Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS)

sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers

<< < (4/6) > >>

AtomicAnt:
Buzzkill,
I find it interesting that we come from opposite ends of a subject and we both feel that there is a movement to discriminate against those of our respective groups.
 
 You state that:
 
  I think with the media, what has changed is a willingness to depict Christianity and Christians as ignorant, mindless buffoons, whose POV is not worth considering. They are marginalized and dismissed in a way un-heard of a few decades ago.


I feel that since the election of Bush in 2000, that Liberals have been marginalized to the point where the word liberal itself has become an indictment or at least an insult.

I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely.

I have never seen this country so divided between so-called conservatives and so-called liberals. I think the media has fed this feud by airing inflammatory programs (on both sides) that instead of engaging in rational debate or editorializing, they engage in bashing the other side and often outright lie to do it.

I don't think there is a conspiracy of the sort that Linda Kimbell is out to demonstrate.

That does not mean there is nothing to be alarmed about. It is not a conspirancy, but it is systemic. There are tactics being used by groups that promote agendas that are far more effective than easily spotted propaganda. The potential to sway the larger populace's opinion to one view is certainly there. If that is the point you are extracting from the article, then, yes, I can see that.
 
I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.
 
As a teen, I questioned my father on this. He was a high school math teacher and adminstrator for 40 years. He actually agreed with me that the role of the schools is not so much to teach children as it is to assimilate them into the larger society. The schools serve the purpose of developing a similar world view among all members of the society; a sort of 'homogeneity factory', if you will. I find this alarming. He thinks it is useful for society.

Any of us who fall outside the 'accepted norm' will be marginalized.

Also, one of the best tactics used by the establishment is to portray the enemy as 'crazy' or as you said, 'buffoons.' It is not just Christians. Look at the philosphy of anarchy. There were serious communist and anarchist political movements in the USA at the turn of the century that the establishment has successfully portrayed in history as being nothing more than violent, mindless thugs, temporarily making noise on the peripheral of society. They ignore the very valid philosophical advances and political ideas that evolved from these groups.

As an alternative to the media, acadamia, liberal, conspiracy I suggest you read Jaque Ellul's book, The Technological Society. It is a difficult read, but worth the effort.
 
In a nutshell, Ellul puts forth the the idea that humankind has adopted a pattern of seeking out the best technique to do any given thing; build a bridge, educate children, advertise, fix a troubled teen, perform surgery, everything. He further states that this seeking out of better and better techniques has taken on an autonomy that no one individual or group can control or stop. It has a life of its own. The pursuit of technique leaves behind moral values and traditions. It squashes religion. The only judgement concerns the effectiveness of the technique. If it works, it will be used. The technique has become more important than the end it is supposed to achieve. Where it will lead humanity is anyone's guess. Whether it is good, evil, or indifferent depends on how the individual sees it.

Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it.
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-01-10 20:25 ]

AtomicAnt:
I have been thinking this whole thing through and let me try this:
 
1. As an atheist, I view human beings as animals. I disavow Cartesian duality and believe that our thoughts, feelings, etc are manifestations of chemical/electrical processes in our brains.
 
2. I believe some aspects of our personality are hard wired and some are obtained from the environment and through experience. We gather facts (observations) and gain experience from our interaction with the environment.

3. The human mind works by seeing patterns and remembering them. We see things in terms of cause and effect. This is not because the world exists this way, although it might. It is because, biologically, we must see it this way. My Dad asks, "Was math discovered or invented?" I respond, "Invented." To me, math is a filter that we use to order our world. In fact, science depends on the assumption that the world exists in a state of order and that humans can understand at least part of this order. But is the order 'out there' in the world or only in our minds?

4. People develop a world view, a filter, a cosmology, if you will. This is done as the individual accumulates data and experience. All the data and experience must fit the individual's cosmology. If it does not, then it must either be rejected or the cosmology must be re-aligned. For example, in my cosmology, there is no room for UFOs, Santa Claus, spirits, ghosts, souls, or Gods. They don't fit in my hard boiled scientific and logical view of the world. I reject them. All of the pieces must fit the puzzle, so to speak.

5. Those aspects of each individual's cosmology that the majority of a population holds in common are what we call 'common sense.' For example that the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.

6. Free will is important to me, but does not necessarily exist. As we grow and live our lives our cosmology naturally grows and matures with us. We don't really choose this cosmology, but the processes are complex enough to make it appear that we do. I think it is a basic human right to 'own' our own cosmology and guide it as we will (free choice). If there are those who can persuades to see things differently without coercion, then well, okay. Persuade me with rational argument. Forced change (coercive persuasion) is harmful to this process.

7. When a person is faced with an experience that presents data that does not fit their cosmology, but cannot be dismissed (like if I were to actually see a ghost). The resulting process of realigning their entire cosmology to fit this new data is destabilizing. It is traumatic.

8. This is what the unfreezing/freezing process of coercive persuasion attempts to do, except that CP has a stated cosmology as its end. It is not a perfected science. It is good at destabilizing and forcing a subject to accept the stated cosmology only so long as the subject is isolated from data and experience that don't fit the cosmology (these cannot even be discussed). CP fails when the subject departs the milieu, is confronted with, and forced to integrate this opposing data/experience with the CP cosmology. Some subjects can do this. Fornits posters call them brainwashed programmees. Others are once again destabilized as the their cosmology must adjust. These people have been harmed. Symptoms of the destabilized cosmology can last a long time.

9. There is no one right cosmology. This is called multi-culturalism. This concept must be rejected by religious people who feel their cosmology is the one true cosmology.

