Note: Please read my previous post about Deprivation Theory and Knowledge, before reading this. It'll explain the title.
I was presented recently, with an argument that Rational thought was limited to our current context, or our perception of life and existence. I.e. We strive to make everything rational because we can only conceive of this existence.
The concept is classic Kant. We live in a phenomenal world and rationality may apply only to the world in which we perceive. The "real" or Noumenal world may have a completely different set of rules and rationality may not even function there.
I'm trying to respond to this argument as carefully as possible, to convey the proper point but...
We could all live in a yellow submarine, too. Point is, ANYTHING COULD be, beyond the context and perception of our existence. The question is whether or not we live according to the context we KNOW and the world we are in, or do we subvert all that for the sake of living according to fundamental premises that we just HOPE are correct?
Basically, zooming out too far from existence almost entirely usurps epistemology. If we're to live according to principles based on a world we can neither perceive or know, then Ethics and Morality are played deuces wild. What's to say that sacrificing human beings isn't what we're supposed to do according to this greater existence that we can't even know exists? What's to say that genocide, slavery and any number of other abhorrent atrocities aren't actually good things, according to this estranged world that we suppose MIGHT exist?
Simply put, yes, "What if this world isn't real, and rationality is bunk?" is entirely valid. But, like so many Sophist questions, it will ALWAYS be asked, and NEVER be answered... unless we can figure something through science which is... rational. By operating on premises which can neither be proven true nor false, we directly state that it is perfectly acceptable to be, not only irrational, but unethical and immoral... because our notion of morality (which is based in epistemology) could be bullshit.
Easy Version: Zooming out too far on existence to suppose that the reality we perceive may well be false is valid question to ask, but it ultimately it destroys the very essence of knowledge and morality. It means that there is no right and wrong, there is no good or bad, there is no correct or incorrect, everything is fiction. There is no knowledge, there is no definition, there is no order... all is chaos. In all that, what I'm saying is that means there is no way that we even perceive our existence, that our knowledge is all false, and there is NOTHING that is keeping this world bound together... when there actually is.
Read: EFF U GRAVITY. I'M NOT OBEYIN' UR LAWZ.
Stewie Griffi, stoned in a pot shop in Amsterdam - "I think, the only reason we die, is because we accept it as an inevitability."
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
My Religious - Knowledge Dichotomy
This blog post is heavily influenced by a great many factors. Soul Searching. Religion. Knowledge. Philosophy. People. Stories.
To pin one thing would be a misnomer. I'll name a few influences.
Christianity
Deism
The Story of Cassie Bernall (brought about by the Band Flyleaf, who Janell turned me on to.)
The recent human influences in my life - Janell and Jonathan.
The lasting human influences in my life - Dad, My Brother.
Stories - Dragon Age: Origins (So far fetched that a video game would have an impacting story?) Les Miserables.
I'll have to start by identifying some conceptual elements that define the current question.
In the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and became like God, knowing both good, and evil. They were then cast out of the Garden of Eden as punishment. I'll unwrap the implication for the sake of explanation - Adam and Eve were punished for abandoning ignorance. Perhaps I miss the intent of the parable, which is indicating that they were cast out of Eden for falling prey to the Serpent's deceit? - The way I saw this, however, they were punished for knowledge.
Deism - A part religious and part philosophical answer to the question "Why are we here?" Deists hold that a supreme being created the universe as we know it, and that religious truth can be found through reason and knowledge (which includes Science, but understand that Deism is not Scientology). "Christian Deism" ultimately calls the Christian God that supreme being. Deism generally rejects the notion of any sort of divine intervention, as well as the notion that the Bible is the word of God.
The Story of Cassie Bernall - The commonly accepted notion is that Eric Harris asked Cassie Bernall; "Do you believe in God?" To which she supposedly said Yes before he killed her. The exchange never took place, both according to police reports and an interview with Emily Wyant, who was in the Library with Bernall when she was killed. The person who was asked "Do you believe in God?" was a girl named Valeen Schnurr. - She survived the assault.
So, why do I trounce upon such a story? - For the sake of Truth, and my going back to the first point - Knowledge.
So, with all this, I ask - Is the pursuit of knowledge evil? Is it wrong to want to know the truth? In so many ways religion tells us that it is, though in Christianity, it's not often explicit - In other religious, it definitely is. So many find such emotion and significance in the story of Cassie Bernall... which isn't even true, and we can prove it. I suppose the opportunity to mock any sort of religious text is laid open with that idea in mind (finding significance in fiction is the essence of parable) yet that's not my intent. My question is my own uncertainty.
I bring up this story to ask a question - Is the faith we're to have in a (or any) God, or in the description of God provided to us by the Bible/Church? I've largely become an apostate to the Church, mostly because I find it difficult to imagine that God would not want me to pursue an answer to my question, and would expect me to simply accept the words of a book on faith alone. Faith in the purely Christian sense of the idea supposes I should stop searching for God, and just accept everything in the book as correct. Look at the story of Cassie Bernall with that in mind - The situation is no less tragic, though certainly less significant. While it doesn't change what happened, it does provide fuel to a fire. The purpose of religion is to find truth in the meaning of our existence. If truth is a value, even according to the bible, why do we run from it for the sake of finding meaning in a story?
This is most of the reason why I stopped attending Church, and why I'm so reluctant to go back.
I've been inspired by someone recently, and I'm realizing that what I left so many years ago, may not be what I thought it was. While I will never stop my pursuit of knowledge, my desire for an answer, or constant introspection, I think I may go back to church, inspired by this person that personified the fact that my unrest may be unfounded.
Ironically, as I look toward going back, I think of the story of the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32) I'm not quite there yet, though.
To pin one thing would be a misnomer. I'll name a few influences.
Christianity
Deism
The Story of Cassie Bernall (brought about by the Band Flyleaf, who Janell turned me on to.)
The recent human influences in my life - Janell and Jonathan.
The lasting human influences in my life - Dad, My Brother.
Stories - Dragon Age: Origins (So far fetched that a video game would have an impacting story?) Les Miserables.
I'll have to start by identifying some conceptual elements that define the current question.
In the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and became like God, knowing both good, and evil. They were then cast out of the Garden of Eden as punishment. I'll unwrap the implication for the sake of explanation - Adam and Eve were punished for abandoning ignorance. Perhaps I miss the intent of the parable, which is indicating that they were cast out of Eden for falling prey to the Serpent's deceit? - The way I saw this, however, they were punished for knowledge.
