| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: Overcoming People's Psychological Resistance To 9/11 Truth. |
 |
|
It's for YOO-HOO! 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3581743629558970050
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The videos from the "movement" are getting both longer and lamer. Sounds like an old hippy reading verbatim from a wacko CT site. No wonder Dylan Avery was a hero to the movement. This boring vid makes LC look like an Oscar candidate by comparison.
YAWN
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He can hardly stay awake, can he? I wonder why he thinks satellites can locate moving planes, and where he gets a standard NORAD intercept time of 10 minutes from. I suppose he just invents stuff, like most "truthers". I couldn't be bothered to watch any more, does he get on to the lizards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They're not learning anything. They're just repackaging the same schlock in increasingly boring formats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | They're not learning anything. They're just repackaging the same schlock in increasingly boring formats. |
They aren't trying to learn. They are just "asking questions". The same ones. Over and over. Being sure to ignore the answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | They're not learning anything. They're just repackaging the same schlock in increasingly boring formats. |
They aren't trying to learn. They are just "asking questions". The same ones. Over and over. Being sure to ignore the answers. |
I think I've seen a tee shirt that captures this phenomenon just right.
edit: Yeah, here it is:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fascinating. Simply fascinating: and text book of course
I would be interested to discuss this film with any critics who have actually been able to watch it without needing to switch off through discomfort
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Fascinating. Simply fascinating: and text book of course
I would be interested to discuss this film with any critics who have actually been able to watch it without needing to switch off through discomfort |
Discomfort? Well boredom is a form of discomfort, I suppose. Please name one salient point from that video that shines new light on 9/11. The only new spin it introduces is that of classifying all those who don't Believe into a group of trauma-stricken fearbots with a psychological barrier to the Truth that can be overcome with a little gentle pop psychology.
The video presupposes that people have a psychological resistance to 9/11 Truth, and then explores a bunch of scenarios, none of which includes: "Having thoroughly examined the questions, answers, claims, and counter-claims, concludes that 9/11 Truth is nonsense that comes nowhere near the truth." Because obviously, if they looked at the evidence, they'd Believe like me, so I can dismiss that option from the start.
In your opinion, what is it I should take from this video? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, to start with, is psychology (the science of the psyche) valid?
Is it the case that human bengs are governed by subconcious as well as concious factors?
If so, there is a lot to be gained from this video for understanding the reverse scenario:
"psychological barriers to understanding 9/11 skepticism"
When studying the mind, it is not what we think but how we think that is the question
But to explore the potential benefits of this kind of information for 9/11 skepticism, it is first nessacary to view the perspectives form the POV of 9/11 Truth, and make a personal evaluation of how the perspectives relate to us as individuals
Which is tricky to do if one dismisses the speaker as a "bearded hippie" whilst he's still delivering his prelude and hasn'tactualy started the meat of the speech
Have you watched the whole thing then Chipmunk? To avoid re-hashing what you define as "CT" ground, I suggest commencing 10 mins in
If anyone wants to take notes, we can discuss the specifics point-by-point
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Well, to start with, is psychology (the science of the psyche) valid?
|
Experimental psychology is valid. Clinical psychology could only barely be considered a science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | Well, to start with, is psychology (the science of the psyche) valid?
|
Experimental psychology is valid. Clinical psychology could only barely be considered a science. |
It's a "soft" science. (Which is not to disparage it, John. Just differentiate it from the "hard" sciences, such as physics. Psychology has an inherent subjectivity.)
John, the issue I have with the video is that psychology has no bearing on the facts of what happened, which is where the evidence comes in and is where the major disagreements arise. Psychology may help determine why it happened or why people and groups reacted the way they did afterwards, but as far as the truth of what really happened, it's useless.
