willful suspension of disbelief

[psy]

What I'm reading

Ginger mentioned this to me when we were talking.

Maintaining a believing attitude is a very human thing to do, especially when the alternative requires giving up something even more important to an individual than rationality. A believing attitude basically requires cultivating what is known as the "willful suspension of disbelief". This means that people will see what they want to see, and will ignore or minimize those facts that would lead to an opposite conclusion.

I don’t want to imply that this sort of behavior applies only to Christians, or even only to religious people. I think that many a scientist, while trying to sustain a pet theory, has applied the willful suspension of disbelief and ignored uncomfortable facts that might point to a differing conclusion. It is human to do this.

Nevertheless, ignoring the plain facts is stupid, IMO.  Pride should not get in the way of the truth.  This could be true of TheWho or it could be true of me as he would surely accuse me, however, anybody who has been in one of these little cults knows full well that the damage done by these places does not lie in bullshit numbers, but in very real long term damage caused by the types of thought reform used.  He's pushing an irrelevant point.  How many suicides aren't reported.  I got more than one on my video tape and evidence of a bunch more...  How does six months on average sound with a population of about 20 sound?

discuss

[Nihilanthic]

I think that video would shut him and a lot of other apologetic people with their pockets rather full of the hands of certain programmies up for good.

[Che Gookin]

They were all 'brainwashed' by their 2 parent seminars and a handful of phonecalls.

[Anonymous]

How does six months on average sound with a population of about 20 sound?

What do you mean Psy?

[Ursus]

How does six months on average sound with a population of about 20 sound?

What do you mean Psy?

I also don't understand what you mean by this... perhaps I am missing something?

[Ursus]

...however, anybody who has been in one of these little cults knows full well that the damage done by these places does not lie in bullshit numbers, but in very real long term damage caused by the types of thought reform used.

I've said it before:  I don't think you can quantify or even approximate the damage done by these places by any means practiced at the moment.  No one bothers to do any long-term studies, but long-term studies are precisely what are needed given the kind of damage that takes place.

Do you really think industry insiders and apologists are going to do these kinds of studies?  It is not in their financial best interests to touch this with a ten-foot pole.  They might do an assessment whilst the kid is in program and maybe 1 year out.  No further removed from exposure than that.

But much of the damage does not begin to percolate to the surface and become overtly evident 'till much later.  It's like psychological asbestos.  It takes time for some of the effects from exposure to show up, and by the time they do, you're pretty much fucked.

[Antigen]

FIFTY YEARS AGO, when I was a boy of fifteen and helping to inhabit a Missourian village on the banks of the Mississippi, I had a friend whose society was very dear to me because I was forbidden by my mother to partake of it. He was a gay and impudent and satirical and delightful young black man -a slave -who daily preached sermons from the top of his master's woodpile, with me for sole audience. He imitated the pulpit style of the several clergymen of the village, and did it well, and with fine passion and energy. To me he was a wonder. I believed he was the greatest orator in the United States and would some day be heard from. But it did not happen; in the distribution of rewards he was overlooked. It is the way, in this world.

He interrupted his preaching, now and then, to saw a stick of wood; but the sawing was a pretense -he did it with his mouth; exactly imitating the sound the bucksaw makes in shrieking its way through the wood. But it served its purpose; it kept his master from coming out to see how the work was getting along. I listened to the sermons from the open window of a lumber room at the back of the house. One of his texts was this:

"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."

I can never forget it. It was deeply impressed upon me. By my mother. Not upon my memory, but elsewhere. She had slipped in upon me while I was absorbed and not watching. The black philosopher's idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities. He must restrict himself to corn-pone opinions -- at least on the surface. He must get his opinions from other people; he must reason out none for himself; he must have no first-hand views.

I think Jerry was right, in the main, but I think he did not go far enough.

1. It was his idea that a man conforms to the majority view of his locality by calculation and intention. This happens, but I think it is not the rule.

2. It was his idea that there is such a thing as a first-hand opinion; an original opinion; an opinion which is coldly reasoned out in a man's head, by a searching analysis of the facts involved, with the heart unconsulted, and the jury room closed against outside influences. It may be that such an opinion has been born somewhere, at some time or other, but I suppose it got away before they could catch it and stuff it and put it in the museum.

