2+2=5

[TillICollapse]

I don't claim I can determine someone being brainwash from a single statement.

I didn't say you did claim that lol ... that's why I asked in your opinion. Also I didn't assume that either one of us could conclude, conclusively, that one of those individuals in the video were brainwashed based on their limited statements ... that's why I also included the qualifier "or in the process of being brainwashed" ...

So I'll ask one more time, and I'll rephrase it just a bit: what could that first person in the video say which, in your opinion, might cause you to think he was possibly in the process of being brainwashed, or brainwashed ? I know that a few brief statements would not be enough to conclude "brainwashing" 100%, I'm asking in general. "Like" brainwashing, if you will. What could he say differently ?

If it's easier, forget that individual entirely ... can you describe (without Googling), in your opinion what kind of behavior someone who *you* would think is "brainwashed" might exhibit, or things they may say ? It might help to pick a topic of focus for this hypothetical person. And I'm looking for your personal opinion ... IOW, if you came across someone at random in public and you suddenly thought, "Man, this person sounds like someone who is brainwashed" ... not someone you sat and analyzed for hours and studied, cross referencing official definitions and such. Just your "gut" reaction. Can you describe such an individual ?

Lastly, since don't claim to be able to determine if someone is brainwashed from a single statement (or a few statements, I'm assuming), do you think you are able to rule someone out as being brainwashed based on a single, or few, statements ?

 

[bhsmte]

Dissonance reduction.

There's got to be a line that gets crossed, however, to where it's no longer just "dissonance reduction".

Oppressing an entire group of people into a singular, unquestioned belief (for example) ... is going beyond dissonance reduction. When someone is fully convinced that they are not only correct, but have an obligation and a right to get others in-line with how they think reality should look ... it's as though the dissonance gap has been either completely closed, or completely filled, and there is no longer any dissonance being experienced to close the gap on. The "True Believer".

How does one become a "true believer" and get to a point of believing they are 100% correct and could never be wrong?

 

[TillICollapse]

How does one become a "true believer" and get to a point of believing they are 100% correct and could never be wrong?

I don't know.

On the one hand, if you were TAUGHT the wrong information and had no reason to question it ... okay. The earth is flat. You're an only child (when in reality you have a sibling given up for adoption), tomatoes are poisonous (I believe Italians thought this at one time) etc. IOW ... you would have no reason to believe you were wrong, because you have not been confronted with different ideas, evidence, "facts".

But when confronted with the earth being round, or the man you always thought was your father actually isn't, or that not only can you eat tomatoes but they could revolutionize the way the entire world enjoys food lol ... dissonance occurs.

A "True Believer" might could be categorized as someone who has never had a reason to doubt their belief. But the question is, when someone DOES have a reason to doubt their belief, and chooses to go 100% the opposite direction or stay in their current belief 100% ... how does one close that gap to eliminate any concept they may be in error now, or ever ? Is that even possible ?

Interestingly, perhaps someone who has gone from being a theist, to a strong atheist (if being a strong atheist also entails that no gods will EVER exist and this stance is both correct now and in the future) ... might be a good example. Perhaps they at first experienced dissonance concerning letting go of their beliefs, and have closed the gap 100%.

I suppose though that we would also have to "prove" that someone has 0% doubt. I don't know if that's possible to prove. Infer, perhaps. Prove, I don't think so.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know.

On the one hand, if you were TAUGHT the wrong information and had no reason to question it ... okay. The earth is flat. You're an only child (when in reality you have a sibling given up for adoption), tomatoes are poisonous (I believe Italians thought this at one time) etc. IOW ... you would have no reason to believe you were wrong, because you have not been confronted with different ideas, evidence, "facts".

But when confronted with the earth being round, or the man you always thought was your father actually isn't, or that not only can you eat tomatoes but they could revolutionize the way the entire world enjoys food lol ... dissonance occurs.

A "True Believer" might could be categorized as someone who has never had a reason to doubt their belief. But the question is, when someone DOES have a reason to doubt their belief, and chooses to go 100% the opposite direction or stay in their current belief 100% ... how does one close that gap to eliminate any concept they may be in error now, or ever ? Is that even possible ?

Interestingly, perhaps someone who has gone from being a theist, to a strong atheist (if being a strong atheist also entails that no gods will EVER exist and this stance is both correct now and in the future) ... might be a good example. Perhaps they at first experienced dissonance concerning letting go of their beliefs, and have closed the gap 100%.

I suppose though that we would also have to "prove" that someone has 0% doubt. I don't know if that's possible to prove. Infer, perhaps. Prove, I don't think so.

