I was contemplating this thread last night and I notice that, whereas SeekinTruth has been thinking of it
in terms of 'authoritian followers', I've been thinking of it in terms of 'fear of rejection'. Maybe it's all connected in an addressable way?
...this segment from Ray Griffin:
“Empirical People - who will simple say "I look at the evidence and if it’s convincing I will change my mind."
Other people are Paradigmatic People. They have a paradigm. They say “this is the way the world works and I’m convinced this is the right way the world works and 911 does not fit into that paradigm. So I don’t need to look at the evidence”…paradigmatic.
And then there is a third type of person that we often call, “Wishful Thinkers”. I call it “Wishful and Fearful Thinking”. So they simple will not believe something that they fear to be the truth. And I found that –maybe-to be the most powerful factor of people rejecting the 911 truth and not even entertaining the evidence…”
Maybe a commonality between the folks trying to expose the lies of 9/11 and those who won't accept the truth, is that act of narrating away the pain of rejection by others?
If people were simply made up of an intellectual center, you guys, with your brilliant case, could probably simply proceed with the goal of holding someone accountable since you would have only weak and ineffective logical counterpoints to deal with. From what I've been reading and learning though, the logic seems to be of little significance where emotion has more weight and the two are opposed to each other.
Do many people know how social pain neuralizes like visceral pain? I suspect we have amassed enough neuroscience to point at an addressable problem - the technique of social ostracism, or the fear of rejecting attachments (habits and beliefs) and fear of being rejected by their attachments (peers and others). Here's my initial contribution to the idea stream so far:
Basically, the idea is that, in order to think for themselves, people in general must first deal with the fear of rejection in their personal and social contexts, OSIT.
In the paper: "Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain", the authors:
Naomi I. Eisenberger and Matthew D. Lieberman explain how physical and social pain uses the same neural and other circuitry of the body and brain and they describe how this is evolutionarily adaptive.
Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain
...the ending of which can be interpreted from opposing perspectives, but in this context I think of as pointing to the action of the narrator's automatic, self-calming overriding (buffering) of input from the body's proprioceptive network - specifically the pain response:
"But there also seems to be a defense mechanism to prevent the pain of rejection from becoming overwhelming.
"We also saw this area in the prefrontal cortex. The more it is active in response to pain, the less subjective pain you feel," Lieberman said. "This part of the brain inhibits the more basic response."
Then there's the specific neuroscience work showing the neural correlates between physical/emotional and social pain. Seems this situation is exploited consciously and unconsciously by people when they are manipulating others to keep them from withdrawing or standing apart from their group. Like the above linked paper, this link shows what neuro-imaging researchers have revealed about how social pain and physical pain share the same neural circuitry in the brain:
Images show a social snub really is like kick in the guts
Related, is a article demonstrating the effectiveness of immersion in a 'felt' fantasy reality - how this can easily be an effective pain numbing agent:
Real pain dulled in virtual worlds:
With the above in mind, here's a few of the over 1800 comments connected with that 9/11 video. When I try to really listen to people, the comments from the 'holdouts' seem to fall one or two ways: comments driven by mere intellectual considerations, and comments which may represent real fear - like from a perceived threat of ostracism (rejection). Notice the last two comments specifically.
Can't say for sure, because there are architectural and engineering experts standing by both sides of the story.
Many conspiracy theorists try to point out that the towers shouldn't have fallen straight down, but they don't take into account the design of the towers. Most high rise buildings use a web column design, the towers did not.
Tell it to my fire safety inspection instructor, who originally told me that it was because of the fire that the buildings fell, and that they fell like they did because they weren't designed like other buildings (Most high rise buildings use a web column design, the towers did not). Also, the towers did not fall it free fall speed. There is a sound clip that shows it took one of the towers more than 15 seconds to fall.
But i dont get who is supposed to have rigged the buildings this is where i start thinking it cant be true that they were demolished. i mean it would have taken quite large teams, perhaps special forces right? well how would they get that many people to willingly rig a trap for thousands of their fellow citizens?
I still don't know about this. We don't have all the evidence (most was removed very quickly). Hard to believe the Government would commit a crime of this magnitude then cover it up.
No discussion in this about the possibility of the building contractors not following the engineering specs given to them in the first place. if the buildings were substandard it might give a different perspective on all this! shortcuts for profiteering in construction are par for the course.
Im not saying this is the case but in this film they talk about science hypotheses but never discuss how this could be fatally compromise any structure!
...as far as I'm aware, only a small group of engineers and architects agree with the controlled demolition theory. Executing something like this would be such a massive undertaking and covering it up would have to be an issue. You can't just sweep something like this under the rug. Evidence would be pouring from all sides for all to see. Especially in this day and age of mass communication.
...did you know that the CIA employs people to go on social networks like sodahead and youtube as debunkers that spread lies and misinformation !My brother did it for 6 months after he got home from iraq...they are trained to get info and attack individuals personally and they even target spreading roomers about families of people who protest the government or whistle blowers !You cant really argue with people like that.
What I experienced often was that people who want to find the truth are 'getting asked' as if they don't respect the victim families because of always talking about this tragic event...
In summary, in addition to the creative priming mentioned in a previous post, maybe folks who've successfully stood up to bullies, successfully left one-sided relationships, successfully stood up for other people, etc, could share some examples of the relevant experience? Something that others may be able to implement with positive feedback that motivates?
There are 'testimonies' on the forum that likely qualify as examples; maybe we just don't see them as such at the moment? I'm assuming that anything that might help people overcome fear of rejection as described here, could benefit them in many areas of life and exponentially increase the spread of any message of Truth as a nice side-effect.
I'm working up some possible examples myself, ATM.
Edit: shifted paragraphs around to correct misplaced references.
Wording for clarity of meaning