Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In terms of applying practical techniques in real-life situations, I would defer to whatever strategies have been empirically shown to have the best track record. I am not emotionally committed, on the basis of faith or personal bias, to any particular technique. I am open to whatever the evidence suggests is best. And, in fact, intuitively the approach that you've pointed out makes perfect sense to me. Even without instructions from experts, this is very likely to be the approach that I would take in a real-life situations.
Hopefully, at this point, you are a bit puzzled. In my previous posts didn't I just babble on and on about the need to change this person's beliefs? Yes I did. And the approach you've outlines is probably the best way to do it. Notice the parenthetical phrase I've put in bold. You can't change a person's mind by scaring them off immediately, nor will it work if they sense that you are planning to force your ideas on them. Parents, teachers, and spouses all know the strategy: Let them think it was their own idea. Or, to but the basic idea in a less manipulative-sounding way: Gently lead them to recognize, using their own instincts and powers of reason, that they have a false belief, and thus they will feel a desire to change their belief on their own accord. One way to do this, of course, is to simply share your own beliefs. This is your approach, and I applaud you for it. But, when all is said and done, the bottom line is ultimately this: Certain beliefs need to be changed because they are dangerously wrong.
And this is what you are missing.
You don't get to change them for another person.
You want to make another person change you want control over what they think and do. You don't have that. You don't get to have that.
And this is what you are missing.
You don't get to change them for another person.
You want to make another person change you want control over what they think and do. You don't have that. You don't get to have that.
[Breaking response into several posts.]
Where YOU are wrong: you get to TRY, both for the good of the person involved and for the good of the society in which you live.
....
If the gentle, supportive approach doesn't work in a situation, what happens then? If they do not at some point somehow come to recognize the problem with believing that the cult leader is God's chosen spokesman, then they will ultimately get on the plane and go drink the Cool-Aid. Unless, of course, you physically prevent them from leaving by tearing up their plane ticket and/or committing them to a care facility where they can be kept safe until, eventually, with enough therapy, they come to see that they were mistaken about the cult leader.
What you are describing is kidnapping. And involuntary commitment. Are you seriously advocating those? If you don't know or recognize or understand the serious legal and ethical problems with what you are suggesting then you have some important necessary homework to do.
You are starting to veer off into dangerous thinking yourself here. This is where red flags start to appear and the need for a healthy reality check. You are becoming disconnected and veering yourself into fanatic extremist thought and action.
But I'm curious: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the best empirical evidence happened to show that the gentle, supportive approach that you referenced above does not actually work? What if the evidence showed that the most effective way to change a person's beliefs, once they come under the manipulative ideas of a cult leader, is by forcing them into a sort of "boot camp" situation where they are exposed to relentless logic, history, science, etc.? (I share your instincts about the gentle approach, but as I said, I'm open to evidence, so I'm considering the possibility: What if the evidence had been counterintuitive for me?) I'd double-check the evidence carefully and I'd try my best to understand why things come out this way - I'd try to understand what's going on well-enough so that eventually my own intuitions line up with the evidence - but if the evidence is ultimate good, then its good. I'd have to admit that my initial intuitions - my initial beliefs - were wrong. Could you ever do this?
What you are describing now is forced imprisonment and brainwashing.
More alarm bells regarding YOUR increasing disconnect from a boots on the ground healthy reality. First you consider kidnapping and involuntary commitment for mental health treatment and therapy. Now you are considering kidnapping, forced imprisonment and brainwashing.
You also don't seem to see a problem with having no reality checks and wandering into territory known to be harmful unethical illegal dangerous morally wrong and a gross violation of a person physically emotionally and intellectually. Not just any person either a person you (supposedly) love.
You know the evidence says otherwise but you contemplate these fanatical steps anyway. Major alarm bells regarding YOUR disconnect from a healthy reality.
You are becoming the fanatic the extremist because this is what you are proposing considering contemplating: kidnapping, involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, forced imprisonment, brainwashing.
Where are your checks and balances? They appear to be absent.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-02-2018 at 10:34 AM..
....
Another thing: You've mentioned in several of your reactions to my scenarios that you would try to get help (emergency response teams, psychological help, etc.). Do you trust that the vast majority of these helpers share your belief that one should never try to change anyone's mind about any religious beliefs (Even in a terrorist and/or cult situation)? Unless you believe that all helping professionals share your views about never trying to change beliefs, then all you are doing is passing along the dirty work to them. You don't want to deal with the nasty problem of dealing with dangerous beliefs, so you let them do it for you.
