upsetting knee-jerk reaction

[tendrini]

I just finished reading through the Nigel Kerner thread started by rofo6850 and it's been upsetting me terribly. I have a program that goes off whenever I feel that someone is being picked on or ganged up and by the time I finished the thread I was almost sick. Whether or not rofo6850 deserved his treatment I can't say, only that the unanimous response made me wish that someone had come to his defense.

I realize that this is purely emotional, and that I'm probably just putting myself into this guy's shoes. Memories of not being part of the in-group in school, of being rejected and being shy and socially awkward may be part of it, but whatever the reason, I just felt so bad for this person.

My reading of the situation may be completely off, but I've had this reaction before and I need to learn how to deal with it.

 

[Al Today]

Hello tendrini,

Yep, I understand what you're saying. I think some may call that the "be nice" program. Some people come into this forum with an agenda and attack. Some come in here with a holier than thou attitude. Some even come in here to pick a fight. In reading the thread, I think many times people ask for clarification & this may scratch, the poster. What I mean is they start to defend their sacred cows, and lot's of negativity follows if they have a closed mind. I usually don't get involved, but I did. The more you accumulate understandings, you will "see" who is who and come to understand that we/you are NOT to turn the other cheek. I think anyway.
I know others will post for I am a guy of short words and they are much better teacher than I.
Take Care.
Al

 

[EmeraldHope]

Tendrini,

Rofo presented a sidetracking argument into a thread Laura had made about a specific book. It was detracting from the reason of the thread. The reason it appears everyone was ganging up on him is because , in objective reality, they all could see the same thing. The problem is that Rofo did not see it. He was told he did not have enough understanding yet in the topic. No one was trying to mean at all.

Getting used to direct honest communication is hard when we all come from a world of subjective opinion. We are trying to come to a co linear understanding based on facts. Laura even took the time to go in and highlight information for him to try to further help him understand. He is the odd man out because as of right now there is something he isn't getting that everyone else in the thread does get. People are also trying to hold up mirrors for him.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Meaning, we cannot accommodate everyone's opinions and at the same time serve objective reality. I hope this makes sense.

It would be like an 8th grade math teacher trying to comment on a new quantum physics theorem that was under professional discussion without having all of the knowledge the professional physicists have.

 

[anart]

I just finished reading through the Nigel Kerner thread started by rofo6850 and it's been upsetting me terribly. I have a program that goes off whenever I feel that someone is being picked on or ganged up and by the time I finished the thread I was almost sick. Whether or not rofo6850 deserved his treatment I can't say, only that the unanimous response made me wish that someone had come to his defense.

I realize that this is purely emotional, and that I'm probably just putting myself into this guy's shoes. Memories of not being part of the in-group in school, of being rejected and being shy and socially awkward may be part of it, but whatever the reason, I just felt so bad for this person.

My reading of the situation may be completely off, but I've had this reaction before and I need to learn how to deal with it.

I think the most effective way of learning to deal with it starts with the step you've already taken, which is to recognize it as a program. You are running a program when you feel 'almost sick' about that thread. The thread has triggered a program in you and this results in you no longer acting/feeling/thinking/responding to the present situation as it is, but acting/feeling/thinking/responding to some past situation/emotion. In other words, once you realize you're running a program, you can learn to take a step back and figure out why.

Another helpful thing to do is to really examine what has been written in the thread by all parties - without your emotional lens changing the content. What is he really saying? What are the responses really saying? What is really going on?

You've been around the forum long enough to know that no one gets 'a treatment they don't deserve' - it doesn't work that way. So, knowing this, you can look for what the real content of the thread is without your emotional input that was triggered by your program. It's worth a try at least!

 

[tendrini]

I just spent the weekend rereading both the Paul Mellars and the Nigel Kerner threads, as best I could considering a huge number of distractions. I could see that rofo6850 was not clear on the difference between what his author was saying and what the main discussion was and that he had a vested interest in his point of view.

My program is still running.

I read over a few of Rofo's other posts and I was impressed that he was a thoughtful, well-read person, and that his English was a little unclear. He made some valuable contributions to the forum. Like all the rest of us, he has an ego and acts defensive when he gets his feelings hurt. Haven't we all done the same thing?

I thought Laura sounded a little grumpy. Having been around for a while, this wouldn't have bothered me because I realized that she is several levels ahead of me intellectually and didn't mean to offend Rofo. She just doesn't suffer fools gladly. But it was quite plain that this hurt his feelings.

