our feeling sad and angry ?C? for consequences. Most people, as I said before, believe that A directly causes C (A>>>C). This is not so. There is an element missing, and that would be ?B? which stands for our beliefs about A. Except for reflex responses of a physical nature this is how all of our conscious mental processes work. (Some might pick up on that word conscious and try and argue that ?brainwashing? takes place on the unconscious level through subliminal messages and the like. But this is very unscientific and could be explained why on another occasion).

  So, when our friend comes up to us and says, ?You?re an idiot!? (A) we form a belief about the statement (B) which leads to the consequences, emotions, etc. (C). In other words, B is a personal filtering process which shapes C. If we feel sad and angered at our friends statement it is due to the fact that at B, our belief about the statement, we told ourselves something like, ?Oh, this is terrible! What have I done? I must be an idiot!? or perhaps ?What a lousy friend he is calling me an idiot! I?m not going to speak with him anymore!? Internal dialogue such as this ? which may take place in a matter of a couple of seconds ? is what causes us to feel sad and angry. Again, A>>>B>>>C.

  But, that doesn?t mean we have to feel sad and angry. At point B we could say to ourselves, ?I do some idiotic things on occasion but that doesn?t mean I?m an idiot. My friend is wrong. Too bad for him!? or ?My friend must be in a really bad mood. I won?t take his statement too seriously.? Beliefs such as this will most likely lead to more productive emotions, not intense sadness and anger.

  What is the point? External events do not by themselves cause us to feel/think/act in a certain way. We have an element of control at point B which will shape our consequences (C). We are not stimulus-response animals. We are thinking animals with a considerable measure of control over our internal cognitions and emotions. All this is pretty standard fare in psychology these days. It?s commonly accepted.

  What does this have to do with ?brainwashing?? Let us label the JWs supposed ?brainwashing statements? as A. ?We are the only true religion because of?? is an admittedly simplistic example, but for space limitations it will suffice. Just because we are exposed to the ?brainwashing statements? at point A does not mean that we will necessarily experience at point C the idea ?Well, then this is the truth?? For this to happen we must at point B tell ourselves something like, ?Well, since this authority figure is saying it?s the truth then?? or ?Hey, this sounds great! I would like to live in paradise therefore?? We are active participants in this ?indoctrination process.? The brainwashing statements (A) could only cause our belief that it is the truth (C) through the filter or our beliefs (B) about A.

  There is no reason why point B could be thought differently, though. We could have said to ourselves after hearing the ?brainwashing statement? something like, ?Well, just because this elder/parent says this does not mean it?s really true? or ?I wonder what other people think about this matter?? and the like. We might even say, as some Witness children undoubtedly do, ?What utter bullshit! These people are nuts!?

  So it is both the activating event (A) plus our beliefs about it (B) which cause our feeling/acting in a certain way (C). Obviously point B is the critical point. It is here where we have the most control. It is here where we decide what our consequence will be to the activating event. It is here where we chose to believe whether it?s the ?Truth? or not.

  Now you might rightly ask, ?How does one ?come up? with the self-statements at point B?? That?s a good question and there is no ?one answer? to it. Partly it is biological. All humans come pre-packaged into the world to be thinking creatures. We all have the capacity to think critically?and to think crookedly! We naturally generalize and overgeneralize. Some of us might even have a genetic disposition to be more accepting and uncritical than others (although a disposition is not destiny; it can be worked on).

  Since we are thinking creatures by nature we have the capability to ?tie together? everything that we experience in our lives into a ?grand narrative? if you will. As Witnesses we experienced a heavy amount of conditioning from the organization, perhaps our family, etc. But that?s not all that we experienced. To greater or lesser degrees we also experienced a number of non-Witness stimuli: going to school, at work, with ?worldly? relatives, the media, in our day-to-day interactions with others in life. All these elements, not just the Witness part, help form our belief system and thinking processes. Our environment and past experience, combined with our biological predispositions, is what gives us the building blocks for our filtering beliefs (B) about all the activating events (A) we experience.

  So, are we then in control of our consequences (feelings, actions, etc) at point C? Yes. It?s the belief system (B) we choose which creates this. Are we in control of our belief system, then? Well, yes and no. It?s a fuzzy concept, free will. Free from what? Free from all external stimuli? Free from our biology? Free from the ?causal nexus?? I don?t know. It is helpful to think of humans as both product and process. We are obviously products of our environment and heredity, but we are also an active process in that the executive centers of our brains constantly are sorting through information, making connections, commanding actions?all of which effect our environments in circular fashion.

  Needless to say (as I have somewhat gone off on a tangent!) our belief system is not solely determined by one group of people, whether family, religion or the like, but by a myriad of factors both biological and environmental. Therefore, ?brainwashing? is a simplistic concept which does not take into account a number of contributing conditions such as genetics, the enormous amount of environmental stimuli outside of the so-called ?brainwashing group? and our own self-consciousness and executive cognitive abilities.