It doesn't matter how you approach someone from a psychological standpoint if they've carefully looked at the evidence and concluded that the facts fit something very close to the official version, you're not going to "break through", because you're dealing then with a viewpoint arrived at through rational means, not a viewpoint protected by an emotional barrier. The only thing that will change such a person's mind is positive evidence that contradicts their views. Not inconclusive oddities, not arguments from incredulity, not specious insinuations, not loosely-related precedents--positive evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it comes across as someone looking for scientology converts. yes, you must overcome your psychological resistance to scientology... you must get rid of your body thetans then you can embrace the thruth... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | Well, to start with, is psychology (the science of the psyche) valid?
|
Experimental psychology is valid. Clinical psychology could only barely be considered a science. |
It's a "soft" science. (Which is not to disparage it, John. Just differentiate it from the "hard" sciences, such as physics. Psychology has an inherent subjectivity.)
John, the issue I have with the video is that psychology has no bearing on the facts of what happened, which is where the evidence comes in and is where the major disagreements arise. Psychology may help determine why it happened or why people and groups reacted the way they did afterwards, but as far as the truth of what really happened, it's useless.
It doesn't matter how you approach someone from a psychological standpoint if they've carefully looked at the evidence and concluded that the facts fit something very close to the official version, you're not going to "break through", because you're dealing then with a viewpoint arrived at through rational means, not a viewpoint protected by an emotional barrier. The only thing that will change such a person's mind is positive evidence that contradicts their views. Not inconclusive oddities, not arguments from incredulity, not specious insinuations, not loosely-related precedents--positive evidence. |
Absolutely its a soft science: it deals with themes, not certainites, and does not produce result easily reproduced in a laboratory. But then, this is becuase the human mind is the single most complex machine we know of
the flip side of it is that the themes are universal and relevant to everybody, even when they cannot be apllied so well to specific circumstances, at least not without an accompanying processes of personal psyhcoanalysis
This does NOT mean the themes have no relevance: the reverse, it shows the themes are universally relevant
The purpose of the presentation is not to discuss proving the case for "9/11" inside job on the basuis of the hard science evidance: on the contrary, it is an explanation for how the soft science understanding can help us appreciate the process by which the hard science evidance is accepted and understood
Being as critics seem to almost unaminously advocate that the hard scinece approach will help to win their case, it would appear to be wisdom to explore how the universal factors of the soft sciences relate to the success of that process
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | it comes across as someone looking for scientology converts. yes, you must overcome your psychological resistance to scientology... you must get rid of your body thetans then you can embrace the thruth... |
Well theres a first... Scientology used to divert attention from the credible obervations of psychology. Nice one. Lets all stay ignorant then shall we? Its clearly not worth the risk
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, psychologists have never had anything to say about conspiracy theorists. just non-believers, right?
let me guess, just like 99% of of the scientific/engineering community can't be trusted, 99% of psychologists can't be trusted... EXCEPT THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!!1!1!!one!!1! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | yes, psychologists have never had anything to say about conspiracy theorists. just non-believers, right?
let me guess, just like 99% of of the scientific/engineering community can't be trusted, 99% of psychologists can't be trusted... EXCEPT THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!!1!1!!one!!1! |
How can a broad set of universal principles inherantly support or reject any political hypothesis?
The quoted post is rather silly: but the side of the debate which embraces the lessons of those principles is strengthened, not weakend
Perhaps critics should view the video now?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Perhaps critics should view the video now? |
The video would be relevant if it was about overcoming one's own psychological resistance in a general sense to information that conflicts with one's beliefs, particularly those held most dearly.
But this presentation is about 9/11 Truth evangelism techniques. It's geared towards true believers, not informed critics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | pepik wrote: | yes, psychologists have never had anything to say about conspiracy theorists. just non-believers, right?
let me guess, just like 99% of of the scientific/engineering community can't be trusted, 99% of psychologists can't be trusted... EXCEPT THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!!1!1!!one!!1! |
How can a broad set of universal principles inherantly support or reject any political hypothesis? |
Political hypothesis? Is 9/11 Truth a political movement? I guess that explains why it's not all that interested in facts. It's aimed at tearing down politically-opposite powers by whatever means necessary, even at the expense of the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, its the same peice of reasoning in a slightly different form their Chipmunk.
so we can be clear: have you viewed the video in its entirety to make that assesment, yes or no?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Btw, playing debating poker with an open hand:
of course if you watch the video and come back point by point I'm going to explore the principles in depth in discussion on the thread
On the other hand, if you dont watch the video and dismiss it, or claim to have seen the video but dont demonstrate any questions deriving from it, then it creates the impression that you havnt been prepared to actually watch it (and we know how critics like to argue that others read these threads)
Its a pretty little conundrum isnt it?
