(May 15, 2025 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I guess that if my own opinions seem absolutely self-evident and undeniable to me, proven beyond the point that any reasonable person could disagree, then I need some kind of extreme method to explain that disagreement.

So instead of saying, "those people reached a different conclusion," we have to say "they have been brainwashed against their will." Because only nefarious hypnosis-like methods could make people believe differently than I do.

If people reach conclusions based on no reliable evidence at all, we can safely assume they did so because of social pressures and disinformation.

(May 15, 2025 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The other explanation, which we see all the time, is that anyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest. 

If someone repeatedly uses strawmen in their arguments, they are dishonest. For example, did you notice how John summoned up Behaviorism and Freud before anyone else mentioned them otherwise? He isn't here to strongman his opponents arguments or to be generous -- just the reverse.

(May 15, 2025 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Not long ago I was insisting that the Democrats share some of the blame for the outcome of the last election, and for this I was accused of wanting to legitimize political lies. And of course you have been called a liar on this thread, due to your stubborn refusal to agree to certain details about how children learn. You are sinning against Truth!

Your pattern of insisting on false equivalencies is what several of us objected to. I believe liberal forum members have always said Democrats aren't perfect, or are only adequate. However, when the house is on fire you set other priorities. Compare Democrats to someone who lied 30,000 times and is undermining our democratic institutions, and to those who support such a person, and you will understand why we think you are trying to pull a fast one.

It is very alarming for us to hear someone say that there is no such thing as effective propaganda, when two-thirds of Republicans were convinced that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

(May 16, 2025 at 5:38 am)h4ym4n Wrote:

(May 15, 2025 at 10:21 pm)Ahriman Wrote: It's sad, a lot of Christians are good people and nice people, but their irrational beliefs make them delusional.

Good people?

If you are in a gang and your gang leader tortures people for not believing it exists and the good people ignore what it’s doing still makes the good people culpable.

Think of all those good xian Germans who just let their gang leader slaughter millions 


Good people my ass

If the world had more Christians like Jimmy Carter, I’d be more relaxed about them.

Boru

@Belaqua

Quote:Not long ago I was insisting that the Democrats share some of the blame for the outcome of the last election, and for this I was accused of wanting to legitimize political lies.

FWIW, I place the blame for the outcome of the last election firmly and fully on the shoulders of Joe Biden. And I’m so liberal that I make Bernie Sanders look like Ronald Reagan.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled dialogue.

Boru

(May 16, 2025 at 6:32 am)Alan V Wrote: Your pattern of insisting on false equivalencies is what several of us objected to.

This is the third time you have grossly misrepresented what I said.

In the future it might be better if you just didn't read or respond to my posts.

(May 16, 2025 at 6:32 am)Alan V Wrote: For example, did you notice how John summoned up Behaviorism and Freud before anyone else mentioned them otherwise?

You mean right after people mentioned conditioning and the subconscious? Yeah, those are behaviorist and Freudian concepts.

(May 15, 2025 at 9:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 15, 2025 at 6:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: And the way I'm seeing it used here leans heavily towards something like mind-control, where the person exposed to the propaganda is involuntarily influenced by it.

I guess that if my own opinions seem absolutely self-evident and undeniable to me, proven beyond the point that any reasonable person could disagree, then I need some kind of extreme method to explain that disagreement.

So instead of saying, "those people reached a different conclusion," we have to say "they have been brainwashed against their will." Because only nefarious hypnosis-like methods could make people believe differently than I do.

The other explanation, which we see all the time, is that anyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest. 

Not long ago I was insisting that the Democrats share some of the blame for the outcome of the last election, and for this I was accused of wanting to legitimize political lies. And of course you have been called a liar on this thread, due to your stubborn refusal to agree to certain details about how children learn. You are sinning against Truth!

Well at that point I would express doubt, and withhold belief, and ask them for their best or most compelling reason for the belief. If anyone wants to see how that request went down, they could read this thread. 

Quote:The other explanation, which we see all the time, is that anyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest. 

That's not an alternative explanation, it is an observation of what has been offered, which either is or is not justified. You seem to be simply offering straw men excuses, and where none are needed, since nothing but subjective claims, and poor arguments have been offered. Why is anyone here obliged to accept such a low bar for credulity, a threshold that gets you no closer to Jesus than it does to Aztec deity of gluttony. 