Interesting. One question I frequently ask some Christians is; Is there any chance you could be wrong about your belief in God, even if that is only 1%? Many times, the response I get is there is a zero percent chance they are wrong about believing in God. I for example (a former Christian) do not believe the Christian God exists, but will acknowledge, I could be wrong, but I do feel quite confident from looking at the evidence (99% sure) that the Christian God does not exist. A universal non-personal God, I give a greater chance of existing, but still am over 90% confident that God does not exist either.

When one is 100% sure, they automatically put themselves in a position of needing to refute any evidence (no matter how strong) that goes against their belief, because they have programed themselves to shut everything out. They still feel dissonance, because they have brains and can see the evidence, but then the attack of the evidence then takes place. And yes, atheists who claim they are 100% sure God does not exist are in the same boat.

Anyone who claims they are 100% certain of anything and can never be wrong, experience dissonance, because they are always scrambling to deny, deny, deny anything that threatens their position.

 

[TillICollapse]

Interesting. One question I frequently ask some Christians is; Is there any chance you could be wrong about your belief in God, even if that is only 1%? Many times, the response I get is there is a zero percent chance they are wrong about believing in God. I for example (a former Christian) do not believe the Christian God exists, but will acknowledge, I could be wrong, but I do feel quite confident from looking at the evidence (99% sure) that the Christian God does not exist. A universal non-personal God, I give a greater chance of existing, but still am over 90% confident that God does not exist either.

When one is 100% sure, they automatically put themselves in a position of needing to refute any evidence (no matter how strong) that goes against their belief, because they have programed themselves to shut everything out. They still feel dissonance, because they have brains and can see the evidence, but then the attack of the evidence then takes place. And yes, atheists who claim they are 100% sure God does not exist are in the same boat.

Anyone who claims they are 100% certain of anything and can never be wrong, experience dissonance, because they are always scrambling to deny, deny, deny anything that threatens their position.

Hmm ....

I'm not sure if a person who is 100% convinced they are correct on something, is capable of HOLDING a contrary belief realistically. IOW, can a person actually hold two contrary beliefs at once and experience dissonance when they are 100% already sold on one of those beliefs ? You know what I'm saying ?

Wouldn't the idea of cognitive dissonance being experienced necessitate there be competing "percentages" between the beliefs ? 90% and 10%, 99% and 1%, 45% and 55%, etc ?

 

[bhsmte]

Hmm ....

I'm not sure if a person who is 100% convinced they are correct on something, is capable of HOLDING a contrary belief realistically. IOW, can a person actually hold two contrary beliefs at once and experience dissonance when they are 100% already sold on one of those beliefs ? You know what I'm saying ?

Wouldn't the idea of cognitive dissonance being experienced necessitate there be competing "percentages" between the beliefs ? 90% and 10%, 99% and 1%, 45% and 55%, etc ?

Sure they can, which is why the dissonance stimulates them to immediately refute the evidence as quickly as possible that goes against their belief.

The fact of the matter is, the people who claim be 100% sure about their belief, really are not 100% sure and claim they are 100% sure to feel better about their belief. Most of these folks like that you see on this board who are debating, are really going through their efforts to as much to convince themselves, as they are anyone else.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure they can, which is why the dissonance stimulates them to immediately refute the evidence as quickly as possible that goes against their belief.

The fact of the matter is, the people who claim be 100% sure about their belief, really are not 100% sure and claim they are 100% sure to feel better about their belief. Most of these folks like that you see on this board who are debating, are really going through their efforts to as much to convince themselves, as they are anyone else.

Which kind of brings me back to my original point/query about that "line" which may exist to where it's no longer dissonance reduction. Because I basically agree with what you're saying, in so much that someone who is claiming to be "100%" on something, yet displaying dissonant behavior, are arguably NOT 100%.

But there is perhaps a line that gets crossed, perhaps into a "100%" type of equating, to where it's no longer dissonance you're dealing with in a person, but something else. My previous examples are perhaps examples of this, I honestly don't know. That's why it's a point, but a query at the same time.

 

[juvenissun]

Needs of comfort.

We all seek comfort and different things bring comfort to each of us.

Some get comfort by acquiring knowledge that is verifiable, others don't. Some seek comfort by believing in a supreme being that is looking out for them and will provide eternal life, others don't.

How we are each wired and the environment we were raised, will have impact on how we seek comfort.

Resisting logical reasoning makes people "comfortable"? Is that a "need" for some people?

 

[juvenissun]

I would hazard a guess he means psychological needs.... just basing that on the fact he said it.

By psychological needs could be comfort of some sort, release of aggression, drawing strength, there are many.
Same kind of needs everyone has to different degrees.

So people believed in 2+2=5 due to psychological needs of comfort? Believe in something which goes against a common sense would made one comfortable?

 

[bhsmte]

Resisting logical reasoning makes people "comfortable"? Is that a "need" for some people?