Deism - A part religious and part philosophical answer to the question "Why are we here?" Deists hold that a supreme being created the universe as we know it, and that religious truth can be found through reason and knowledge (which includes Science, but understand that Deism is not Scientology). "Christian Deism" ultimately calls the Christian God that supreme being. Deism generally rejects the notion of any sort of divine intervention, as well as the notion that the Bible is the word of God.
The Story of Cassie Bernall - The commonly accepted notion is that Eric Harris asked Cassie Bernall; "Do you believe in God?" To which she supposedly said Yes before he killed her. The exchange never took place, both according to police reports and an interview with Emily Wyant, who was in the Library with Bernall when she was killed. The person who was asked "Do you believe in God?" was a girl named Valeen Schnurr. - She survived the assault.
So, why do I trounce upon such a story? - For the sake of Truth, and my going back to the first point - Knowledge.
So, with all this, I ask - Is the pursuit of knowledge evil? Is it wrong to want to know the truth? In so many ways religion tells us that it is, though in Christianity, it's not often explicit - In other religious, it definitely is. So many find such emotion and significance in the story of Cassie Bernall... which isn't even true, and we can prove it. I suppose the opportunity to mock any sort of religious text is laid open with that idea in mind (finding significance in fiction is the essence of parable) yet that's not my intent. My question is my own uncertainty.
I bring up this story to ask a question - Is the faith we're to have in a (or any) God, or in the description of God provided to us by the Bible/Church? I've largely become an apostate to the Church, mostly because I find it difficult to imagine that God would not want me to pursue an answer to my question, and would expect me to simply accept the words of a book on faith alone. Faith in the purely Christian sense of the idea supposes I should stop searching for God, and just accept everything in the book as correct. Look at the story of Cassie Bernall with that in mind - The situation is no less tragic, though certainly less significant. While it doesn't change what happened, it does provide fuel to a fire. The purpose of religion is to find truth in the meaning of our existence. If truth is a value, even according to the bible, why do we run from it for the sake of finding meaning in a story?
This is most of the reason why I stopped attending Church, and why I'm so reluctant to go back.
I've been inspired by someone recently, and I'm realizing that what I left so many years ago, may not be what I thought it was. While I will never stop my pursuit of knowledge, my desire for an answer, or constant introspection, I think I may go back to church, inspired by this person that personified the fact that my unrest may be unfounded.
Ironically, as I look toward going back, I think of the story of the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32) I'm not quite there yet, though.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Deprivation Theory and Purpose of Knowledge
Important Disclaimer: This will be about RELIGION. It's also going to challenge a great many religious beliefs, on a VERY core level. I'm not attacking any one religion specifically if I cite or reference a particular religion. It may just be the most appropriate example. Moreover, I'm not really attacking anything. I don't have an answer either, but the fact is - the burden of proof falls upon the believers.
Deprivation Theory: Freud, despite his questionable sanity and presumption that everything was about sex, made an interesting epistemological leap here. The theory goes, that where ever we lack a definitive answer, we substitute God(s, or Allah, Yaweh, whatever you want to call God.) Sometimes this is a difficult thing to pin down, in a modern context, because we've shed so much of our dependency on God because of what we now know. We ask "Why did I get cancer?" "Why did I develop MS?" and often times, even now we presume that "it is God's Will." - Read: we have no real answer to that question, so we're simply deflecting it to a religion for the sake of satisfying the question we always seek an answer to... "Why?"
I'm heavily inclined to follow this theory as fact, as I have myself and have seen so many do the same thing.
So, let's add some regression... Why ask why? (No, the answer is not drink Bud Dry... though it could very well be, if they still produced it,)
Zoom out, if you would, on not just your life, what your life means and how others affect your life. But zoom out on the world as a whole. Part of an immeasurable universe (that we presume in the singular by that very word. It could well be a multiverse) in which we are a floating spec rotating around a ball of flaming gas. Depending on what kind of rhetorical spin you put on that, it sounds like you've got the basis for a sitcom, or potentially a crude Adult Swim cartoon. But really the purpose of religion and philosophy both, are to try and define the question of "If we came from being, where did we come from?" and "If we go out of being, where do we go to?"
With this, I would submit that Atheists are just as religious as any other group, like the Christians, Buddhists, Jewish, etc. The question we seek to answer either with theology or philosophy is functionally identical. "Where do we go after we die?" Note that only a few religious groups have attempted to address this question. Philosophers have been trying for milennia.
The three answers to the question are as follows.
1. You go to heaven/hell/the afterlife.
2. You're reincarnated.
3. You're dead. The end.
Here's the problems.
1. Afterlife - If you go to an afterlife of some sort, then the question has been answered, but more arise. Like what happens if you stop existing there? Where do you go after that? If this life is transient, why not off yourself now and move on? Read: What's the purpose of this life if there is a next... and the purpose of the subsequent life, and so on?
2. Reincarnation - Well if you're reincarnated, that means this is the only existence (possibly, unless you mix this with option 1.) More importantly, it means that there is no basis upon which to create a morality. If you'll simply return when you die, then who cares if you kill someone? Also... explain population growth? I mean, I've looked into a lot of human eyes only to see the same empty stare I get from a cow, but really?
3. Nothing - This may be the most scientifically and logically correct answer... potentially. A difficult thing it is, for us to imagine that we simply stop existing. I mean, I can't even really wrap my head around the notion of not "being." Everything we do, say, or hear presupposes our own existence and our own consciousness. Even attempting to imagine what non-existence would be, is contradictory. You can't imagine it, because you would have no method to perceive, or translate sense data (which wouldn't even be sensed) into experience.
The problem with the notion, however, is the question of why we're here, and whether or not this is all there is. "Zero" as I'm going to call it, supposes that we're here by chance, nothing controlled it and everything affected it. - So why are we shaped the way we are? Why are we on this earth? The answer Zero has is an extremely minute chance. The Laws of Nature just happened to come together in a fashion proper enough to create the fact that I'm typing this at this very moment. But this takes us deeper into the rabbit hole. How do non-human elements come to exist, like the laws of nature, or time? What defined and required their presence?
Ultimately, Atheists that use Zero as their answer are just as whacked out as the Christians who say "God." We're all just flailing about hopelessly trying to explain something we have no ability to understand... so far.