I'd just like a real discussion in the interests of finding common ground
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | pepik wrote: | yes, psychologists have never had anything to say about conspiracy theorists. just non-believers, right?
let me guess, just like 99% of of the scientific/engineering community can't be trusted, 99% of psychologists can't be trusted... EXCEPT THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!!1!1!!one!!1! |
How can a broad set of universal principles inherantly support or reject any political hypothesis? |
Political hypothesis? Is 9/11 Truth a political movement? I guess that explains why it's not all that interested in facts. It's aimed at tearing down politically-opposite powers by whatever means necessary, even at the expense of the truth. |
Nice one, I'm impressed by that
9/11 truth in and of itself is non-political
however, as Time magazine recognised, the consequances of 9/11 truth cannot fail but become political (IE "our politically elected leaders engineered an attack against their own nation to start a war", kinda thing, is about the most politicised statement one can make)
Another of life's little ironies
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
The purpose of the presentation is not to discuss proving the case for "9/11" inside job on the basuis of the hard science evidance: on the contrary, it is an explanation for how the soft science understanding can help us appreciate the process by which the hard science evidance is accepted and understood
|
The process by which a person is bamboozled into believing something for which there is no evidence is pretty well understood, actually. We've been discussing this at JREF for years.
Also, the results obtained from hard sciences are the same regardless of one's psychological state. In fact, experiments and studies must be specifically designed to weed out the effects of psychological states entirely -- that is, if you REALLY want to know the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
The purpose of the presentation is not to discuss proving the case for "9/11" inside job on the basuis of the hard science evidance: on the contrary, it is an explanation for how the soft science understanding can help us appreciate the process by which the hard science evidance is accepted and understood
|
The process by which a person is bamboozled into believing something for which there is no evidence is pretty well understood, actually. We've been discussing this at JREF for years.
Also, the results obtained from hard sciences are the same regardless of one's psychological state. In fact, experiments and studies must be specifically designed to weed out the effects of psychological states entirely -- that is, if you REALLY want to know the truth. |
Dogma again aggle-rythm. What about the Quantum reality? observations not what it used to be!
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Well, its the same peice of reasoning in a slightly different form their Chipmunk. |
Except he presumes that 9/11 Truth is true, so by focusing solely on psychological resistance to 9/11 Truth, he never considers that often resistance to new information is appropriate (because it's false). This is the major flaw in his presentation.
| Quote: | | so we can be clear: have you viewed the video in its entirety to make that assesment, yes or no? |
I skimmed through it to get the bullet-points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
The purpose of the presentation is not to discuss proving the case for "9/11" inside job on the basuis of the hard science evidance: on the contrary, it is an explanation for how the soft science understanding can help us appreciate the process by which the hard science evidance is accepted and understood
|
The process by which a person is bamboozled into believing something for which there is no evidence is pretty well understood, actually. We've been discussing this at JREF for years.
Also, the results obtained from hard sciences are the same regardless of one's psychological state. In fact, experiments and studies must be specifically designed to weed out the effects of psychological states entirely -- that is, if you REALLY want to know the truth. |
Dogma again aggle-rythm. What about the Quantum reality? observations not what it used to be! |
Oh, great. Here we go. Another woo is about to completely warp the meaning and implications of the observer phenomenon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | pepik wrote: | yes, psychologists have never had anything to say about conspiracy theorists. just non-believers, right?