And finally: Oddly enough, you remind me a little bit of Trans - the "concrete thinker." I'm trying to dig down to a level of basic principles. But principles are abstract and it seems you can't or won't allow yourself to deal with abstracts. But you are, whether you realize it or not, applying principles when you engage in concrete behavior. Words like "all" and "never" are red flags for me. When you say that you never try to change people's beliefs, I become deeply suspicious. I suspect that you are applying black/white thinking to situations that are actually spectrums. I think that even you realize, in some way or other, that the cult leader has some false beliefs and he is using manipulation to get other people to accept his false beliefs. I think you probably also recognize that these beliefs are dangerous and they can literally lead to the deaths of many people. But, as a matter of faith in a particular principle, you would ultimately let your daughter get on the plane, knowing that she will probably never return. (Although, realistically, you're faith would probably not allow you to really believe this. You would probably think that somehow your willingness to let her go will actually lead to her well-being in some way. Either she will willingly change her mind, or she will die and since her soul agreed to do this back before she was even born, all is just as it should be.) But from my perspective it looks like this: Your faith in the principle is worth more to you than the girl's life.
You lack grounding in healthy boots on the ground reality. That is what happens when a person wanders around in abstracts and principles without being able to connect the dots and see the outcome of their decisions and behaviors. They become untethered from a healthy reality and they increasingly become unable to make sound decisions.
Let me put it this way: law enforcement and emergency response teams have greater experience and credibility and expertise in this area than you do. And medical and mental health professionals have more knowledge and skill in this area than you do.
They also operate on the safety health and well-being of all concerned. My observation is your abstracts and principles do not. They are untethered. And alarming.
Because this is where they lead you and this is the outcome, you turn into "the cult leader using manipulation to get other people to accept his beliefs" and your methods are kidnapping, involuntary commitment, forced imprisonment, and brainwashing.
You like the cult leader show a marked ease and willingness to engage in violent harmful illegal activity that directly harms people you claim to care about.
...You've mentioned in several of your reactions to my scenarios that you would try to get help (emergency response teams, psychological help, etc.). Do you trust that the vast majority of these helpers share your belief that one should never try to change anyone's mind about any religious beliefs (Even in a terrorist and/or cult situation)? Unless you believe that all helping professionals share your views about never trying to change beliefs, then all you are doing is passing along the dirty work to them. You don't want to deal with the nasty problem of dealing with dangerous beliefs so you let them do it for you... But from my perspective it looks like this: Your faith in the principle is worth more to you than the girl's life.
And finally this last part. Medical ethics deals with this every day. We hear it on a regular basis from distraught family members:
"Make him take his medicine"
"Force him to get the surgery or he will die"
"Go get him and lock him up."
"He can't refuse chemotherapy it may save his life"
"You call your self doctors who care about life but if you won't lock him up to get treatment then you're killing him"
"He can't refuse medical treatment he'll die"
A person can refuse or decline medical treatment. The reality is that is a fact. They can leave the hospital or clinic against medical advice.
And there is nothing you Gaylen can do about it. And you may not like it but the medical and mental health professionals do abide by it and yes they are in agreement not to force treatment on anyone. We present information yes. Strongly worded yes. Force them? No.
If you want more on why or why not or how can they then add to your homework learn more about medical ethics. If critical thinking is important to you with regards to the questions you have raised.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-02-2018 at 12:01 PM..
What you are describing is kidnapping. And involuntary commitment. Are you seriously advocating those? If you don't know or recognize or understand the serious legal and ethical problems with what you are suggesting then you have some important necessary homework to do.
You are starting to veer off into dangerous thinking yourself here. This is where red flags start to appear and the need for a healthy reality check. You are becoming disconnected and veering yourself into fanatic extremist thought and action.
[Still answering post more parts on the way]
You are right Tzaph.
What would be next? Anything another does that we determine could be potentially harmful...we restrain or imprison them? "For their own good, and the good of society", of course! WOW!
How many people are hurt or die in auto accidents? Way more than die in cults. So, certainly no more of that.
And never mind cliff climbing, surfing big waves, ridding dirtbikes, skiing, etc...totally proscribed!
No more smoking, drinking alcohol, or consuming sugary or fatty foods either.
Certainly no recreational sex unless the parties have both been fully checked out and tested medically first. Well, not that either...that can cause emotional issues that lead to self-harm...so.
"For the good of the person, and society", we must restrain or detain people that try to do any of those things!
I LOVE this board! It is better than any comedy routine.
You are right Tzaph.
What would be next? Anything another does that we determine could be potentially harmful...we restrain or imprison them? "For their own good, and the good of society", of course! WOW!
How many people are hurt or die in auto accidents? Way more than die in cults. So, certainly no more of that.
And never mind cliff climbing, surfing big waves, ridding dirtbikes, skiing, etc...totally proscribed!
No more smoking, drinking alcohol, or consuming sugary or fatty foods either.
Certainly no recreational sex unless the parties have both been fully checked out and tested medically first. Well, not that either...that can cause emotional issues that lead to self-harm...so.
"For the good of the person, and society", we must restrain or detain people that try to do any of those things!