Anart, you said "You've been around the forum long enough to know that no one gets 'a treatment they don't deserve' - it doesn't work that way." What makes that so? What makes the people here infallible?

Are there no sacred cows on this forum? Are hurt feelings something we can justify for the "greater good"? Do the ends justify the means? Do we tend to make Laura herself into a sacred cow? Are we doing Laura a terrible disservice by acting like sycophants? Blind unquestioning allegiance sounds like what STS would like to see happen here.

"Let he who is without sin...."

So yes, my program is still running, but do we want to eliminate all of our programs? Are some of them there for our own good?

 

[HiThere]

I think you raise some very valid questions here, tendrini. This is an important issue one should always be alert towards, in order to strive for an continually open mind towards all lines of thought - initially. At the same time the moderators have to hand a firm hand on the steering wheel when they sense or suspect that a board participator isn't familiar with the views and opinions that Laura and this site profess, or perhaps comes across as manipulative. When this occurs the moderators will have to question the logic and argumentation of the participant, and I agree that this sometimes comes off as one-sided and heavy handed.
When dealing with manipulative people it is necessary to smoke them out by provoking them to clarify their thoughts or intents, but when a participant isn't aware of the way his/hers opinions might be construed in light of the thoughts and theories of this site, it can lead to polarized settings that might feel hurtful to the participant.
It all goes toward further contemplation and thought for everybody, as long as every participant is keeping an open mind. None of the goings on at this site are unvoluntary or goes beyond the mental challenging of each others views. This is necessary if one seeks to keep on developing ones own line of thought; and if this leads some people to stop their interaction with this site, that's their choice.
The responsibility is on the moderators to find the right wording, so as not to come across as condescending, judgemental or holier-than-thou, and I do agree that sometimes I too have found the onslaught on some unsuspecting and not well-read participant to be harsh.
My 2 cents.

 

[Z...]

I thought Laura sounded a little grumpy. Having been around for a while, this wouldn't have bothered me because I realized that she is several levels ahead of me intellectually and didn't mean to offend Rofo. She just doesn't suffer fools gladly. But it was quite plain that this hurt his feelings.

Anart, you said "You've been around the forum long enough to know that no one gets 'a treatment they don't deserve' - it doesn't work that way." What makes that so? What makes the people here infallible?

Are there no sacred cows on this forum? Are hurt feelings something we can justify for the "greater good"? Do the ends justify the means? Do we tend to make Laura herself into a sacred cow? Are we doing Laura a terrible disservice by acting like sycophants? Blind unquestioning allegiance sounds like what STS would like to see happen here.

"Let he who is without sin...."

So yes, my program is still running, but do we want to eliminate all of our programs? Are some of them there for our own good?

The way I see it most of our programs are detrimental to our soul development.
Have you read ISOTM?

FWIW I think that everyone has been more then gentle with rofo - especially Laura.

When I first came to this forum, about 4 years ago I had similar attitude to rofo's
( check out this thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3077.0)

It was a hell of a ride, painful at times, sometimes desperate but when I look back I have nothing but gratitude for all the mirrors I've been given as without them I certainly wouldn't be where I am now. And I still have long way to go. Most of my feelings that were at the time hurt, the same feelings of Rofo that you are concerned about, were false feelings. I see this now with great clarity. When I look at some of my old threads it appears as if some different and distant person was writing those words. False personality for sure, and I am eternally grateful to everyone for helping me get rid of it.


Tendrini dont forget the main aim of networking and this forum which is Work, cleaning of our machine. If you not really sure what this means I suggest you read ISOTM as soon as possible. It took me several years and several readings of this book to fully understand this process.

So after almost 5 year of my life in this community of one thing I am certain: Everyone is given a fair and equal chance, over and over again, then it is strictly up to participants and their individual constitution.
I know this may sound harsh to you, but it is what it is:
"If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

Nobody here claims to be infalible, neither Anart nor Laura, or any of the moderators or older forumites - but the network is infallible - if any of us fails the network is there to help us to pick ourselves up - if we can.

I am wondering why would you compare situation that happened on rofo's thread with stoning?
I think he was given wonderful opportunity for personal growth and now it is only up to him.

 

[Psalehesost]

I read over a few of Rofo's other posts and I was impressed that he was a thoughtful, well-read person, and that his English was a little unclear. He made some valuable contributions to the forum. Like all the rest of us, he has an ego and acts defensive when he gets his feelings hurt. Haven't we all done the same thing?