let me guess, just like 99% of of the scientific/engineering community can't be trusted, 99% of psychologists can't be trusted... EXCEPT THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN THE CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!!!!1!1!!one!!1! |
How can a broad set of universal principles inherantly support or reject any political hypothesis? |
Political hypothesis? Is 9/11 Truth a political movement? I guess that explains why it's not all that interested in facts. It's aimed at tearing down politically-opposite powers by whatever means necessary, even at the expense of the truth. |
Nice one, I'm impressed by that
9/11 truth in and of itself is non-political
however, as Time magazine recognised, the consequances of 9/11 truth cannot fail but become political (IE "our politically elected leaders engineered an attack against their own nation to start a war", kinda thing, is about the most politicised statement one can make)
Another of life's little ironies |
It's especially politicized if you make the statement without evidence. That's the whole point. Truth is about truth. Politics is about creating the appearance of truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Dogma again aggle-rythm. What about the Quantum reality? observations not what it used to be! |
Quantum physics follows an objective set of rules just as classical physics does. They're just different, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Well, its the same peice of reasoning in a slightly different form their Chipmunk. |
Except he presumes that 9/11 Truth is true, so by focusing solely on psychological resistance to 9/11 Truth, he never considers that often resistance to new information is appropriate (because it's false). This is the major flaw in his presentation.
| Quote: | | so we can be clear: have you viewed the video in its entirety to make that assesment, yes or no? |
I skimmed through it to get the bullet-points. |
As a hypothetical postulant, if your investigation to establish the truth led you to conclude that the mass perception of the truth was in error, and you set out to correct the mass perception, would you not encounter exactly those factors?
If the original consensus view was that 9/11 was an inside job, and based on the evidnace of your investigation you concluded that it was the work of muslim extremists, would you not face exactly the same factors in your quest for truth? Therefore the information itself is clearly neutral, whatever the personal opinion of the presenter
Not sure how one can skim a documentary to establish its content...a document yes, but not a film
and whats a "Woo"?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Well, its the same peice of reasoning in a slightly different form their Chipmunk. |
Except he presumes that 9/11 Truth is true, so by focusing solely on psychological resistance to 9/11 Truth, he never considers that often resistance to new information is appropriate (because it's false). This is the major flaw in his presentation.
| Quote: | | so we can be clear: have you viewed the video in its entirety to make that assesment, yes or no? |
I skimmed through it to get the bullet-points. |
As a hypothetical postulant, if your investigation to establish the truth led you to conclude that the mass perception of the truth was in error, and you set out to correct the mass perception, would you not encounter exactly those factors? |
Yes, but keeping in mind that I may be wrong, I'd also consider the possibility that resistance may arise in the form of a well-reasoned rebuttal that forces me to re-examine my conclusions. This is not necessarily a type of resistance to be overcome. In some cases, it's resistance by which to be overcome.
| Quote: | | If the original consensus view was that 9/11 was an inside job, and based on the evidnace of your investigation you concluded that it was the work of muslim extremists, would you not face exactly the same factors in your quest for truth? Therefore the information itself is clearly neutral, whatever the personal opinion of the presenter |
The information is not neutral. It's true, false, or somewhere in between. Conclusions about factual events are not all equally valid. They're true, false, or somewhere in between. If you're goal is only to overcome resistance, then you've ceased trying to discern the difference. If you never allow any pushback, you've ended the thinking process and begun proselytizing.
| Quote: | | Not sure how one can skim a documentary to establish its content...a document yes, but not a film |
It's a Powerpoint presentation. He often just reads what's on the screen. He has very nice headers that make for convenient bullet-points.
| Quote: | | and whats a "Woo"? |
Short for "woo-woo". A believer. A creduloid. The opposite of a skeptic. Its specific roots are unknown, but there's a common folklore about the term's origins:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Woo-woo
I try to avoid the term because it's generally considered pejorative, but misusing quantum theoretical terms and concepts is a very common trait among "woos" of all stripes. It seems many people believe that quantum physics, being very strange, validates their strange ideas, and that by invoking it it gives credibility to their ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh. Well quantum physics is strange, but I'd certainly agree that doesnt qualify every new-age type theory tacked onto it
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