What changed for me recently, was this realization. Now my focus - Making lots of money and hopefully spending more time with Janell. I'm not done with philosophy, just marvelling in it's occasional futility.
Deprivation Theory: Freud, despite his questionable sanity and presumption that everything was about sex, made an interesting epistemological leap here. The theory goes, that where ever we lack a definitive answer, we substitute God(s, or Allah, Yaweh, whatever you want to call God.) Sometimes this is a difficult thing to pin down, in a modern context, because we've shed so much of our dependency on God because of what we now know. We ask "Why did I get cancer?" "Why did I develop MS?" and often times, even now we presume that "it is God's Will." - Read: we have no real answer to that question, so we're simply deflecting it to a religion for the sake of satisfying the question we always seek an answer to... "Why?"
I'm heavily inclined to follow this theory as fact, as I have myself and have seen so many do the same thing.
So, let's add some regression... Why ask why? (No, the answer is not drink Bud Dry... though it could very well be, if they still produced it,)
Zoom out, if you would, on not just your life, what your life means and how others affect your life. But zoom out on the world as a whole. Part of an immeasurable universe (that we presume in the singular by that very word. It could well be a multiverse) in which we are a floating spec rotating around a ball of flaming gas. Depending on what kind of rhetorical spin you put on that, it sounds like you've got the basis for a sitcom, or potentially a crude Adult Swim cartoon. But really the purpose of religion and philosophy both, are to try and define the question of "If we came from being, where did we come from?" and "If we go out of being, where do we go to?"
With this, I would submit that Atheists are just as religious as any other group, like the Christians, Buddhists, Jewish, etc. The question we seek to answer either with theology or philosophy is functionally identical. "Where do we go after we die?" Note that only a few religious groups have attempted to address this question. Philosophers have been trying for milennia.
The three answers to the question are as follows.
1. You go to heaven/hell/the afterlife.
2. You're reincarnated.
3. You're dead. The end.
Here's the problems.
1. Afterlife - If you go to an afterlife of some sort, then the question has been answered, but more arise. Like what happens if you stop existing there? Where do you go after that? If this life is transient, why not off yourself now and move on? Read: What's the purpose of this life if there is a next... and the purpose of the subsequent life, and so on?
2. Reincarnation - Well if you're reincarnated, that means this is the only existence (possibly, unless you mix this with option 1.) More importantly, it means that there is no basis upon which to create a morality. If you'll simply return when you die, then who cares if you kill someone? Also... explain population growth? I mean, I've looked into a lot of human eyes only to see the same empty stare I get from a cow, but really?
3. Nothing - This may be the most scientifically and logically correct answer... potentially. A difficult thing it is, for us to imagine that we simply stop existing. I mean, I can't even really wrap my head around the notion of not "being." Everything we do, say, or hear presupposes our own existence and our own consciousness. Even attempting to imagine what non-existence would be, is contradictory. You can't imagine it, because you would have no method to perceive, or translate sense data (which wouldn't even be sensed) into experience.
The problem with the notion, however, is the question of why we're here, and whether or not this is all there is. "Zero" as I'm going to call it, supposes that we're here by chance, nothing controlled it and everything affected it. - So why are we shaped the way we are? Why are we on this earth? The answer Zero has is an extremely minute chance. The Laws of Nature just happened to come together in a fashion proper enough to create the fact that I'm typing this at this very moment. But this takes us deeper into the rabbit hole. How do non-human elements come to exist, like the laws of nature, or time? What defined and required their presence?
Ultimately, Atheists that use Zero as their answer are just as whacked out as the Christians who say "God." We're all just flailing about hopelessly trying to explain something we have no ability to understand... so far.
What changed for me recently, was this realization. Now my focus - Making lots of money and hopefully spending more time with Janell. I'm not done with philosophy, just marvelling in it's occasional futility.
Monday, December 7, 2009
LGATs and the Cult of the "Self." Who are you, really?
Today has a couple quotes, Courtesy of Robyn Dingledine and Nelson Mandela:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, not our Darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the World. There is nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel unsure around you. We were born to manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just some of us: it is in Everyone. As we let our Light shine, we unconsciously give others people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
"Objectivist Ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness - which means: the values required for man's survival qua man - which means: the values required for human survival - not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifice.
I quote both to identify the goal and the gap of the LGAT.
LGAT: Large Group Awareness Training
Those giant business or personal seminars you attend (because you want to, or because your employer requires it.)
These programs aren't really unfamiliar to many who've seen them advertised on afternoon or evening infomercials. For those that are unfamiliar, often times these programs offer methods to quit smoking, lose weight, attain wealth through personal improvement or likewise. Fantastic notions!
So why the heck write about them.
Well, I've been exposed to them periodically in the past, as well as to some of the techniques they use. As of late, I gained a new curiosity and had to pursue. What I found was... not what I expected. Using google, with the term "LGAT" our first destination is wikipedia. This is where some of my information will be cited, short of some personal connotation. Yes, I'm FULLY aware of the argued reliability of Wikipedia as a source. Sorry, I didn't pay the $40 for the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Plus, I'm on Clay Shirky's side. (Here Comes Everybody)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Group_Awareness_Training
A few fun new terms to research came up in reading the articles and a few terms stuck out. In particular, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Self Hypnosis and a few other interesting things to read about. NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) sounds worse than it likely is, so as with many things, reading is necessary.
Then I come across an interesting section, which would provide the thesis for this essay.
"LGAT's In Comparison With Cults."
Wow. Where did this bomb come from in what would otherwise seem a harmless self-help class?
The typical LGAT seminar is intended to challenge existing phobias, depressions, habits, or potentially even learning disorders. However, the techniques they often employ have drawn some psychological, legal and other scrutiny, as well as a brand as a "Cult-Like" following... complete with groups being lead into the desert with some casualties. Ultimately, what they try to help you find could be good, could be bad, but ultimately the question lies in the word "Self" and whether or not you can identify what that is.
The most common LGAT seminars available today are through PSI Incorporated (People Synergistically Involved) and are designed to help you find "yourself" and recondition your behavior to hopefully provide a better, happier you. The first class runs you about $596 US, the second ~$1200 and the third going up from there (the top end nearing $7.5k!) Some of the smaller LGAT's that you see offering Smoking Cessation programs can be considerably cheaper, though PSI Inc doesn't provide any. Other companies included (I use the past tense here, without the intent to mislead) Landmark, EST and others.