Quote:And of course you have been called a liar on this thread, 

Is it honest to claim to know that most psychologist with a degree, know the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't exist, when a cursory read online, demonstrated the claim to be untrue? I might be kind and think it was idiotic hubris, if it were the only incident. 

Is it honest to claim evidence does not  exist, and the word is meaningless, and only interpretation exist, as if for example how we interpret the evidence for the shape of the earth, can ever change the fact of its shape. Or to ignore that the more objective the evidence, and the more subjective bias is removed, then the more reliably that evidence reflects objective reality.

(May 15, 2025 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Call it what you like but there's clearly processing that we aren't aware of. Influence that and there's influence that the conscious mind can't easily deal with.

Like what?

(May 15, 2025 at 9:38 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: This video clip, from 23:00-35:00 might be too technical, but it forwards a great explanation for why we become more exploratory in adolescence. I'd be interested to see if you can pick up the overall thesis, because I think it's fascinating.

I enjoyed this video a lot -- thank you for recommending it. 

A lot of it was over my head, but I'm used to that feeling. Parts of it reminded me of lectures I heard when I got my teaching certificate in London many years ago. The emphasis there was on classroom practice rather than research or theory, but they did emphasize how people understand the world through schema, and interpret new information in light of the mental structures that they are accustomed to. (We didn't use the word "schema," but the ideas were similar.) I know this has been important to my teaching ever since, as I find that even quite obscure subjects (e.g. Renaissance Neoplatonism) in my classes can be introduced in ways that plug in to non-esoteric life experiences. 

The finding that adolescents actually suppress (if that's the right word) memory in order to explore the world more widely makes a lot of sense to me. Certainly I became more exploratory at that age (my parents would use a different adjective). And it fits nicely with what we've been saying about the dynamic nature of people's beliefs. It appears to be natural -- almost biologically demonstrable -- for people of that age to move away from the ideas they had taken for granted in childhood. Which works against the theory that children brainwashed as toddlers will be unable to deviate from their indoctrination later on. 

This was my first time to hear people talk about what's happening right now in this field of research. It's exciting to think that the field is still open and on the move.

(May 16, 2025 at 5:38 am)h4ym4n Wrote:

(May 15, 2025 at 10:21 pm)Ahriman Wrote: It's sad, a lot of Christians are good people and nice people, but their irrational beliefs make them delusional.

Good people?

If you are in a gang and your gang leader tortures people for not believing it exists and the good people ignore what it’s doing still makes the good people culpable.

Think of all those good xian Germans who just let their gang leader slaughter millions 


Good people my ass

Whilst this doesn't directly relate the the thread question, it is a valid point, if anyone was able to objectively demonstrate that the deity in the bible was real, I'd have to accept it, but I'd be horrified, and want nothing to do with it. How can people who would otherwise revile acts like genocide, infanticide, endorsing slavery and ethnics cleansing, and sex trafficking prisoners, worship a deity, and revere a book where that deity is depicted doing all those things, and more.

(May 16, 2025 at 8:01 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 15, 2025 at 10:55 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Call it what you like but there's clearly processing that we aren't aware of. Influence that and there's influence that the conscious mind can't easily deal with.

Like what?

As I recall, there's been a lot of work done on what message a particular media product SEEMS to be teaching, vs. what it is really teaching. 

So you've probably heard of the criticism that Sesame Street, while intended to help children learn to read, actually damaged their ability. The producer's plan was to make it fun to learn reading by making the letters dance and sing and tell jokes. But of course actual reading requires a kind of sustained attention to letters that DON'T dance or sing, so kids raised on Sesame Street found it too boring to read a page of text. 

Then there are the criticisms that superhero movies have a fascist message hidden behind the charm of the hero's personalities. (Only the ubermensch can save us.) Or of course the constant message in US media that the hero is the person who makes the most effective use of violence. This teaches us something. 

This is not exactly subliminal or subconscious, because once it's pointed out it's obvious. But I do think that a lot of people absorb the subtext in an uncritical way.