I LOVE this board! It is better than any comedy routine.
And it is the so called "rational thinkers" who want to do this. The so called "intellectually superior" the "anti religion" those who claim to be in touch with reality. Those who claim critical thinking.
At its root it is patronizing, arrogance and supremacy. "I know better than you and i will force it upon you."
pa·tron·iz·ing
treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. displaying or indicative of an offensively condescending manner
ar·ro·gant
showing an offensive attitude of superiority displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance; a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others
I am NOT saying that is anyone on these boards. I am saying the behaviors discussed in this conversation are rooted in these attitudes.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-02-2018 at 12:28 PM..
And this is what you are missing.
You don't get to change them for another person.
You want to make another person change you want control over what they think and do. You don't have that. You don't get to have that.
You have an incredibly tenacious ability to completely misinterpret and/or misrepresent what I say. If other people agree with your interpretations of me, then I seriously need to question my abilities as a writer because, judging from your interpretations, I am a sort of monster who says some utterly absurd things. Luckily, I rarely encounter anyone (that I know of) who takes my words and runs off into such whacky directions. Even here on C-D, where absurd misinterpretations and "low-blows" are the norm, most people seem to get the gist of what I say.
Until someone is kind enough to step forward and defend your interpretations of me, I am inclined to think as follows: It appears to me that you have completely dismissed what I earlier referred to as the Principle of Charity. If you listen to someone and, on your initial interpretation they appear to be a monster, or a monstrous idiot, then this is a sign that you should go back and rethink what you think the person is saying. Find an interpretation that makes the person look as reasonable as possible (as you see it), and then paraphrase that interpretation to see "is this what you are saying"? What you do, instead, is focus on the worst possible interpretation of some tangential detail and dig into that like your life depends on it. Everything else - especially the key central points - gets completely lost. [Addendum: After posting this, I saw GldnRule's comment. Perhaps he will corroborate your interpretation of me?]
Obviously I don't get to change beliefs for another person. That's absurd. I couldn't do that, even if I wanted to, any more than I could think their thoughts for them. On the Principle of Charity I'm trying to think of another way to interpret your words here, but within the larger context of what you say, I'm having trouble finding a better interpretation. A major theme of several of your posts is that I want to force people to change their beliefs, and to do this I'd kidnap them and imprison them if I have to. But it is intuitively obvious to me that that is a bad strategy in virtually all cases, and I have clearly said so. Nevertheless you keep pushing that on me, as if it were my preferred choice.
In common language, the concept of convincing a person to change her mind is not interpreted as strapping her to a chair and beating up on her until she believes what you want her to believe. Technically, there are options like kidnapping and brainwashing (e.g., the Stockholm Syndrome, etc.), but in common language this not what people mean. Rather: "Changing another person's mind" means finding a way to convince them that they should change their own mind. This can involve emotional appeals and various sorts of manipulative behavior, but I have been explicitly advocating critical thinking as the only good/plausible technique. Freedom of Speech was written into the American Constitution because of an underlying principle, namely this: "Cream rises to the top" - meaning, if you let all ideas flow freely, then eventually the best ideas will tend to have the most influence. Obviously it doesn't work in every instance, but over the long run over a large population, it tends to work more often than not. But it only works well if critical thinking skills are fairly widespread in the population. Certain types of beliefs can improve the prevalence of critical thinking and increase the likelihood of "the cream rising to the top" whereas other types of beliefs tend to derail critical thinking and interfere with the natural "cream-rising" process. Conversation aimed at uncovering logical fallacies and the presence of good and bad assumptions underlying ideas are among the good ways to promote relatively good ideas and demote the relatively bad ones. (I say "relatively" because ideas tend to be spectrums with lots of grey.)
Strategically, the gentle, supportive approach is best in cases where emotions run high (as in casual conversations about controversial subjects like religion and politics, or if confronted by a person who is being pulled into a cult, etc.), but there are also good realms where more direct approaches are good too. Science and academic philosophy are a couple of these realms. Here the goal of "changing minds" by challenging bad assumptions, etc., is more explicitly acknowledged. The goal is to convince people that theory X is better than theory Y. (But note that, in science and most philosophy, this is not done in a mindset of "absolute" good or bad - it's done from a mindset that accepts what I gave as criteria #1: A willingness to change one's mind if one discovers a better idea).
I approach these threads from the standpoint of a philosopher. I am explicit and up-front in acknowledging that I am trying to change some minds via the application of critical thinking. Obviously my own critical thinking skills can and do sometimes fail me, but my aim is always to think and communicate as clearly as I can. But you have an uncanny knack for twisting my words into monstrous forms that I can barely recognize. If this happened a lot, I would be forced to take this as evidence for my own failings as a writer, but given the lack of other examples, I have to tentatively conclude that this is just a quirky talent of yours.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-02-2018 at 01:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