Why the past tense? What happened to these programs. - Well, EST was Erhard Standard Training, a self-help program centered on personal empowerment that went defunct in 1981 (after some scrutiny.) This gave way to "The Forum" a class provided by a company called Landmark that still exists, but has largely fled the marketplace due to a massive amount of litigation, and scrutiny. It was large enough to garner it's own wikipedia page, if that's worth something. (Landmark Education Litigation) Also still in existence is PSI Seminars. Litigation there is limited to a few small claims suits filed, and one growing class-action lawsuit for Extortion and Imprisonment.
Question 1: Why so many legal issues?
So, what's so bad that they end up with all kinds of legal issues? I'd gather mostly the technique. The typical LGAT training seminar is 30-90 hours, often times over a very limited number of days. PSI's Basic class is 4 days and 30 hours. This means that typically courses range from 8 to 14 hours long. At the start, the doors where the seminar is held are closed and locked, with release only for restroom purposes. According to our source cited wikipedia page "Marathon, eight-hour sessions, in which [participants] were confined and harassed, supposedly led to the breakdown of conventional ego, after which they were in effect born again." The argument is that these techniques are often used elsewhere like marketing and such. After the psychological degradation and attempted rebirth, the support and often times techniques like Self-Hypnosis and NLP (see earlier) are used to basically condition (or program) ones responses to a more positive end, rather than the depressed, low-esteem and placated previous self. Essentially, it is group psychotherapy.
Question 2: If you're in such a suggestible state, what ELSE are they suggesting, and who is suggesting it? You? The Trainer? The Crowd? I'm obligated to suggest the ever-increasing cost element of their seminars, which, unlike tuition at a college or university, increases (whether proportionately or disproportionately) with the class level you take.
Next up, some researchers have referred to LGAT training techniques as some of the same thought-reform processes used by cults. Alright, be that as it may, who's to say it's not effective? I'm gonna go with consumer feedback. This is one of the FIRST websites I came across after searching for PSI.
http://psi-seminars.pissedconsumer.com/
Now, after I found this, I was kind of shocked and disturbed, reading stories about people having nearly identical experiences (down to their "workshops") that they presumed were wholly enlightening and unique. Other disturbing elements are the stories of husbands and wives divorced, families destroyed and friendships torn apart. Graduates and Trainers philandering and other elements. It invoked thoughts that I had when I saw a sign regarding a resort in Jamaica titled "hedonism."
So, I dashed off as fast as the internet would take me to look for good. This added an even deeper fear. There is none that isn't provided by PSI-Seminars. Zero. Not a consumer report, not a Youtube video, not a blog here or there... Nothing. So I tried a few videos from PSI Seminars. It's kind of scary. A whole lot about "togetherness, what I learned about myself" without a whole lot of significant elements. Some are as short as 30 second blurbs about "well i learned how to expand and improve my acting career." - No one can explain why.
All that being said, I CANNOT SAY THAT ALL PSI SEMINAR COURSES ARE BAD, but given the similar cult branding and review of Landmark, I have to ask... Where are all these people who think so highly of PSI Seminars? Why is there so many terrible reviews and cult branding? I may have an answer, provided by our friend, Wikipedia. (From the LGAT Page)
"Not all professional researchers view LGATs favorably. Researchers such as psychologist Philip Cushman,[26] for example, found that the program he studied "consists of a pre-meditated attack on the self". A 1983 study on Lifespring[27] found that "although participants often experience a heightened sense of well-being as a consequence of the training, the phenomenon is essentially pathological", meaning that, in the program studied, "the training systematically undermines ego functioning and promotes regression to the extent that reality testing is significantly impaired""
Well that may be our answer. A shot of verbal heroin straight to the ego. The cult association is that often times, cults use similar degradation and reconstruction processes designed to keep you following in tune. While there's little explicit research evidence, you can do your own and find similar elements. In addition, these seminars also typically involve some sort of relatively esoteric or religious context in their class. PSI Seminars seems to embrace Jung's notion of the collective conscious - That if you don't do it, someone else will because you both thought of it at the same time.
Well I said it may not all be bad - It's not. It's entirely possible that some may not react to an LGAT, or that it may be more beneficial than destructive to one's ego, and accordingly, rational thought. Regardless, this is where we get the cult perception, and I'd have to say... at the risk associated, I can't say that it's not without merit. The ego governs rational thought and long term planning. Most of the complaint cases you'll find in the links (or a quick google search) will probably shed some light on the irrationality demonstrated by a great many - possibly some of those stories are self-realized.
In the end, my concern, and the motive for my blog update, is that emotional regression to a child-hood state (where the id is more dominant) would seem to me to be VERY dangerous in many circumstances. Should someone not properly reconstruct (or take the time to do so. And a 30 hour course isn't enough time) the ego in a more beneficial manner, it could ruin a life. I'm not talking to the point of mental rehab, I'm talking potential suicide, theft, murder, etc, as the ego is where our rationality and much of our morality resides.
But as I said, perhaps it is good. I'm very clearly biased, but perhaps the regression and reconstruction is small enough that it clears up old fears, or childhood memories or regrets. Perhaps it's deep enough to go even further, but the reconstruction happens properly. Maybe you just don't take it seriously but get some good wisdom from it.
Who Knows? I'd treat it more favorably, if the positive feedback I could find was more expansive than the company promoting it's self. Any other product, school, service or likewise always follows with review. This does not.
Ultimately, I would argue that the proper resolution for all these same issues that people have is two fold.
1. Value Judgments. Every person who spoke on the PSI Seminar reviews always talked about finally achieving their goals (though not how they got there.) Perhaps we limit the pursuit of our values and what we seek as good simply because we're told that self-pursuit is bad, and we're conditioned through Church, School, our Parents, our Friends and Family, that you should sacrifice yourself for others, because it's noble. As you all know, I disagree.
You have to know what yourself contains and what's important to yourself to pursue it. If the barrier they're breaking is the one that keeps you from being you and accomplishing your goals, FANTASTIC. However, if you don't know what you want, what is moral, what is a value to you... that's where the hundreds of scary reviews come from.
2. Your friend, The Shrink. - I would advise anyone seeking to be subject to these techniques consult a professional psychiatrist first. Just because you go to a shrink, doesn't mean you're messed up in the head, it just means that sometimes, you need someone to talk to, who can see you from the outside. I chat with a shrink about once a month now. It's good to take a load off, and that's a GREAT place to do it. Plus, they can tell you if you're really stable enough in other aspects, to deal with the training without falling apart.