I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing -- if it has indeed ever existed.

A new thing in costume appears -- the flaring hoopskirt, for example -- and the passers-by are shocked, and the irreverent laugh. Six months later everybody is reconciled; the fashion has established itself; it is admired, now, and no one laughs. Public opinion resented it before, public opinion accepts it now, and is happy in it. Why? Was the resentment reasoned out? Was the acceptance reasoned out? No. The instinct that moves to conformity did the work. It is our nature to conform; it is a force which not many can successfully resist. What is its seat? The inborn requirement of self-approval. We all have to bow to that; there are no exceptions. Even the woman who refuses from first to last to wear the hoop skirt comes under that law and is its slave; she could not wear the skirt and have her own approval; and that she must have, she cannot help herself. But as a rule our self-approval has its source in but one place and not elsewhere -- the approval of other people. A person of vast consequences can introduce any kind of novelty in dress and the general world will presently adopt it -- moved to do it, in the first place, by the natural instinct to passively yield to that vague something recognized as authority, and in the second place by the human instinct to train with the multitude and have its approval. An empress introduced the hoopskirt, and we know the result. A nobody introduced the bloomer, and we know the result. If Eve should come again, in her ripe renown, and reintroduce her quaint styles -- well, we know what would happen. And we should be cruelly embarrassed, along at first.

The hoopskirt runs its course and disappears. Nobody reasons about it. One woman abandons the fashion; her neighbor notices this and follows her lead; this influences the next woman; and so on and so on, and presently the skirt has vanished out of the world, no one knows how nor why, nor cares, for that matter. It will come again, by and by and in due course will go again.

Twenty-five years ago, in England, six or eight wine glasses stood grouped by each person's plate at a dinner party, and they were used, not left idle and empty; to-day there are but three or four in the group, and the average guest sparingly uses about two of them. We have not adopted this new fashion yet, but we shall do it presently. We shall not think it out; we shall merely conform, and let it go at that. We get our notions and habits and opinions from outside influences; we do not have to study them out.

Our table manners, and company manners, and street manners change from time to time, but the changes are not reasoned out; we merely notice and conform. We are creatures of outside influences; as a rule we do not think, we only imitate. We cannot invent standards that will stick; what we mistake for standards are only fashions, and perishable. We may continue to admire them, but we drop the use of them. We notice this in literature. Shakespeare is a standard, and fifty years ago we used to write tragedies which we couldn't tell from -- from somebody else's; but we don't do it any more, now. Our prose standard, three quarters of a century ago, was ornate and diffuse; some authority or other changed it in the direction of compactness and simplicity, and conformity followed, without argument. The historical novel starts up suddenly, and sweeps the land. Everybody writes one, and the nation is glad. We had historical novels before; but nobody read them, and the rest of us conformed -- without reasoning it out. We are conforming in the other way, now, because it is another case of everybody.