10. A religious person's cosmology has at its core, the principles of the religion. My own core values are based on science, which is really another form of faith, but in my opinion science works better. It is better simply because it covers all the data in an organized way and is flexible enough to be able to change with new experience and data. Religion has a problem when it encounters data and patterns that don't fit the religion's absolute foundations. Thus the conflict between evolution and creationism. As one with a scientific outlook, I am quick to adopt evolution because it explains, not only the origin of life, but is the basis for all modern microbiology and medicine. These sciences seem to work well for me.

11. Of course Science can only explain how, never why, something works.

12. A religious cosmology is better at explaining the why than the how. The how is often delivered in the form of allegory; God said, "Let there be light." and there was light. Those who take the Bible literally, have problems accepting new data/experience. They refuse to alter or adjust their cosmology. I think this is what Buzzkill means when saying Religious people are harder to brainwash. They would rather become martyrs than change.

13. Now for the article. The Kimbell article rejects Hegel because his methods do not allow for absolute values. Religion depends on absolute values (Thou shall not kill). Something is either always right or always wrong. A Hegelian is more willing to accept moral relativity because they feel truth can only be arrived at through rational process, not by faith or authority. An example of moral relativity:

You borrow your neighbor's axe. He comes to your door and asks for it back. He says he needs it to kill his wife. What do you do? Do you withhold the axe and become a thief? Do you return it and become an accessory to murder? Maybe you lie to the guy and say you don't have it (thief and liar).
 
The point is that you must make an exception to the absolute moral principle. This is in defiance of what fundamentalist religion teaches. If something is wrong (like abortion) it is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill.). To take a stand of moral relativity is to abandon Christian principles in the cosmology of Kimbell.

To me consensus building is not necessarily forcing everyone to believe the same thing. It is a process by which one gains buy-in and cooperation on a policy or course of action. You don't have to agree with the policy or course of action but you agree to abide by it and further it for the sake of the team. This may mean that you must compromise your absolute position. Thus, Kimbell points out this is antithetical to Christian principles. An atheist like me says there is no conspiracy here, it is just called, 'getting along well with others.'

I am very aware that this consensus building is very close to the 'peer pressure' in a program. Kimbell points this out by saying, "All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group..." The difference between peer pressure in this larger sense and peer pressure in a program is the group consequences part of the program. Programs don't just rely on the individual's fear of alienation, they take it a step further and punish the whole group, so the group will place more pressure on the individual. In true consensus building, the individual's participation is supposed be entirely voluntary. A person can elect to be different or to join a different group. Where I think Kimbell is wrong is that I believe Christians have no problem choosing the different group because they are a different group. They may feel alienated, but they also feel righteous.

Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently.

BuzzKill:
//Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently. //

You made perfect sense. Its an excellent post.

//Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it. //

I would say I see more of an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are well aware they doing it. This doesn't make it a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, it is at levels much higher than the universities or the New York Times. In fact, if there is a conspiracy - I would argue "our" president is in on it, and "we" would not approve of the agenda.

///I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.///

I agree.

//I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely. //

Yeah, I am sure your right. Still, its worth noteing that not so long ago there was nothing at all controversial about Christian ideas being a deciding factor in elections. They were the norm.

If they have political power, it is just barely enough to nudge a fellow over the edge. If the issue of Abortion is ever somehow settled, it will completely remove that edge. Kerry would be president today if he hadn't defended Partial Birth Abortion. Lots of people who generaly think of themselves as Liberal couldn't stomach that.

Seems most people do still believe there is such a thing as wrong.

Your right in that the argument, the struggle for the mind of the masses, is in the differing views of absolute right and wrong; as opposed to situational ethics. This was one of my constantly harped on points when I was still on the BBS.

About the axe - you keep the axe and call the police. The life of the wife is of primary concern. Tell the guy you can have your axe back when you return to sanity - I suggest you calm down. I recently had a similar situation with my cousin and her husband. He got a rest in Our Lady of Peace and is better now.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-11 08:40 ]

Anonymous:
The axe thing was an example my professor used in a philosophy class in college. The intention was to show that when confronted with absolute morality, there is a need to make exceptions. In other words, don't steal, unless you are taking a weapon from someone. The problem is that the exceptions become too numerous to be a part of a valid doctrine.

The same class covered the concept of justice in an interesting way. Traditionally justice is suppsed to be this:

1. A subject chooses to commit a wrong.
1. A subject is caught doing wrong.
2. The subject is punished with a punishment that is suited to the crime committed.
3. After 'paying their debt to society', the subject regains their place in society.

In the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream psychology developed the idea that environment counted for more than biology (the old nature vs. nurture debate). They decided that criminals weren't born, society made them. This takes the blame off the perpetrator and places it on his upbringing and environment. The criminal needs help, not punishment and should be rehabilitated. In other words, any criminal is by definition mentally ill in some way.

The problem, of course, is that this stand denies the perpetrator of free will and undermines the traditional concept of justice.

At the same time, it allows the rehabilitors to take the moral high ground and use whatever methods to reform and rehabilitate that they see fit. The state controls the doctrine. Dangerous stuff there. The stuff of programs is born. Coercive Persuasion becomes a 'legitimate' tool used by the State to reform people into right thinking.

Attacking moral relativity is easy. If everthing is relative then you lose the 'common sense'  I mentioned in an earlier post. You end up with everything being arbitrary. There can be no concept of justice here. Good and evil are only ideas and which is which only depends on which side of the fence you are standing. The rule of law is undermined. You have, in essence, anarchy.

AtomicAnt:
I forgot to sign in. Sorry.
 
To clarify, when you begin to make judgements and exceptions, like in the story of the axe, you enter the world of moral relativity. It is a paradox of sorts.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page