Das verbrogene Böse

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Quite honestly it appears to me something may be wrong with this forum

Yes, you've made that clear from your initial posts and yet you have never, not for one instant, considered the idea that the problem is with you, not this forum. Fascinating.

I've tried to explain the issues to you in many posts, yet you do not listen. You are so busy talking and assuming that you are correct that you do not listen, yet you demand again that I explain more. Why, when you do not listen?

The problem, Anart is, that's not really true. You've explained your issues with ME... but not with the questions.

Have I considered the issue is with me? Yes... and it's true. What about with the forum... that's also true.

Do you see? My imperfection has nothing to do with the imperfection in the forum?

So please... humor me...

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Also could this be moved to a separate discussion from the initial poster's thread. It appears it's been hijacked by me inadvertently and it should be a separate subject?

 

[Laura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Do I think that the information can be totally separated from the source? Not completely but you can get very very close. Even credible sources should be questioned... and sources that have proven to lack credibility can have truths mixed in with the bad information.

That is one of the fatal beliefs that amounts to "critical correction" and is discussed in Political Ponerology.

I think you are confusing my arrogance with other personality traits. My inquisitive nature may be confused with stubbornness. As such, even though I read the information provided by others through their advice that doesn't mean I blindly accept this information. I understand it and question it and I don't necessarily internalize it until knowing it to be true. As such what can be perceived as a large learning curve would be best explained by a careful analytic process. Part of that involves a separating of the source from the material. I wonder if this process is what is causing others to view me as disagreeable.

I think it has to do more with your manner of expressing yourself, a certain egoic certainty.

"95% of the time you have been wrong in your assertions."

Can you please explain to me where I have been wrong. I really have yet to get clear explanations.... only vague brushes of criticism directed at me as opposed to the content of question.

I think that is because several people keep urging you to stop, take a breath, read the reams and reams of material that is backed up with sources and citations and endless discussions that have been going on for the past umpteen years or so. If you would do that first, then people who have lives to live and do this work on a volunteer basis wouldn't have to go over the same ground again. I think people get testy when they point out that you can exert a little effort and get the job done, but you don't do it and keep coming back and saying stuff that would be corrected if you would put forth that effort!

Arrogant and Abrasive?

I think it has to do more with your manner of expressing yourself, a certain egoic certainty. [/quote]

It makes me ponder if perhaps mirroring exersizes tend to show others as this not because they (the ones being "mirrored" truly are this way but because of a distortion in the mirror. I can certainly be arrogant at times... but I don't see how I have been particularly abrasive (the exception being our initial discussion Anart)... unless questioning is considered abrasive. When being called out on my arrogance I tend to ask where I overstepped and I don't usually get clear answers.

I think that is because several people keep urging you to stop, take a breath, read the reams and reams of material that is backed up with sources and citations and endless discussions that have been going on for the past umpteen years or so. If you would do that first, then people who have lives to live and do this work on a volunteer basis wouldn't have to go over the same ground again. I think people get testy when they point out that you can exert a little effort and get the job done, but you don't do it and keep coming back and saying stuff that would be corrected if you would put forth that effort!

Quite honestly it appears to me something may be wrong with this forum and there are many red flags and a lot of doubletalk.

If that is truly how you feel/think, then don't let the door hit you on the way out! There is no doubletalk, there is constant urging for you to get up to speed so that other people do not have to spend time doing the same thing over and over again when it is already available to you if you will just put forth the effort to walk through the door and partake of the feast.

When I attempt to clarify this it is usually met with a personal attack instead of addressing the issue.

What you perceive as personal attacks are people just shouting to try to get you to quit asking where the food is because they have told you 100 times it's through that door over there. You just have to shut up and go through it.

There seems to be an aura of paranoia in which if certain fundamental principals are questioned then the question is deemed irrelevant.

If that is truly how you feel/think, then don't let the door hit you on the way out! There is no doubletalk, there is constant urging for you to get up to speed so that other people do not have to spend time doing the same thing over and over again when it is already available to you if you will just put forth the effort to walk through the door and partake of the feast.

I'm told there is no authority here... yet it clearly exists... a pyramid... a hierarchy. I'm told there are no fundamental beliefs but when one is questioned the reaction is similar to just about any religious fundamentalist having a belief questioned.

It's not about belief, ben, it's about hundreds of people who have been working through these problems and topics at the academic level for YEARS and all of that material is here, free, on this forum, you just have to avail yourself of it and stop thinking that you are so speshul that any one of us can take the time to spoon feed it to YOU directly.