The outside influences are always pouring in upon us, and we are always obeying their orders and accepting their verdicts. The Smiths like the new play; the Joneses go to see it, and they copy the Smith verdict. Morals, religions, politics, get their following from surrounding influences and atmospheres, almost entirely; not from study, not from thinking. A man must and will have his own approval first of all, in each and every moment and circumstance of his life -- even if he must repent of a self-approved act the moment after its commission, in order to get his self-approval again: but, speaking in general terms, a man's self-approval in the large concerns of life has its source in the approval of the peoples about him, and not in a searching personal examination of the matter. Mohammedans are Mohammedans because they are born and reared among that sect, not because they have thought it out and can furnish sound reasons for being Mohammedans; we know why Catholics are Catholics; why Presbyterians are Presbyterians; why Baptists are Baptists; why Mormons are Mormons; why thieves are thieves; why monarchists are monarchists; why Republicans are Republicans and Democrats, Democrats. We know it is a matter of association and sympathy, not reasoning and examination; that hardly a man in the world has an opinion upon morals, politics, or religion which he got otherwise than through his associations and sympathies. Broadly speaking, there are none but corn-pone opinions. And broadly speaking, corn-pone stands for self-approval. Self-approval is acquired mainly from the approval of other people. The result is conformity. Sometimes conformity has a sordid business interest -- the bread-and-butter interest -- but not in most cases, I think. I think that in the majority of cases it is unconscious and not calculated; that it is born of the human being's natural yearning to stand well with his fellows and have their inspiring approval and praise -- a yearning which is commonly so strong and so insistent that it cannot be effectually resisted, and must have its way. A political emergency brings out the corn-pone opinion in fine force in its two chief varieties -- the pocketbook variety, which has its origin in self-interest, and the bigger variety, the sentimental variety -- the one which can't bear to be outside the pale; can't bear to be in disfavor; can't endure the averted face and the cold shoulder; wants to stand well with his friends, wants to be smiled upon, wants to be welcome, wants to hear the precious words, "He's on the right track!" Uttered, perhaps by an ass, but still an ass of high degree, an ass whose approval is gold and diamonds to a smaller ass, and confers glory and honor and happiness, and membership in the herd. For these gauds many a man will dump his life-long principles into the street, and his conscience along with them. We have seen it happen. In some millions of instances.

Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals.

In our late canvass half of the nation passionately believed that in silver lay salvation, the other half as passionately believed that that way lay destruction. Do you believe that a tenth part of the people, on either side, had any rational excuse for having an opinion about the matter at all? I studied that mighty question to the bottom -- came out empty. Half of our people passionately believe in high tariff, the other half believe otherwise. Does this mean study and examination, or only feeling? The latter, I think. I have deeply studied that question, too -- and didn't arrive. We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

Wake up!

By Howard Rheingold

    The relationship between the use of language and the induction of trance states might be one of the keys to understanding life in the last years of the technology millenium. What if we're all in a trance, and have been given hypnotic suggestions to ignore the evidence that we are in a trance? As we stumble around, bedazzled, enormous machines eat the earth. How would we treat people who try to tell us that we need to wake up? Ask Charley Tart, Ph.D. As Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, where he has taught, conducted research, and written books for the past 26 years, Charles Tart, Ph.D., qualifies as a tweedcoat and even a whitecoat. He is a member in good standing of the science cult, and his down to earth, low-key presentation lends an unexpected insider punch to his statements about the science cult's blind spots -- and every human's blind spots. He thinks of himself as a scientist, not a guru, working in a field that is underpopulated despite it's importance. It is underpopulated because research into consciousness is dangerous to an experimental psychologist's career, and because it isn't easy to do the kind of research that can get the attention of the orthodoxy. Tart's most recent book is Waking Up: Overcoming the Obstacles to Human Potential. [...] You can contact Dr. Tart via email: http://riceinfo.rice.edu/projects/RDA/V ... old/texts/.

http://www.cantrip.org/charles_tart.html

[Anonymous]

...however, anybody who has been in one of these little cults knows full well that the damage done by these places does not lie in bullshit numbers, but in very real long term damage caused by the types of thought reform used.

I've said it before:  I don't think you can quantify or even approximate the damage done by these places by any means practiced at the moment.  No one bothers to do any long-term studies, but long-term studies are precisely what are needed given the kind of damage that takes place.

Do you really think industry insiders and apologists are going to do these kinds of studies?  It is not in their financial best interests to touch this with a ten-foot pole.  They might do an assessment whilst the kid is in program and maybe 1 year out.  No further removed from exposure than that.

But much of the damage does not begin to percolate to the surface and become overtly evident 'till much later.  It's like psychological asbestos.  It takes time for some of the effects from exposure to show up, and by the time they do, you're pretty much fucked.

You're absolutely right about this, it took 20 years for me to give it more than a second thought...

[Antigen]

I don't think anything will shut most of them up. But just having the discussion will draw them in. It's practically irresistible. Some will dig in,like most of my family has for the past generation and a half or so. Others will take good council from Cassious Clay, who said "The man who views the world at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.", wake the fuck up and practice their 2nd step for real. My dad did that for me only one time verbally then consistently with his feet for the rest of his life and that has saved me more than almost anything.

