|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2006 : 10:49:39
|
Far be it from me to disregard the edicts of the lords of SFN...
So here is a new thread since for me to respond to kil's comment--that by his own edict he should have started a new thread for himself, but he owns the playground...--posted in another thread of mine.
quote:
ergo123: Are you suggesting that I should have started a new thread just to answer dave's request? Because someone told me to keep replies in the same thread until it is locked--and i think that person was you (or maybe one or more of the moderators).
quote:
kil: If youre talking about this, than what I was insisting on is that you stay on topic.
I said:
[quote]
ergo, if your intention in this thread is to finally present the theory that you favor, with whatever evidence you have to support that theory, I will let the thread stand.
Or, if this thread was started for you to present a focused and as compelling a case as you can against the official theory, bringing with you your own sources, I will let it stand.
Do not open another thread on this subject until the existing threads are maxed out. If you do, it will be locked and you will have earned your second official warning…
So yeah, that kind of digression should have been brought up in a new thread. You are free to open threads that are not about the NIST or CD theory. It might even be an interesting subject. But it has no place in this thread…
And one more thing; so far you have argued or suggested a hidden motive (even a subconscious motive) with every decision that the staff has made, including the innocuous closing of your first thread. And that is tiresome to say the least. It would be very refreshing if you could own any of your mistakes…
Well, kil, it might be tiresome, but human beings do have hidden, subconscious motives for everything they do. You can deny the truth about that, or you can deal with it--It looks to me like you and your staff would rather deny this truth...
[Moved to the General Skepticism Folder - Dave W.]
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 11:05:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
Well, kil, it might be tiresome, but human beings do have hidden, subconscious motives for everything they do. You can deny the truth about that, or you can deal with it--It looks to me like you and your staff would rather deny this truth...
I have never once denied that. What I have said is that critical thinking is a way to minimize the problem of bias.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 11:27:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Well, kil, it might be tiresome, but human beings do have hidden, subconscious motives for everything they do. You can deny the truth about that, or you can deal with it--It looks to me like you and your staff would rather deny this truth...
I have never once denied that. What I have said is that critical thinking is a way to minimize the problem of bias.
But if all the critiques of your thinking come from you then the "minimization of the problem" is minimal...
Referred to as "intellectualization," over-relying on rational processes inhibits the examination of the very feelings and emotions that drive introspection and self-awareness of one's own hidden agenda.
So applying critical thinking to an issue at the expense of an examination of ones feelings and emotions to the issue retards the examination of those feelings and emotions and thereby allows the subconscious mind to direct the rational processes unchecked.
This is how one fools one's self. It is the action of the subconscious protecting the conscious from having to deal with feelings and emotions the subconscious believes will be too disturbing for the conscious mind to handle.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 12:54:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It is the action of the subconscious protecting the conscious from having to deal with feelings and emotions the subconscious believes will be too disturbing for the conscious mind to handle.
What evidence do you have that anyone here would find the alleged truth that "the NIST report is wrong" to be "too disturbing" (for just one example)? Simply asserting that someone's subconscious does this or that isn't evidence that such a thing is actually occuring, and thus isn't any more of a "critique" than your earlier assertion that the veracity of the NIST report does make a difference to me. Doing nothing more than denying what someone says isn't helpful to anyone's criticial thinking processes - stating why some statement or other is incorrect would be helpful. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 14:08:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It is the action of the subconscious protecting the conscious from having to deal with feelings and emotions the subconscious believes will be too disturbing for the conscious mind to handle.
What evidence do you have that anyone here would find the alleged truth that "the NIST report is wrong" to be "too disturbing" (for just one example)? Simply asserting that someone's subconscious does this or that isn't evidence that such a thing is actually occuring, and thus isn't any more of a "critique" than your earlier assertion that the veracity of the NIST report does make a difference to me. Doing nothing more than denying what someone says isn't helpful to anyone's criticial thinking processes - stating why some statement or other is incorrect would be helpful.
The same holds true for you davey. You state the veracity of the NIST report does not make a difference to you--yet you do not state why it does not. But then, I know it must make a difference to you because I know how humans evaluate things they know about and you, apparently, do not.
I will elaborate on how humans evaluate things they know about if you agree to give me free reign over the texts and thinkers I reference. The list only includes 1 of the "banned 3" but I might need to mention one or the other remaing "banned 3" members in rebuttals. But if you are going play your childish "mention one of them again and you will be banned from the site" game, I don't want to bother discussing it.
And clearly, to discuss the subconscious without being able to reference the "banned 3" is like saying discuss the American Revolution without using the words Constitution, Colonies or Britain.
So if you are really as open-minded as you say, you will chill out and revoke your edict banning the mention of the "banned 3" from my posts. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 17:51:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
So if you are really as open-minded as you say, you will chill out and revoke your edict banning the mention of the "banned 3" from my posts.