I honestly think this is something many here are oblivious to... and maybe mirroring in that case is required. The general attitude seems to be that no one new has anything significant to offer until dying and being reborn in the image of cassiopaea which then ignores the underlying "why" behind the reason for the current state of being. This is what I was trying to get at in this thread. http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29967.0.html

That maybe there is a reason for our individuality and that there may be a significance to this even though objectivity is also important.

It's not about belief, ben, it's about hundreds of people who have been working through these problems and topics at the academic level for YEARS and all of that material is here, free, on this forum, you just have to avail yourself of it and stop thinking that you are so speshul that any one of us can take the time to spoon feed it to YOU directly.

If that is truly how you feel/think, then don't let the door hit you on the way out! There is no doubletalk, there is constant urging for you to get up to speed so that other people do not have to spend time doing the same thing over and over again when it is already available to you if you will just put forth the effort to walk through the door and partake of the feast.

Quite honestly it makes me sad. I see so much potential here. I see so much good will and quite honestly a lot of knowledge as well. However I also see a lot of logical fallacies that are frequent with the most pervasive being this ad hominem fallacy... a fallacy people here are actually defending vehemently. I would prefer, truth be told, to help enlighten others to this. I think people think I overstep there... well how could I possibly? Look at how imperfect I am... but that is the ad hominem fallacy to a T. Even if everything else I say is wrong if I get one thing right that one thing is still right... it's still truth! I think if those that are offering criticism here were to look at this objectively then they would see this is happening but I also think that a combination of groupthink, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the bandwagon fallacy will prevent this from occurring.

If that is truly how you feel/think, then don't let the door hit you on the way out!

I'll tell you what... how about if instead of encouraging me to remove myself from the forum (or banning me) you attempt to explain this stuff to me? I would like nothing more than to actively participate here but it seems a discussion and realization needs to occur on both sides prior to this happening. Maybe include some specific examples... bring in some information that I just haven't gotten to yet. If you know it's wrong but can't explain how it is wrong... then I would say you need to reconsider if it is in fact wrong.

Hundreds of people who have been working through these problems and topics at the academic level for YEARS and all of that material is here, free, on this forum, you just have to avail yourself of it and stop thinking that you are so speshul that any one of us can take the time to spoon feed it to YOU directly.

There is constant urging for you to get up to speed so that other people do not have to spend time doing the same thing over and over again when it is already available to you if you will just put forth the effort to walk through the door and partake of the feast.

And notice that I repeat myself with the handy copy/paste function. Why? Because I am usually doing a dozen things at once and my time is limited and there are hundreds of us that have put years of effort into getting material together and up on the websites for people to have free access to so that we can work on other projects having to do with getting even more difficult material up for free. So you are welcome to avail yourself of it or not.

Let me remind you that the Forum Guidelines explicitly describe the materials you need to be familiar with in order to enter the discourse at speed. We further have reading lists AND reams of excerpts on the forum. In some cases, we will make copies of books available to readers who cannot afford to buy them.

Bottom line is, empty your cup if you want to learn. If you think you already know and you find yourself in disagreement, then go start your own forum. We've collected and assessed the evidence and made years of experiments both in real life and here on the forum and like I said, it's not about belief; we have a clue or two that we do know what we are talking about.

 

[Laura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ben, there is a huge difference between a sociopath and a psychopath and this is one of the academic bones of contention we deal with here. When we say "psychopath" we mean a genetic disorder. A sociopath is a whole other ballgame. For that we generally use characteropath.

Hare discusses Psychopath vs. Antisocial Personality Disorder and Sociopathy here:
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopathy_aspd_sociopathy.htm

See also: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopathy_in_a_community.pdf

Also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/who/profile.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath

etc.

I've heard that distinction before. In the strict scientific sense the words are interchangeable although in political ponerology I did find it interesting that he identified different traits associated with the different mannerisms of becoming a psychopath.

You clearly did NOT read the discussion. Had you done so, you would not have made so ignorant a remark as "In the strict scientific sense the words are interchangeable". In strict scientific terms, the words are NOT interchangeable. It is a deliberate ploy of psychopaths in positions of power to sow confusion about the terms.

 

[anart]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

The problem, Anart is, that's not really true. You've explained your issues with ME... but not with the questions.

Have I considered the issue is with me? Yes... and it's true. What about with the forum... that's also true.

Do you see? My imperfection has nothing to do with the imperfection in the forum?

So please... humor me...

No, Ben. Please read Laura's response - she said it much better than I.

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ben, there is a huge difference between a sociopath and a psychopath and this is one of the academic bones of contention we deal with here. When we say "psychopath" we mean a genetic disorder. A sociopath is a whole other ballgame. For that we generally use characteropath.