That's the end folks. Buyer Beware. Friends and family, beware too, but be supportive. That's my task over the next indeterminate period.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our Light, not our Darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the World. There is nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel unsure around you. We were born to manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just some of us: it is in Everyone. As we let our Light shine, we unconsciously give others people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
"Objectivist Ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness - which means: the values required for man's survival qua man - which means: the values required for human survival - not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifice.
I quote both to identify the goal and the gap of the LGAT.
LGAT: Large Group Awareness Training
Those giant business or personal seminars you attend (because you want to, or because your employer requires it.)
These programs aren't really unfamiliar to many who've seen them advertised on afternoon or evening infomercials. For those that are unfamiliar, often times these programs offer methods to quit smoking, lose weight, attain wealth through personal improvement or likewise. Fantastic notions!
So why the heck write about them.
Well, I've been exposed to them periodically in the past, as well as to some of the techniques they use. As of late, I gained a new curiosity and had to pursue. What I found was... not what I expected. Using google, with the term "LGAT" our first destination is wikipedia. This is where some of my information will be cited, short of some personal connotation. Yes, I'm FULLY aware of the argued reliability of Wikipedia as a source. Sorry, I didn't pay the $40 for the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Plus, I'm on Clay Shirky's side. (Here Comes Everybody)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Group_Awareness_Training
A few fun new terms to research came up in reading the articles and a few terms stuck out. In particular, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Self Hypnosis and a few other interesting things to read about. NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) sounds worse than it likely is, so as with many things, reading is necessary.
Then I come across an interesting section, which would provide the thesis for this essay.
"LGAT's In Comparison With Cults."
Wow. Where did this bomb come from in what would otherwise seem a harmless self-help class?
The typical LGAT seminar is intended to challenge existing phobias, depressions, habits, or potentially even learning disorders. However, the techniques they often employ have drawn some psychological, legal and other scrutiny, as well as a brand as a "Cult-Like" following... complete with groups being lead into the desert with some casualties. Ultimately, what they try to help you find could be good, could be bad, but ultimately the question lies in the word "Self" and whether or not you can identify what that is.
The most common LGAT seminars available today are through PSI Incorporated (People Synergistically Involved) and are designed to help you find "yourself" and recondition your behavior to hopefully provide a better, happier you. The first class runs you about $596 US, the second ~$1200 and the third going up from there (the top end nearing $7.5k!) Some of the smaller LGAT's that you see offering Smoking Cessation programs can be considerably cheaper, though PSI Inc doesn't provide any. Other companies included (I use the past tense here, without the intent to mislead) Landmark, EST and others.
Why the past tense? What happened to these programs. - Well, EST was Erhard Standard Training, a self-help program centered on personal empowerment that went defunct in 1981 (after some scrutiny.) This gave way to "The Forum" a class provided by a company called Landmark that still exists, but has largely fled the marketplace due to a massive amount of litigation, and scrutiny. It was large enough to garner it's own wikipedia page, if that's worth something. (Landmark Education Litigation) Also still in existence is PSI Seminars. Litigation there is limited to a few small claims suits filed, and one growing class-action lawsuit for Extortion and Imprisonment.
Question 1: Why so many legal issues?
So, what's so bad that they end up with all kinds of legal issues? I'd gather mostly the technique. The typical LGAT training seminar is 30-90 hours, often times over a very limited number of days. PSI's Basic class is 4 days and 30 hours. This means that typically courses range from 8 to 14 hours long. At the start, the doors where the seminar is held are closed and locked, with release only for restroom purposes. According to our source cited wikipedia page "Marathon, eight-hour sessions, in which [participants] were confined and harassed, supposedly led to the breakdown of conventional ego, after which they were in effect born again." The argument is that these techniques are often used elsewhere like marketing and such. After the psychological degradation and attempted rebirth, the support and often times techniques like Self-Hypnosis and NLP (see earlier) are used to basically condition (or program) ones responses to a more positive end, rather than the depressed, low-esteem and placated previous self. Essentially, it is group psychotherapy.
Question 2: If you're in such a suggestible state, what ELSE are they suggesting, and who is suggesting it? You? The Trainer? The Crowd? I'm obligated to suggest the ever-increasing cost element of their seminars, which, unlike tuition at a college or university, increases (whether proportionately or disproportionately) with the class level you take.
Next up, some researchers have referred to LGAT training techniques as some of the same thought-reform processes used by cults. Alright, be that as it may, who's to say it's not effective? I'm gonna go with consumer feedback. This is one of the FIRST websites I came across after searching for PSI.
http://psi-seminars.pissedconsumer.com/
Now, after I found this, I was kind of shocked and disturbed, reading stories about people having nearly identical experiences (down to their "workshops") that they presumed were wholly enlightening and unique. Other disturbing elements are the stories of husbands and wives divorced, families destroyed and friendships torn apart. Graduates and Trainers philandering and other elements. It invoked thoughts that I had when I saw a sign regarding a resort in Jamaica titled "hedonism."
So, I dashed off as fast as the internet would take me to look for good. This added an even deeper fear. There is none that isn't provided by PSI-Seminars. Zero. Not a consumer report, not a Youtube video, not a blog here or there... Nothing. So I tried a few videos from PSI Seminars. It's kind of scary. A whole lot about "togetherness, what I learned about myself" without a whole lot of significant elements. Some are as short as 30 second blurbs about "well i learned how to expand and improve my acting career." - No one can explain why.
All that being said, I CANNOT SAY THAT ALL PSI SEMINAR COURSES ARE BAD, but given the similar cult branding and review of Landmark, I have to ask... Where are all these people who think so highly of PSI Seminars? Why is there so many terrible reviews and cult branding? I may have an answer, provided by our friend, Wikipedia. (From the LGAT Page)
"Not all professional researchers view LGATs favorably. Researchers such as psychologist Philip Cushman,[26] for example, found that the program he studied "consists of a pre-meditated attack on the self". A 1983 study on Lifespring[27] found that "although participants often experience a heightened sense of well-being as a consequence of the training, the phenomenon is essentially pathological", meaning that, in the program studied, "the training systematically undermines ego functioning and promotes regression to the extent that reality testing is significantly impaired""
Well that may be our answer. A shot of verbal heroin straight to the ego. The cult association is that often times, cults use similar degradation and reconstruction processes designed to keep you following in tune. While there's little explicit research evidence, you can do your own and find similar elements. In addition, these seminars also typically involve some sort of relatively esoteric or religious context in their class. PSI Seminars seems to embrace Jung's notion of the collective conscious - That if you don't do it, someone else will because you both thought of it at the same time.