To some extent. The difference is in whether or not the situation can change. Others have had similar issues in the past - they had such an issue, and were at first somewhat gently told of it - in some cases, this was all that was needed. In other cases, they were then eventually mirrored increasingly, and often this worked, and improvement followed. In some cases, it however went on and on and eventually they either left or had to be kicked out to put a stop to the distraction and draining of time and energy. They had no potential for change and improvement - they not only began, which is often the case, but were stuck at a level of manifesting ego and attachment to subjective perspectives, and doomed to remain there.

I thought Laura sounded a little grumpy. Having been around for a while, this wouldn't have bothered me because I realized that she is several levels ahead of me intellectually and didn't mean to offend Rofo. She just doesn't suffer fools gladly. But it was quite plain that this hurt his feelings.

I think - though cannot know for sure, not being her - that the likely reason for this 'grumpiness' is that the discussion with rofo was going nowhere and draining time and energy. Would such cases be left to go on indefinitely, little of importance could be done.

In short, by neccessity, tolerance has to be limited - it's okay if someone doesn't get something at first, and things can be discussed. When things simply go in circles, however, that circle must be broken. The gradual turning up of the heat could be seen as the action of the 'immune system' of this group - protecting the limited resources of time, energy, and keeping a decent signal-to-noise ratio.

Anart, you said "You've been around the forum long enough to know that no one gets 'a treatment they don't deserve' - it doesn't work that way." What makes that so? What makes the people here infallible?

Are there no sacred cows on this forum? Are hurt feelings something we can justify for the "greater good"? Do the ends justify the means? Do we tend to make Laura herself into a sacred cow? Are we doing Laura a terrible disservice by acting like sycophants? Blind unquestioning allegiance sounds like what STS would like to see happen here.

"Let he who is without sin...."

So yes, my program is still running, but do we want to eliminate all of our programs? Are some of them there for our own good?

Infallibility of the people here is not a requirement for what anart wrote. This is not so much an issue of individuals as it is of the workings of the network as a whole. Things here "work" in a certain way, over time self-tuning and self-improving, that has been proven to work well in the long run.

Perhaps some people make Laura into a sacred cow - if so, they have something to Work on - not everyone does, and it is certainly not the goal of the network as a whole.

The purpose is not the inducing of hurt feelings - the gradual turning up the heat has the simple purpose of getting people interacting detrimentally to get to the point and make a Choice - how to proceed. Red pill or blue pill. This place cannot accomodate everyone. And I think you can see yourself how things would go if everyone put the avoiding of hurt feelings as their top priority. Little would be Done - in this world of minds with subjective attachments and emotional issues, hurt feelings are sometimes unavoidable if one is to go anywhere. And when they cannot be avoided, the only thing to do is to accept them as an inevitable part of reality - there is no need to "justify" them - if they happen, they happen, and so, unfortunately, it must sometimes be.

 

[Laura]

Actually, it wasn't what Rofo wanted to discusss, it was the WAY he went about it. He posted in a thread that I clearly stated was created for a specific purpose and admitted that he had done so consciously, knowing that it was against what I wanted in that thread. He, of course, says that this was not manipulation, but it was.

Imagine this scenario: I have announced a meeting to discuss diet and health issues and the place and time. Someone walks into the room and says: "I'm here to talk about gardening... it's vaguely related to diet ... and I want YOU, specifically, to discuss it with me." and I say: "We can discuss gardening some other time, right now we are going to concentrate on diet." The person then says "I knew you would reject me, oh... boo hoo hoo."

So, I open another room and put a sign on the door: "Gardening discussion will take place here" and try to run back and forth between the two rooms to give equal time to both discussions. But the person wanting to discuss gardening keeps going into the diet discussion and shouting: "gardening is part of diet too!" (Were you aware that I had to move all those posts to create the other thread after I politely ASKED Rofo to stick to a certain discussion? That he kept doing it, and I kept moving them to keep the discussions separate???)