You bet.

 

[bhsmte]

So people believed in 2+2=5 due to psychological needs of comfort? Believe in something which goes against a common sense would made one comfortable?

What's common sense?

 

[durangodawood]

Resisting logical reasoning makes people "comfortable"? Is that a "need" for some people?

When sound reasoning and clear seeing threaten precious ideas that provide comfort.... then sure, some people "need to" resist them.

 

[Smidlee]

So people believed in 2+2=5 due to psychological needs of comfort? Believe in something which goes against a common sense would made one comfortable?

Yes. In the USA this is exactly what happening as the people chooses comfort over mathematics. You can run the country on bad mathematics for a while (pass on the effect to future generations) but eventually it will catch with you as you become that "future" generation.

 

[Old Ned]

From your own source 1.2 :"a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing:" This would included science,TV, money,etc.

One of the main objective of TV is to "brainwash" you. TV targets the youth for a reason.

And that would be a misquote.
From my link...

a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing:
the cult of the pursuit of money as an end in itself

It doesn't mention Science because admiration for Science is not misplaced.

Not sure what you are arguing, religions are cults, you used my link to prove your point... let me quote from the same link that proves my point...

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:
the cult of St Olaf

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members:
a network of Satan-worshipping cults

And here's your TV reference....

a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society:
the series has become a bit of a cult in the UK

So now we've quoted the whole page, what is your point? That religion is not a cult? ... you have not demonstrated that very well, you just pointed out other things can be cults too. Funny thing is, I never said the "Only cults" are religious.
I stated Religion is a cult by definition.

 

[Smidlee]

I didn't say you did claim that lol ... that's why I asked in your opinion. Also I didn't assume that either one of us could conclude, conclusively, that one of those individuals in the video were brainwashed based on their limited statements ... that's why I also included the qualifier "or in the process of being brainwashed" ...

My opinion , everyone is "brainwashed" by something or someone. Usually when we refer to ourselves we used the word "influence" while we used "brain-wash" when referring to someone with a different view. (Same as we are freedom fighters while our enemy are terrorist)
No one lives or dies to themselves. Pride keeps us from seeing how much of the culture we live in influence us. Those in power always tries to influence (brain-wash) the masses. If they can't use religion they will use education. I find in interesting some of those in the past commented that one of the threats to America was our public education system but haven't heard that in years. There is good reason the more educated someone becomes the more likely they declare themselves an atheist.
When I went to college I had a professor address the fact that 95% of the stuff we learn we would never use IRL. Someone asked then why waste the time learning it. He said it's to "brain-wash" ( I was surprised he used that word) everyone to think a certain way. He used the military as an example as often you can tell someone been in the military without them mentioning it.

It doesn't mention Science because admiration for Science is not misplaced.

Money was used only as an example. So is science your most holy thing that can't be defiled?

 

[andy b]

I don't remember anyone saying anyone was a heretic.

But cult, sorry but all religions are cults as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.
And no, accepting Science isn't a cult, before you say it, anymore than accepting you have a TV in your house is a cult. Because these things are fact, there's nothing to believe in or have faith in because we KNOW because we can see it..... know in the actual use of the word as opposed to some who seem to think because it's written down means it's true.

Hey Neddy im part of a cult that nearly sounds hip im digging it

 

[Old Ned]

Hey Neddy im part of a cult that nearly sounds hip im digging it

Good for you man, understanding what you believe and accepting it for what it is.

 

[Old Ned]

My opinion , everyone is "brainwashed" by something or someone. Usually when we refer to ourselves we used the word "influence" while we used "brain-wash" when referring to someone with a different view.

Nope, your opinion is wrong, Influence leads you a certain way, even under influence you still make your own decisions. Brain washed means you believe something someone tells you without question and that what they tell you is Fact, regardless of the evidence.

Once brain washed, people are usually afraid to believe something different, being Influenced still leaves doors open.

Edit: And before you say "I'm entitled to my opinion"... not when it is simply incorrect, any more than me stating my opinion is entitled if I stated "The Bible was originally written in Japanese" ... I'm entitled to my opinion, but it's wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. In the USA this is exactly what happening as the people chooses comfort over mathematics. You can run the country on bad mathematics for a while (pass on the effect to future generations) but eventually it will catch with you as you become that "future" generation.

This is not a feature of "need". It is one of "avoid".

If YEC do not feel comfortable with YE, then then can avoid the topic which is not essential to the Salvation, but not actively engage in the debate and to defend the idea.

Those atheists are very naive on this "psychology", if we want to call it this way.

 

[juvenissun]

When sound reasoning and clear seeing threaten precious ideas that provide comfort.... then sure, some people "need to" resist them.

What is threatened?