At any rate, this promises to continue to be a vibrant, animated and vitally important discussion. I'm about to start working on the Fornits' letter to Santa. Right now, more than anything, more than a pony, more than a million dollars, the Fornits want everybody to absorb, swap and discuss reading, viewing, and other artistic, jourlalistic, litigious and legislative; to better educate ourselves and enliven the debate. The commissions don't hurt things a bit, either, when you purchase your stuff through my amazon links. Or put something clever and poignant on a mug or tshirt at zazzle.com and use fornits as a tag. This should go without saying but, given the underlying bias and acculturation of the audience, I'll say it. This would include stuff with which you know already that the fornits and all their interesting friends and fans would certainly disagree. Bring it! Send us all copies of your favourite material or post straight amazon links if you can stand the thought of a little chump change going to the Care & Feeding of Fornits.

As always, all comers are welcome whether you agree or disagree with the majority of the room.

Rampant talking out in group!

[Anonymous]

There is no group. There's not even amity.

What Psy meant is that on average, 1 out of 20 program kids will kill themselves every six months. This seems excessive on the surface but is believable after some thought.

[Anonymous]

There's not even amity.

Hmm.. what about amityville?

[TheWho]

I think that video would shut him and a lot of other apologetic people with their pockets rather full of the hands of certain programmies up for good.

Well it depends.. if psy had full control over the interviews and chose which questions to ask and also had full control over editing the film then no I don’t think it will surprise anyone.  We all are aware of psy’s position on Benchmark so the outcome of the film will not be an eye opener.
If independent people were involved and Benchmark was included in choosing the questions and editing the film then I would be on the edge of my seat and request the first copy.  But I suspect the film will have as heavy a bias as possible against Benchmark.




...

[TheWho]

There is no group. There's not even amity.

What Psy meant is that on average, 1 out of 20 program kids will kill themselves every six months. This seems excessive on the surface but is believable after some thought.

If this is in fact true.... what is it telling us?  If these same group of kids never attended a program would the death rate increase to 1 out of 5?  How do we know?
If I told you another fact that 51% of people who undergo chemo therapy die within 5 years.  How do we react to this?  Should we ban people from having chemo therapy or is there some information missing?  Is chemo causing their deaths?



...

[Anne Bonney]

I think that video would shut him and a lot of other apologetic people with their pockets rather full of the hands of certain programmies up for good.

Well it depends.. if psy had full control over the interviews and chose which questions to ask and also had full control over editing the film then no I don’t think it will surprise anyone.  We all are aware of psy’s position on Benchmark so the outcome of the film will not be an eye opener.
If independent people were involved and Benchmark was included in choosing the questions and editing the film then I would be on the edge of my seat and request the first copy.  But I suspect the film will have as heavy a bias as possible against Benchmark.




...

I would have no problem with independent people doing a documentary on it.  I would have no problem with Benchmark being able to have their say.....as long as Psy or others representing our POV were able to contribute equally....but that will never happen.  Places like Benchmark can't stand up to the scrutiny of actual open debate.  That's why isolation and secrecy is so important.  That's why communication with family and anything to do with the outside world is either halted altogether or severely restricted, monitored and otherwise censored.  That's why they shy away from studies and long term research (as Who is so often fond of asking..."why would they want to do that??".  He says the same thing about regulation).  They know they wouldn't stand a chance.   Can you imagine if one of them really decided to do a point-by-point debate with one of us???  Holy shit!!!

Flip on the light and watch the cockroaches scatter.

[Anne Bonney]

If this is in fact true.... what is it telling us?  If these same group of kids never attended a program would the death rate increase to 1 out of 5?  How do we know?
If I told you another fact that 51% of people who undergo chemo therapy die within 5 years.  How do we react to this?  Should we ban people from having chemo therapy or is there some information missing?  Is chemo causing their deaths?

Its not too much of a stretch to figure out if you have a 'troubled kid' (although most really aren't...its just helicopter parenting) and ship him off to a bunch of pseudo-therapeutic center with un or underqualified staff who use the "positive peer culture" or "therapeutic community" approach of humiliation, forced confessions and thought reform, mucking around in a developing psyche.....you're gonna have problems.