Well I said it may not all be bad - It's not. It's entirely possible that some may not react to an LGAT, or that it may be more beneficial than destructive to one's ego, and accordingly, rational thought. Regardless, this is where we get the cult perception, and I'd have to say... at the risk associated, I can't say that it's not without merit. The ego governs rational thought and long term planning. Most of the complaint cases you'll find in the links (or a quick google search) will probably shed some light on the irrationality demonstrated by a great many - possibly some of those stories are self-realized.
In the end, my concern, and the motive for my blog update, is that emotional regression to a child-hood state (where the id is more dominant) would seem to me to be VERY dangerous in many circumstances. Should someone not properly reconstruct (or take the time to do so. And a 30 hour course isn't enough time) the ego in a more beneficial manner, it could ruin a life. I'm not talking to the point of mental rehab, I'm talking potential suicide, theft, murder, etc, as the ego is where our rationality and much of our morality resides.
But as I said, perhaps it is good. I'm very clearly biased, but perhaps the regression and reconstruction is small enough that it clears up old fears, or childhood memories or regrets. Perhaps it's deep enough to go even further, but the reconstruction happens properly. Maybe you just don't take it seriously but get some good wisdom from it.
Who Knows? I'd treat it more favorably, if the positive feedback I could find was more expansive than the company promoting it's self. Any other product, school, service or likewise always follows with review. This does not.
Ultimately, I would argue that the proper resolution for all these same issues that people have is two fold.
1. Value Judgments. Every person who spoke on the PSI Seminar reviews always talked about finally achieving their goals (though not how they got there.) Perhaps we limit the pursuit of our values and what we seek as good simply because we're told that self-pursuit is bad, and we're conditioned through Church, School, our Parents, our Friends and Family, that you should sacrifice yourself for others, because it's noble. As you all know, I disagree.
You have to know what yourself contains and what's important to yourself to pursue it. If the barrier they're breaking is the one that keeps you from being you and accomplishing your goals, FANTASTIC. However, if you don't know what you want, what is moral, what is a value to you... that's where the hundreds of scary reviews come from.
2. Your friend, The Shrink. - I would advise anyone seeking to be subject to these techniques consult a professional psychiatrist first. Just because you go to a shrink, doesn't mean you're messed up in the head, it just means that sometimes, you need someone to talk to, who can see you from the outside. I chat with a shrink about once a month now. It's good to take a load off, and that's a GREAT place to do it. Plus, they can tell you if you're really stable enough in other aspects, to deal with the training without falling apart.
That's the end folks. Buyer Beware. Friends and family, beware too, but be supportive. That's my task over the next indeterminate period.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Local Beer and the Fabled Hop Secret 393.
Normally I don't review or even think about local beers from brewpubs, simply because they often follow a typical formula that the brewmaster can't see passed.
I.e. The Rock Bottom Brewery. Typically speaking, most of their beers taste relatively the same, because they're limited with the ingredients. - 2 or 3 beers will have an identically roasted malt that gives a similar after taste, or the hop content from 1 beer to the next is the same. Could be the fermentation process that adds a similar taste, as well.
EVERY once in a while, I find something unique, however.
I.e. The Rodeo Rye from the Mahogany Ridge in Steamboat Springs, or the second exception to the "no dark malted IPA" rule I carry, that I found in Hayward, Wisconsin.
The exception of the day is the "Scottish Ale" (which is wonderfully indescript) from the Rock Bottom Brewery.
What: ??? Scottish Ale
Who: The Rock Bottom Brewery (16th & Curtis, Denver CO, 80202, or Boulder and others.)
Contents: Carmel Malts, ???? Hop content. I've tasted this hop before, in a beer titled only "Hop Secret" which was served in the Taproom at Odell Brewing Co. The hop was only called "Hop Secret 393" I believe. For lack of a better way to put it, this hop is fabled as being almost completely unavailable on the open market, so some brewers that get their hands on a sizable enough volume, do amazing things. (That I know of, Sierra Nevada and Odell.)
With that, I'd have a hard time believing that the Rock Bottom would end up with it, but... who knows?
Ultimately...
The trick that I've discovered, tasting what I believe to be the second beer brewed with Hop Secret 393 is temperature.
The hop provides a DISTINCT maple sweetness with a light hoppy bitter toward the end. Paired with a caramel or lighter malt, it's like drinking a combination of maple syrup and amaretto, only without the weight.
Here's the fun part - I mentioned last week that some beers get better as they warm. This is the hop that made me realize exactly that. If enjoyed extremely cold, it won't have the distinct maple character it should. So... if you get your hands on a growler of this (it's worth the trip to the Rock Bottom JUST for it) pour your beer, and let it get to about 42-48 degrees before you enjoy it. I.e. Put it in a big glass and sip it over the course of an hour. Temperature has SUCH a huge effect on this beer, it's like drinking a different beer almost every time you pick up the glass.
So, this is perhaps more a tribute to Hop Secret 393. If that's what the Rock Bottom used, awesome. If not, their brewmasters are far more in tune with good beer than I give them credit for. Either way, Points on this ale.
I.e. The Rock Bottom Brewery. Typically speaking, most of their beers taste relatively the same, because they're limited with the ingredients. - 2 or 3 beers will have an identically roasted malt that gives a similar after taste, or the hop content from 1 beer to the next is the same. Could be the fermentation process that adds a similar taste, as well.
EVERY once in a while, I find something unique, however.
I.e. The Rodeo Rye from the Mahogany Ridge in Steamboat Springs, or the second exception to the "no dark malted IPA" rule I carry, that I found in Hayward, Wisconsin.
The exception of the day is the "Scottish Ale" (which is wonderfully indescript) from the Rock Bottom Brewery.
What: ??? Scottish Ale
Who: The Rock Bottom Brewery (16th & Curtis, Denver CO, 80202, or Boulder and others.)