Hare discusses Psychopath vs. Antisocial Personality Disorder and Sociopathy here:
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopathy_aspd_sociopathy.htm

See also: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopathy_in_a_community.pdf

Also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/who/profile.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-psychopath

etc.

I've heard that distinction before. In the strict scientific sense the words are interchangeable although in political ponerology I did find it interesting that he identified different traits associated with the different mannerisms of becoming a psychopath.

You clearly did NOT read the discussion. Had you done so, you would not have made so ignorant a remark as "In the strict scientific sense the words are interchangeable". In strict scientific terms, the words are NOT interchangeable. It is a deliberate ploy of psychopaths in positions of power to sow confusion about the terms.

Splitting hairs here... because most of the scientific community will use them interchangeably. I'm afraid the remark may not be as ignorant as you perceive... because the reality is what the scientific community at large believes as opposed to what you would prefer they believe. Currently do they use them interchangeably? I do agree with you though that this should be a distinction widely used and accepted. ;D

 

[Joe]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ok, here's an example. You make this 'ad hominem fallacy' claim against this forum in a general sense. Yet you provide no evidence for it being true. Note, an ad hominem attack is an argument made solely against a person rather than what they are saying. Show me ONE example where any long term member of this forum dismissed a person's information or argument by solely attacking or discrediting the person with no reference to the information or argument the person was making.

 

[Laura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Splitting hairs here... because most of the scientific community will use them interchangeably. I'm afraid the remark may not be as ignorant as you perceive... because the reality is what the scientific community at large believes as opposed to what you would prefer they believe. Currently do they use them interchangeably? I do agree with you though that this should be a distinction widely used and accepted. ;D

Obviously, you aren't aware of the fact that the mainstream scientific communities around the world have been co-opted by power politics for a very long time and this is just one of the symptoms. So, indeed, the remark IS as ignorant as I perceive it. It is also clear evidence that you have not taken the time to read or study the topics in any depth at all, but are merely following popular pseudo-science. You haven't been to conferences, talked to the experts directly, read the studies directly, etc, nor, fer gawd's sake, read the material posted all over this forum where those who have done all of these things have posted their experiences, results, observations, etc.

You are also obviously not aware of the DIVIDE in the field that is as contentious now as it was when Hare was working on his checklist.

So, sorry, again your remarks reveal your ignorance. Ignorance is not incurable, you know, but sometimes the cure is difficult and consists in first swallowing your pride and getting down to work.

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Bottom line is, empty your cup if you want to learn. If you think you already know and you find yourself in disagreement, then go start your own forum. We've collected and assessed the evidence and made years of experiments both in real life and here on the forum and like I said, it's not about belief; we have a clue or two that we do know what we are talking about.

[/quote]

Basicly Laura what you have done is create a straw man... because that is what you have a pre-selected response that can tear down that straw man (hence the copy/paste).

But why is there the resistance to this criticism if that criticism is valid? Why just write it off as "Hey if you don't like it then find another forum."? Wouldn't it be opportunity for growth?

Why say I need to read when asking a question that has yet to be answered... saying... well after you read more you'll see the question is insignificant. From what I've seen the first question is rendered insignificant because of the belief in reptilians and thus greys controlling psychopaths... why would I be asked to accept this on faith because that part of it IS on faith and I haven't seen evidence supporting this aside from Cassiopaean track record... a flawed track record... and if we are to make the ad hominem fallacy with the Cassiopaean's then we are taking on faith that they are in fact who they say they are and they are what they are. This could be the manifestation of your own subconscious or an inter-dimensional being that is in fact COINTELPRO themselves... or a collective unconscious but still how much would the manifestation be altered by you? So as a source I consider it as valid as anything else... which is to say I consider just about everything fairly invalid until shown otherwise. As such I would probably defer to this... http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29868.0.html and ask how in the world is it invalid when the rest of the explanation from what I have read is so subjective yet this would be more objective and tangible? Why does that not override the subjectivity of the cassiopaean information?

So I'm just going to say... this arrogance and stubbornness as you see it. It can be a good thing AND a bad thing not only for me but for this forum.

The other thing is this... experience is good and research is good. Biased research isn't. Experience built upon false assumptions is bad. So for someone to come along and say... hey... let's move a few steps back and re-examine... it's absolutely frustrating and cognitive dissonance almost assures that it would be dismissed... but sometimes this is important. This has nothing to do with the "speshulness" of me or anyone else.

 

[benbuehne]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ok, here's an example. You make this 'ad hominem fallacy' claim against this forum in a general sense. Yet you provide no evidence for it being true. Note, an ad hominem attack is an argument made solely against a person rather than what they are saying. Show me ONE example where any long term member of this forum dismissed a person's information or argument by solely attacking or discrediting the person with no reference to the information or argument the person was making.