At the same time, in the gardening discussion, it is discovered that the individual wanting to talk about gardening has never actually done any gardening other than growing some houseplants and flowers in a window box. But he keeps insisting that he wants to talk about growing fruit trees. He is told: okay, we know a lot about growing fruit trees, read this and then we can talk. But instead of doing that, he insists that there can't be any difference between growing fruit trees and house plants. All the while, he keeps insisting that there is absolutely nothing wrong with him insisting on taking up time trying to force people to believe his point of view, subtly - or not so subtly - suggesting that he is just an innocent victim, and so on. It is clear that this is a dominance game though a covert one. (If you haven't read "In Sheep's Clothing," now would be a good time.) I have a limited amount of energy and there are many serious things that I contend with daily, not just on this forum, and we have an infant having a tantrum, basically. He announced at least three times that if he couldn't have his way, he was leaving. Okay, fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Now, what would you do? Try putting yourself in MY shoes, not Rofo's.

 

[ana]

Hi Tendrini,

I thought Laura sounded a little grumpy. Having been around for a while, this wouldn't have bothered me because I realized that she is several levels ahead of me intellectually and didn't mean to offend Rofo. She just doesn't suffer fools gladly. But it was quite plain that this hurt his feelings.

How have you managed the situation?

Are hurt feelings something we can justify for the "greater good"?Do the ends justify the means?

This suffering as you state is no more than the process in wich we get rid of believes, programs etc... and it is up to us how long it lasts.
It is not something to justify or not, it is part of the process and depends on the hardness of our ego.

Do we tend to make Laura herself into a sacred cow? Are we doing Laura a terrible disservice by acting like sycophants? Blind unquestioning allegiance sounds like what STS would like to see happen here

Maybe you can try to be more clear and direct Tendrini, do you think people of this forum makes Laura into a sacred cow acting like psychopaths? Can you give examples of it?


Tendrini the only way to think clearly about anything is to look for the facts, motives and logic behind our thinking processes.
Have you done so?

If on the other hand you felt the urge to step outside without clear reasons maybe you can considerate that you are being runned by a program. :)

 

[Guardian]

Now, what would you do? Try putting yourself in MY shoes, not Rofo's.

Personally, I think I would have had a different kind of "knee jerk" reaction... one where my shoe connected to the offending poster's cyber posterior and propelled him right out the door ;D

 

[Laura]

What I saw, quite clearly, was schizoidal behavior in Rofo. I wasn't the only one seeing it. There was a rather lengthy discussion on the mod's forum about him and past incidents with him. All the mods wanted to just ban him right there and then after he admitted that he had posted in the Mellars' thread deliberately what he knew I did not want in there. I said: "let me try, maybe it's just a language thing." So, I took the time to separate the threads. At first, I put it into channel watch but when ROFO complained, I moved it to history even though it really doesn't belong there. And then I tried patiently to try to help him to see that what he did was really outrageous manipulation and that there was a whole lot more to the picture than he was seeing. Finally, I took about half an hour finding and copying and pasting excerpts from Secret History to demonstrate the objective facts that there was a lot more to the issue than he was addressing. His last post, admitting that he really hadn't read it before firing off his next barrage, actually was the last straw.

Now, as for your issues, Tendrini, here's something you may want to think about very carefully: why are you affected as you are? Even to the point of being manipulative and insulting?

First, consider the behavior Rofo was exhibiting:

Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall herein discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this relationship rather motivated by tradition.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses.

Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.

They easy become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others.

Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.
{...}
The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotions and a feeling for the psychological realities of this essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to the incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which is working as though on sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity. Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people. {...}

Now, consider how Rofo acted on you, how his words and behavior anchored in your mind/emotions.

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.

The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.

Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict.

The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.

People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world-view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.

 

[ark]

Are there no sacred cows on this forum?

Yes, I am a sacred cow. Or, better, a sacred elephant. Because I am a moderator and I feel responsible for what kind of knowledge this forum propagates and which not. This forum has its specific profile. Other forums have different profiles. It is not that difficult to get a feeling what our profile is. Many people do not like it. Many hate it, feeling that they are "not at home" here. But fortunately there are many homes around and everybody will find one that fits their needs.

There is a research and there is another research. I am a scientist (exact sciences, not some Jungian stuff), and yet even in exact sciences there are never ending fights about what constitutes a good research and what is a lousy one. Different journals have different profiles. Papers not accepted in one journal are often accepted in a different journal. Many journals of good reputation will reject papers that are a bit original. Many other journals will publish almost everything.

One has to have a really good sense and knowledge to discriminate. You may like to read my editorial here if you want to understand that there is a difference between facts and speculations. This difference is not obvious for everyone. Therefore please, leave it to us to decide what is what when published on our forum.

 

[Guardian]

One has to have a really good sense and knowledge to discriminate.

 

[HiThere]

One has to have a really good sense and knowledge to discriminate.