Contents: Carmel Malts, ???? Hop content. I've tasted this hop before, in a beer titled only "Hop Secret" which was served in the Taproom at Odell Brewing Co. The hop was only called "Hop Secret 393" I believe. For lack of a better way to put it, this hop is fabled as being almost completely unavailable on the open market, so some brewers that get their hands on a sizable enough volume, do amazing things. (That I know of, Sierra Nevada and Odell.)
With that, I'd have a hard time believing that the Rock Bottom would end up with it, but... who knows?
Ultimately...
The trick that I've discovered, tasting what I believe to be the second beer brewed with Hop Secret 393 is temperature.
The hop provides a DISTINCT maple sweetness with a light hoppy bitter toward the end. Paired with a caramel or lighter malt, it's like drinking a combination of maple syrup and amaretto, only without the weight.
Here's the fun part - I mentioned last week that some beers get better as they warm. This is the hop that made me realize exactly that. If enjoyed extremely cold, it won't have the distinct maple character it should. So... if you get your hands on a growler of this (it's worth the trip to the Rock Bottom JUST for it) pour your beer, and let it get to about 42-48 degrees before you enjoy it. I.e. Put it in a big glass and sip it over the course of an hour. Temperature has SUCH a huge effect on this beer, it's like drinking a different beer almost every time you pick up the glass.
So, this is perhaps more a tribute to Hop Secret 393. If that's what the Rock Bottom used, awesome. If not, their brewmasters are far more in tune with good beer than I give them credit for. Either way, Points on this ale.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Mountain Standard Reserve - Really, this time.
Tonight's quote...
"Grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
I've realized this evening that I need to learn to let go and stop trying to force things in the direction I want them to go. - I should do this with the things that I can, but I've let my desire to shape my world affect my friends and family.
Tonight's Song...
"Van Nuys" Sixx:A.M.
"I don't want to die... out here in the valley. Waiting for my luck to change."
We all want to be somebody. We all want our lives to be significant, yet so many of us sit around waiting for life to happen.
I think the underlying point here is - If you want to be huge, if you want to be something - Do it. Don't wait for what you want to come to you, or for the right time - Make the time right, make the change that's in front of you, that you have the power to change.
Thanks to Nel for Sixx:A.M. I'm working my way to "Girl with Golden Eyes." Stuck on Heart Failure currently.
The topic at hand...
The Beer: Mountain Standard Reserve '09
From: Odell Brewing Company
Price: $11.99 - $15.99 / 22oz Bomber
Color: "Mahogany" Dark. Similar in color to many Belgian style beers, like Abbey, Chimay, Maredsous, etc.
Hops: Chinook and Cascade varieties grown on the Western Slope of CO.
Malts: Not sure. The maltiness is very transparent, which leads me to believe it's a well roasted Crystal Malt, but I'm not 100%.
Caution: This beer, being bottle conditioned and intended for aging WILL head up quickly. Avoid pouring a cold beer into a glass that's not as cold. If the beer has been in the refrigerator a few days, make sure the glass has been in the freezer for a while. If it's room temperature, make sure the glass is room temp, or you'll end up with 1/4 beer, 3/4 head.
Temp Suggestion: Serving this up ice cold is a challenge, because of how it likes to head up, but doing so is going to bring out it's hoppiness a LOT more. The warmer it becomes, the more the malt will factor into the taste. Being a hop head, I'd prefer it cold, but it's one of the few beers that's fantastic at room temp as well. It's much easier to pour warm, however.
Also, likely a good idea to open it, and give it about 2-3 minutes of air. Pull the glass out of the freezer with 1 minute remaining, to match temp.
This beer is a pleasant hoppy surprise. Being dark, one would expect it to have a taste mostly dominated by the malt, yet due to dry hopping and a double dose of hops, it has a wonderful fresh nose and character you would expect from a heavily hopped IPA or Pale ale without quite the bite. The typical hoppy bite is curbed very well by the more roasted malt, but thanks to the proper type of malt, it doesn't dominate the flavor like others do. A regular complaint I have is the excessive presence of malt in darker IPA's and Pale Ales intended to curb the bitter. Often times this ends up destroying the presence of the hops. This beer addresses that complaint very well, keeping the hop aroma and presence in the beer very much alive, while still tapering some of the less pleasant bitter that often accompanies an IPA.
9/10 from me on this. I'd give it the full 10/10, but 15 bucks for a beer makes it a rare treat, instead of something you can really enjoy regularly.
"Grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
I've realized this evening that I need to learn to let go and stop trying to force things in the direction I want them to go. - I should do this with the things that I can, but I've let my desire to shape my world affect my friends and family.
Tonight's Song...
"Van Nuys" Sixx:A.M.
"I don't want to die... out here in the valley. Waiting for my luck to change."
We all want to be somebody. We all want our lives to be significant, yet so many of us sit around waiting for life to happen.
I think the underlying point here is - If you want to be huge, if you want to be something - Do it. Don't wait for what you want to come to you, or for the right time - Make the time right, make the change that's in front of you, that you have the power to change.
Thanks to Nel for Sixx:A.M. I'm working my way to "Girl with Golden Eyes." Stuck on Heart Failure currently.
The topic at hand...
The Beer: Mountain Standard Reserve '09
From: Odell Brewing Company
Price: $11.99 - $15.99 / 22oz Bomber
Color: "Mahogany" Dark. Similar in color to many Belgian style beers, like Abbey, Chimay, Maredsous, etc.
Hops: Chinook and Cascade varieties grown on the Western Slope of CO.
Malts: Not sure. The maltiness is very transparent, which leads me to believe it's a well roasted Crystal Malt, but I'm not 100%.
Caution: This beer, being bottle conditioned and intended for aging WILL head up quickly. Avoid pouring a cold beer into a glass that's not as cold. If the beer has been in the refrigerator a few days, make sure the glass has been in the freezer for a while. If it's room temperature, make sure the glass is room temp, or you'll end up with 1/4 beer, 3/4 head.
Temp Suggestion: Serving this up ice cold is a challenge, because of how it likes to head up, but doing so is going to bring out it's hoppiness a LOT more. The warmer it becomes, the more the malt will factor into the taste. Being a hop head, I'd prefer it cold, but it's one of the few beers that's fantastic at room temp as well. It's much easier to pour warm, however.
Also, likely a good idea to open it, and give it about 2-3 minutes of air. Pull the glass out of the freezer with 1 minute remaining, to match temp.