Why do you do this? You know that Dave said you could “chirp away” on this subject and use those people in a thread where bringing them up and referencing them would be relevant. I said you could do that too.
Is your memory that poor? Or are you unhappy unless you are playing the martyr, so your subconscious didn't allow you to take in that information? That would be consistent with what you seem to be saying. Or at least, closely related...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 20:06:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
So if you are really as open-minded as you say, you will chill out and revoke your edict banning the mention of the "banned 3" from my posts.
Why do you do this? You know that Dave said you could “chirp away” on this subject and those people in a thread where bringing them up and referencing them would be relevant. I said you could do that too.
Is your memory that poor? Or are you unhappy unless you are playing the martyr, so your subconscious didn't allow you to take in that information? That would be consistent with what you seem to be saying. Or at least, closely related...
No, my memory is not that poor, nor is my subconscious keeping me from taking in that information. It's just that you two are so inconsistent that I never know what arbitrary edict you are going to spring next. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 21:25:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The same holds true for you davey. You state the veracity of the NIST report does not make a difference to you--yet you do not state why it does not.
A complete dodge for you, since you're the one who brought my mental state(s) into the discussion in the first place. You made the claim that the veracity of the NIST report does make a difference to me, and failed to provide any evidence for it. Since you can't read my mind, it's up to you to tell us all how you know this. I can't think of a single reason why the falseness of the NIST report would be "disturbing" to me (especially since I don't consider it to be "true" in the first place - not even its authors think that), so please, reach down deep into my subconscious and tell me what it is that I'm so afraid of.quote:
But then, I know it must make a difference to you because I know how humans evaluate things they know about and you, apparently, do not.
Well, you're the one making the claim, so go ahead and provide the evidence that it "must" make a difference to me. (You do realize that "make a difference" is a subjective phrase, don't you?)quote:
I will elaborate on how humans evaluate things they know about if you agree to give me free reign over the texts and thinkers I reference.
I already did. Just how bad is your memory, anyway?quote:
But if you are going play your childish "mention one of them again and you will be banned from the site" game, I don't want to bother discussing it.
More petulance.quote:
And clearly, to discuss the subconscious without being able to reference the "banned 3" is like saying discuss the American Revolution without using the words Constitution, Colonies or Britain.
"Our basis for law," "proto-states" and "England." Easy, see? But the fact remains that if those three are your only sources, then you probably don't have the degree you claimed to have. After all, Frued died in 1939, and Jung croaked in 1961. Psychology and neuroscience have moved along quite a ways since those times. Damasio, still alive, is a behavioral neurologist who is apparently trying to develop a theory of consciousness, but judging by some scholarly reviews I've read, he has quite a ways to go, and by some accounts he isn't actually bringing anything new to neuroscience with Descartes' Error (or with The Feeling of What Happens, though for reasons not associated with this or other threads, I think I'm going to buy both books).
Anyway, my point here was, and still is, that it seems fairly self-incriminating that you, a person with a psych degree of some sort, find yourself so reliant on two long-dead authors and one live one that barring their names and books from discussion completely sytmied your attempts at rebuttal of a couple of really simple ideas. Surely a person with your self-stated credentials would be familiar with several - or even dozens - of other experts in the relevant field(s) from which you could have drawn your defense, even with the prohibitions in place.quote:
So if you are really as open-minded as you say, you will chill out and revoke your edict banning the mention of the "banned 3" from my posts.
As has already been pointed out by Kil, and now me again: I already did rescind that condition so long as your mentions of them stay in this, the General Skepticism folder. Your references to them in the Conspiracy Theories folder were always as bludgeons to terminate discussion of certain aspects of the 9/11 events. In fact, your entire "you're afraid to face the truth" schtick was for no other purpose than poisoning the well and avoiding questions that were obviously uncomfortable for you. In this folder, you can talk about Freud, Jung and Damasio all you'd like. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 21:54:50 [Permalink]
|
I think I found your problem Ergo:
quote:
Clinical psychology
For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.[12]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 22:19:51 [Permalink]
|
My god, davey--it's times like this where having a god would come in handy!--you have a simple way of looking at things. You frequently correlate constructs when they are completely independent. The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you and the construct of intellectualization are independent. Intellectualization is but 1 of the myriad of defence mechanisms we all use to protect ourselves. (It seems to be one favored by many here on this site.) The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is not connected to any defence mechanism. The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is related to how humans evaluate information of which they become cognizant. Defence mechanisms come into play after such information is evaluated.
Also, the fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is unrelated to whether you would be disturbed by the truth or not. Which defence mechanisms, if any, you usilize to distort your perception of that information will be related to, among other things, how disturbed your subconscious mind estimates your conscious mind will be by it--not the fact that it must make a difference to you.
So it is possible that while the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you that you will not be disturbed by its veracity.