The question really is if they were attacked or discredited because they didn't like the information or argument... giving them reason to then discredit the information.

The cycle as it would be. I don't like what he's saying. Now that I look into it this person has flaws A,B,C. Because of Flaws A,B,C, I now no longer need to be bothered with the information I don't like.

I also tend to see black and white thinking which, as we know, is the telltale sign of the psychopath. Someone may have SOME good information and SOME bad information and the good is tossed out with the bad.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,41.0.html

 

[anart]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Bottom line is, empty your cup if you want to learn. If you think you already know and you find yourself in disagreement, then go start your own forum. We've collected and assessed the evidence and made years of experiments both in real life and here on the forum and like I said, it's not about belief; we have a clue or two that we do know what we are talking about.

Basicly Laura what you have done is create a straw man... because that is what you have a pre-selected response that can tear down that straw man (hence the copy/paste).

No, that is not what she has done. You are wrong. She has laid out the facts for you but you cannot see them.

But why is there the resistance to this criticism if that criticism is valid? Why just write it off as "Hey if you don't like it then find another forum."? Wouldn't it be opportunity for growth?

The criticism is not valid. You are wrong.

Why say I need to read when asking a question that has yet to be answered... saying... well after you read more you'll see the question is insignificant. From what I've seen the first question is rendered insignificant because of the belief in reptilians and thus greys controlling psychopaths... why would I be asked to accept this on faith because that part of it IS on faith and I haven't seen evidence supporting this aside from Cassiopaean track record... a flawed track record... and if we are to make the ad hominem fallacy with the Cassiopaean's then we are taking on faith that they are in fact who they say they are and they are what they are. This could be the manifestation of your own subconscious or an inter-dimensional being that is in fact COINTELPRO themselves... or a collective unconscious but still how much would the manifestation be altered by you? So as a source I consider it as valid as anything else... which is to say I consider just about everything fairly invalid until shown otherwise. As such I would probably defer to this... http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29868.0.html and ask how in the world is it invalid when the rest of the explanation from what I have read is so subjective yet this would be more objective and tangible? Why does that not override the subjectivity of the cassiopaean information?

All of the above is nonsense and just proves that you are wrong and trying to discuss things with someone who is so willfully ignorant (meaning you REFUSE to actually read and get up to speed on the necessary information) is futile and a waste of time and energy. You have proven this point very, very well.

So I'm just going to say... this arrogance and stubbornness as you see it.

No, it is arrogance and stubbornness by definition and we all see it. If you were willing to see it, you might have an opportunity to change, grow and learn, but you are not, so you do not. In order to give you an opportunity to actually read the material that might help you understand the topics discussed here, your posting privileges have been removed. Enough time and energy has been spent trying to get you to listen when your ears are closed. Hopefully this opportunity to 'read only' will prove beneficial.

 

[Joe]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Basicly Laura what you have done is create a straw man... because that is what you have a pre-selected response that can tear down that straw man (hence the copy/paste).

But why is there the resistance to this criticism if that criticism is valid? Why just write it off as "Hey if you don't like it then find another forum."? Wouldn't it be opportunity for growth?

Why say I need to read when asking a question that has yet to be answered... saying... well after you read more you'll see the question is insignificant. From what I've seen the first question is rendered insignificant because of the belief in reptilians and thus greys controlling psychopaths... why would I be asked to accept this on faith because that part of it IS on faith and I haven't seen evidence supporting this aside from Cassiopaean track record... a flawed track record... and if we are to make the ad hominem fallacy with the Cassiopaean's then we are taking on faith that they are in fact who they say they are and they are what they are. This could be the manifestation of your own subconscious or an inter-dimensional being that is in fact COINTELPRO themselves... or a collective unconscious but still how much would the manifestation be altered by you? So as a source I consider it as valid as anything else... which is to say I consider just about everything fairly invalid until shown otherwise. As such I would probably defer to this... http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29868.0.html and ask how in the world is it invalid when the rest of the explanation from what I have read is so subjective yet this would be more objective and tangible? Why does that not override the subjectivity of the cassiopaean information?

So I'm just going to say... this arrogance and stubbornness as you see it. It can be a good thing AND a bad thing not only for me but for this forum.

The other thing is this... experience is good and research is good. Biased research isn't. Experience built upon false assumptions is bad. So for someone to come along and say... hey... let's move a few steps back and re-examine... it's absolutely frustrating and cognitive dissonance almost assures that it would be dismissed... but sometimes this is important. This has nothing to do with the "speshulness" of me or anyone else.