This beer is a pleasant hoppy surprise. Being dark, one would expect it to have a taste mostly dominated by the malt, yet due to dry hopping and a double dose of hops, it has a wonderful fresh nose and character you would expect from a heavily hopped IPA or Pale ale without quite the bite. The typical hoppy bite is curbed very well by the more roasted malt, but thanks to the proper type of malt, it doesn't dominate the flavor like others do. A regular complaint I have is the excessive presence of malt in darker IPA's and Pale Ales intended to curb the bitter. Often times this ends up destroying the presence of the hops. This beer addresses that complaint very well, keeping the hop aroma and presence in the beer very much alive, while still tapering some of the less pleasant bitter that often accompanies an IPA.
9/10 from me on this. I'd give it the full 10/10, but 15 bucks for a beer makes it a rare treat, instead of something you can really enjoy regularly.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Alienation of Intellect.
I'm writing this based on a presumption. I will never call myself "Intelligent" for the same reasons that a wise man will never say they are wise. They realize an above average status, but supposing wisdom, like intelligence, supposes both a measurable standard, and that there is a limit. I have a great deal of room to grow, but since I am told that I'm intelligent, here's my assertion.
Intellect is as personally beneficial as it is socially alienating. Knowledge and intellect are based on facts and either necessary or sufficient conclusions that follow those facts. For example, If we suppose that a black hole has a gravitational pull strong enough to draw in light, it necessarily follows that we cannot see a black hole since our eyes require light to operate. An absence light restricts vision, it does not enable it. Conclusions like this are hugely gratifying, especially when they are personally beneficial.
But it also causes you to alienate yourself. When you know fact from fiction, and a friend or family member makes choices based on a fictional elements, there is no good way of handling the problem. You point out their error, and potential upset them. You don't, and that error could be damaging to that person. So, do you be an asshole by caring, or do you avoid being the asshole, and let them potentially hurt themselves?
In a disagreement of fact, there is a right and wrong answer. What caused the collapse of the housing market is not subject to interpretation. Factual occurrences lead to a conclusion, and there is no room for debate. Yet stating facts and a conclusion that someone disagrees with (errors of knowledge or intellect) turns the subject into a debate. You have two choices, stick with the facts and don't back down, or allow the person to continue with their erroneous conclusion. Again, in one way, you are an asshole, in the other, you let someone go on with false conclusions that may cause them to hurt themselves (or in a democracy, others.)
Lastly, is the "arrogance" and/or "talking above" someone in a conversation. As was recently pointed out, the use of complex rhetoric, be it linguistic or scientific, puts people either on the defense or makes them apathetic to your conversation.
Defensiveness occurs when the person tries to follow a conversation but cannot define a word or doesn't understand a concept, and develops a feeling of inadequacy as a result. The only proper responses are getting upset, or admitting fault.
Apathy occurs when the conversation is wholly irrelevant to the person you're speaking to. Apathy's alienation is explicit. You are, or the content of your mind is insignificant to the person you're speaking to, and you receive the same amount of care and concern that you would expect to obtain from a stranger you pass on the street.
Defensiveness is the same result from before: "You asshole, how dare you insult my intelligence." Regardless of your intent, you are alienated for indirectly exposing another person's lack of knowledge. I have and do make errors of knowledge as well, but htis is why I ask people to correct me, and I enjoy it when they do. I don't care about pride. I want to be correct, and knowledgeable.
I have realized recently, that I am not human. Generally, humans are more concerned with how they feel, and less concerned with facts or fiction, nor the consequences. I am alone because I am not human in this regard. I'm not sure what I would be, if not human, but I certainly don't fit the description of humanity.
Harry Truman gave a favorite quote of mine... "They think I'm giving them hell. I'm just telling the truth, and they think it's hell." I might suggest the fact that while I seem like an asshole, what I'm really trying to do is protect what I love, and I really love you all.
Intellect is as personally beneficial as it is socially alienating. Knowledge and intellect are based on facts and either necessary or sufficient conclusions that follow those facts. For example, If we suppose that a black hole has a gravitational pull strong enough to draw in light, it necessarily follows that we cannot see a black hole since our eyes require light to operate. An absence light restricts vision, it does not enable it. Conclusions like this are hugely gratifying, especially when they are personally beneficial.
But it also causes you to alienate yourself. When you know fact from fiction, and a friend or family member makes choices based on a fictional elements, there is no good way of handling the problem. You point out their error, and potential upset them. You don't, and that error could be damaging to that person. So, do you be an asshole by caring, or do you avoid being the asshole, and let them potentially hurt themselves?
In a disagreement of fact, there is a right and wrong answer. What caused the collapse of the housing market is not subject to interpretation. Factual occurrences lead to a conclusion, and there is no room for debate. Yet stating facts and a conclusion that someone disagrees with (errors of knowledge or intellect) turns the subject into a debate. You have two choices, stick with the facts and don't back down, or allow the person to continue with their erroneous conclusion. Again, in one way, you are an asshole, in the other, you let someone go on with false conclusions that may cause them to hurt themselves (or in a democracy, others.)
Lastly, is the "arrogance" and/or "talking above" someone in a conversation. As was recently pointed out, the use of complex rhetoric, be it linguistic or scientific, puts people either on the defense or makes them apathetic to your conversation.
Defensiveness occurs when the person tries to follow a conversation but cannot define a word or doesn't understand a concept, and develops a feeling of inadequacy as a result. The only proper responses are getting upset, or admitting fault.
Apathy occurs when the conversation is wholly irrelevant to the person you're speaking to. Apathy's alienation is explicit. You are, or the content of your mind is insignificant to the person you're speaking to, and you receive the same amount of care and concern that you would expect to obtain from a stranger you pass on the street.
Defensiveness is the same result from before: "You asshole, how dare you insult my intelligence." Regardless of your intent, you are alienated for indirectly exposing another person's lack of knowledge. I have and do make errors of knowledge as well, but htis is why I ask people to correct me, and I enjoy it when they do. I don't care about pride. I want to be correct, and knowledgeable.
I have realized recently, that I am not human. Generally, humans are more concerned with how they feel, and less concerned with facts or fiction, nor the consequences. I am alone because I am not human in this regard. I'm not sure what I would be, if not human, but I certainly don't fit the description of humanity.
Harry Truman gave a favorite quote of mine... "They think I'm giving them hell. I'm just telling the truth, and they think it's hell." I might suggest the fact that while I seem like an asshole, what I'm really trying to do is protect what I love, and I really love you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)