  I admit a couple of possible exceptions, though. The first is the seriously mentally ill. Can it rightly be said that they have good decision making abilities at point B? Obviously not. But, that is true for everything they experience, not just the stimuli they receive from the ?brainwashing group?, in this case, the Witnesses. If a psychotic person sees a television commercial showing how gleefully happy you can be by drinking a Pepsi they are likely to uncritically believe it. Is Pepsi at fault for ?brainwashing? them? I think not. (Yes, this is a crude example and I?m not saying that the JWs shouldn?t be held responsible for some of the errors they have made with the mentally ill. But, of course, for some mentally ill people the JWs may be a good support group offering some semblance of structure to their chaotic lives.)

  Similarly with young children. We can?t expect a six-year-old to think critically about what they are told, nor can they reason philosophically. They have not the life experience to compare information nor are their brains physically developed enough to make complex decisions. So, in a sense, yes ? young Witness children are ?brainwashed.? But, these same youngsters are also ?brainwashed? by cartoons, television commercials showing how ?happy? you can be by eating sugary cereals, by their kindergarten teachers and their fellow playmates.

  It?s unfortunate that JW children have some ?really bad? stimuli in the form of Witness propaganda. Fortunately, though, they grow up. As normal Witness children get older their brains further develop, they experience more and more stimuli and can reason accordingly. Just because they were ?brainwashed? as children does not mean they must continue to be ?brainwashed.? This is a fact that is true of all children as they grow into adults. The problem is that most adults persist their crummy reasoning and hold irrational ideas in their head. At this point, though, one cannot blame their childhood anymore, as it is up to the adult to discontinue irrational, uncritical beliefs held in childhood. (Indeed, is this not how many people come to be ex-Witnesses?)

  I hope this clarifies the matter a little further. By no means do I claim to be an expert and I am not dogmatic about any of this. I do not mean to imply that the Witness organization does not engage in very foolish, manipulative and sometimes dishonest means to attract/retain membership. I also do not minimize the real hurt that they have helped create (with our own help!) in our lives. In the end, I believe that this realization is actually very positive, for it shows that we indeed do have much more control over our lives than we might have thought.

  Reference

  Ellis, Albert (1990). The essential Albert Ellis: seminal writings on psychotherapy. New
  York: Springer Publishing Comapany.
• 
  26

  If There Is No God, No Spiritual

  by Satanus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i copied this from michael goodspeed.

  i think it's interesting.

  i don't agree w everything he says.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Prozac, anyone?

  B.
• 
  75

  I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian

  by Zep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.

  this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.

  the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  However, if someone came up to me and said they were a Christian and would pray for me I wouldn't judge that person.

  Neither would I. I would most likely assume that that person was using his label of "Christian" in a logical manner. But if someone came up to me and said, "Well I'm a Christian but I don't believe in God, I think Jesus was wrong about adultury being the only means for divorce and I don't feel he was raised from the dead" I would say that that person was using her self-label of "Christian" in an illogical and almost nonsensical manner.

  B.
• 
  23

  How have some experienced the love?

  by setfree in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i remember one time at an assembly these two "brothers" were actually arguing over thier seats.

  i thought they were going to go to blows.

  isn't it funny how during the regular meeting nobody wants to set in the front rows, but boy at an assembly everyone wants to have that "showy means of display" by being in the front rows to be seen by all?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  People might like to sit in the front rows of a large auditorium because it is easier to see while still not being conspicuous because of the large number of people. In a smaller setting one can see from rows further back and sitting up front in a small format will make one more conspicuous (especially getting up to go to the bathroom, ect).

  Sometimes we do take our suspicions a little too far.

  B.
• 
  75

  I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian

  by Zep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.

  this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.

  the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Being a Christian can be just about a philosophy of life, not really based on any "facts" from the Bible or science.

  It's like saying you're happy, you don't have to have concrete reasons why, you can just be a happy person.

  That's a very dubious line of reasoning. A "Christian" is a title with which a certain number of minimal features are attached, otherwise the term becomes meaningless. "Happy" is a subjective condition of the mind, not a title. Someone can be "happy" by giving food to a homeless crippled child and another can be genuinely happy by torturing people. Being "happy" can be brought about by many different conditions. Not so with Christianity. If I, J. Bradley Potts, said that you must: 1) Not kill animals; 2) Be nice to humans and 3) Abstain from sex the third tuesday of every month and you only follow rules 1 and 2 can you logically be said to be my follower? I think not. Jesus said you must "Love Jehovah your God with your whole...blah, blah, blah." (Can't get that NWT out of my mind). If "loving" the horrendous God of the OT is something that Jesus said you must do, and you don't, then you are not following Jesus and are not a Christian. Christianity by it's very nature is logically linked with the OT and all manner of absolutist claims. There's just no getting around it. Bradley
• 
  75

  I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian

  by Zep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the first way is to be completely ignorant.to ignore the fact that the bible is a hopelessly flawed man made document, and all other reasoned argument and evidence that points to the non existence of the christian god.

  this strategy basically involves living inside mental cocoon and closing your eyes to any alternative views.

  the best way to employ this tactic is to perform a whole lot repetitive and ritualistic action; a whole lot of head bowing and praying etc... etc....you know the drill!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I don't think it is right to label anyone anything except what they label themselves. If such a person labels himself Christian, who am I to say otherwise?

  So, if I label myself a doctor even though I have no credentials to support this claim is that "okay"? What if I labeled myself a communist but still believed in free-market capitalism -- wouldn't my "communism" be somewhat of a joke?

  I know, I know...I like word games.

  :) Bradley