So you're still doing it. Doing what? What you've been doing from day 1: making assumptions about what this forum is about and the 'beliefs' we have when you clearly have not informed yourself in any significant way that would enable you to really understand what this forum is about. It's bizarre that you can't understand that simple idea: that it's ridiculous for someone to make the kind of sweeping statements you are making when you don't really know what you are talking about because you haven't been around long enough or read enough to understand. That's what's pissing people off Ben, you keep coming on strong with this hard and fast statements and then pretending like you're just asking innocent questions. It's bullshit really, I think it's not really solvable at this point in time because you don't really seem to be able to get it. Oh well.

 

[Laura]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

So you're still doing it. Doing what? What you've been doing from day 1: making assumptions about what this forum is about and the 'beliefs' we have when you clearly have not informed yourself in any significant way that would enable you to really understand what this forum is about. It's bizarre that you can't understand that simple idea: that it's ridiculous for someone to make the kind of sweeping statements you are making when you don't really know what you are talking about because you haven't been around long enough or read enough to understand. That's what's pissing people off Ben, you keep coming on strong with this hard and fast statements and then pretending like you're just asking innocent questions. It's bullshit really, I think it's not really solvable at this point in time because you don't really seem to be able to get it. Oh well.

Ben, get a life. I have a busy one and don't have time to spoon feed you.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the finding that the poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence. The reason seems to be that poor performers fail to learn from their mistakes. The proposed solution is that the incompetent should be directly told they are incompetent. Unfortunately the problem is that incompetent people have probably been getting this type of feedback for years and failed to take much notice because they can’t. Despite failing exams, messing up at work and irritating other people, the incompetent still don't believe they're incompetent. One reason for this, proposed by the researchers, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

Not only do the [incompetent] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. … Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others…

 

[Joe]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ok, here's an example. You make this 'ad hominem fallacy' claim against this forum in a general sense. Yet you provide no evidence for it being true. Note, an ad hominem attack is an argument made solely against a person rather than what they are saying. Show me ONE example where any long term member of this forum dismissed a person's information or argument by solely attacking or discrediting the person with no reference to the information or argument the person was making.

The question really is if they were attacked or discredited because they didn't like the information or argument... giving them reason to then discredit the information.

The cycle as it would be. I don't like what he's saying. Now that I look into it this person has flaws A,B,C. Because of Flaws A,B,C, I now no longer need to be bothered with the information I don't like.

I also tend to see black and white thinking which, as we know, is the telltale sign of the psychopath. Someone may have SOME good information and SOME bad information and the good is tossed out with the bad.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,41.0.html

Oh! Thomas Sheridan! So that's your beef! Has that been the issue all along since you came from the PF forum? Look, Sheridan basically just rehashes the information that is out there already. We have long experience with people like him and know how they operate, although his own statements speak for themselves. The problem here Ben is that what you say is true of course, a person can have flaws and still provide useful information, heck most people who provide useful information DO have flaws. BUT, in TS's case, there was more to it than that. He fits the profile of a predator who uses the useful information to attract people for him to prey on. There is enough evidence to suspect that is the case, including women from PF that have met him.

As I noted, no one is tossing any good out with the bad as far as TS is concerned. As I noted, and you would know if you had read his books, all of the info he provides is available on the net and in other books. Of course, in his case, we had to decide what the responsible thing to do was: ignore the evidence for his predatory ways, or expose him. If a predator is using information on and his knowledge of predators to prey on innocent people, then there's no contest, the concerns about him have to be exposed, to allow people to have ALL of the data. That's what we do. You might not like it, but that's the way we roll.

You really should have said that you had a problem with our info on TS. It was obvious that you had a burr in your saddle about something and were desperately trying to find fault with our 'beliefs' (as you call them) but weren't being open about it.

 

[Bernhard]

Re: Re: Scans that show Brain of neglected child is smaller

Ben just posted this on my FB wall with a link to this thread

http://www.facebook.com/bernhard.guenther/posts/345855965521876

Sorry... I tried to help them but failed. Banned so as to be unable to continue the discussion. Be careful in your dealings there Bernhard Guenther... they will do exactly what I said to write this off... I already see "everyone can see it" (bandwagon much?). They have done interesting research but the forum/organization is fundamentally flawed

I suggested to him to join the forum a while back since he kept asking me questions that are better discussed here. Since he had articles published on SOTT, I thought it would make sense. Same like I suggested to Gregory James. Oh boy, same old story, but some good insights in those interactions and proof of the research on here, even if it takes up much time and energy to repeat the obvious.