Before I waste my time explaining something that might only confuse you further, do you see how these constructs you see (or at least discuss) as being related are really independent? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 22:56:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Before I waste my time explaining something that might only confuse you further...
Yup, more typical dehumanization tactics from you, and no direct answers to my queries.quote:
...do you see how these constructs you see (or at least discuss) as being related are really independent?
Oh, yes, I see that, but you're the one who were making them interdependent in these discussions.
So please, first tell me how you read my mind to know what "make a difference" meant to me, and then tell me how the veracity of the NIST report "must" (you keep bolding it, so I will) make a difference to me.
(I'm still interested in your evidence that any of us here are afraid of facing "the truth" as you've suggested several times, but I'm willing to put that discussion on hold for a while, since you seem to think it's independent of the above.)
Actually, before you even start on the "make a difference" stuff, would you tell me if you think the veracity of any assertion of fact would "make a difference" to me? I mean, would the veracity of "ergo trimmed his toenails on Nov 4, 2006" make a difference to me, or is it just the veracity of the NIST report that allegedly makes a difference to me? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 23:04:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
But if all the critiques of your thinking come from you then the "minimization of the problem" is minimal...
Who said all of the critiques of my thinking come from me?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 07:09:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Before I waste my time explaining something that might only confuse you further,
My, my you sure do impress yourself don't you ergo.
Ergo, you keep repeating:quote:
the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you[Dave]
Where is your evidence of this. Is it the fact that it is being discussed? You are the one that brought it up and reference it over and over and over.
Your deep seated need to believe in a controled demolition conspiracy by the goverment, when even you say there is no evidence, indicates, using psychological terminology, that you are 'looney tunes'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 07:55:22 [Permalink]
|
I ran this thread by Michelle. She happens to be out of town but she has her laptop with her. Anyhow, she sent this back to me to format in any way I thought best.
“Ok, David. All the stuff in Red is Ergo. I took a lot from different threads.”
I reformatted what she wrote (adding forum code) but did not change a word. Like Visine, I took the red out.
quote:
ergo123:
Referred to as "intellectualization," over-relying on rational processes inhibits the examination of the very feelings and emotions that drive introspection and self-awareness of one's own hidden agenda.
I would say that it is important to point out that “critical thinking” and “intellectualization are not the same thing and cannot be interchangeable.
quote:
ergo123:
So applying critical thinking to an issue at the expense of an examination of ones feelings and emotions to the issue retards the examination of those feelings and emotions and thereby allows the subconscious mind to direct the rational processes unchecked.
There is a supposition here that by applying critical thinking one has NOT examined feelings and emotions. That is one of them there straw men, I think.
quote:
ergo123:
This is how one fools one's self. It is the action of the subconscious protecting the conscious from having to deal with feelings and emotions the subconscious believes will be too disturbing for the conscious mind to handle.
So then, Ergo is saying that the feelings and emotions aren't really unchecked, when one intellectualizes. The subconscious is checking, right?
quote:
ergo123:
My god, davey--it's times like this where having a god would come in handy!--you have a simple way of looking at things. You frequently correlate constructs when they are completely independent. The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you and the construct of intellectualization are independent.
This is just crap. If Dave couldn't deal with the NIST and had to repress the facts and then his subconscious created a defense mechanism (intellectualization) then they are absolutely connected.
quote:
ergo123:
Intellectualization is but 1 of the myriad of defence mechanisms we all use to protect ourselves. (It seems to be one favored by many here on this site.)
Again, do not confuse critical thinking with intellectualization or you have totally missed the importance of this defense mechanism.
quote:
ergo123:
The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is not connected to any defence mechanism. The fact that the veracity of the NIST report must make a difference to you is related to how humans evaluate information of which they become cognizant.
Cognizant means fully consciously aware of something.
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 08:13:57 [Permalink]
|
I don't understand; what does the veracity of the report have to do with anything? I personally have no way of verifying it as I was not there when it happened, nor was I on the cleanup crew, nor in on the investigation. I don't completely trust any government report or statement, politicians and bureaucrats being what they are, but I'm also not buying an accessory, controlled explosive series. I know how those are done, and unless some technique that I've never heard of was used, which is about as likely as nostrils on eggs, it ain't on.
Fuck the report. Show me how a controlled demolition could have been set up and detonated in coordination with the aircraft.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 10:04:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Before I waste my time explaining something that might only confuse you further...
Yup, more typical dehumanization tactics from you, and no direct answers to my queries.
Dehumanization? Why do you characterize my consideration that you might be confused dehumanization? Do you see people who are confused as somehow less than human? You have shown me several examples of failure to understand the relationship between the constructs central to the discussion here (as I pointed out above). I don't see you as being somehow less than human because of this.
quote:
...do you see how these constructs you see (or at least discuss) as being related are really independent?
quote:
Oh, yes, I see that, but you're the one who were making them interdependent in these discussions.
See, you are still confused. I'm not making them independent. They just are independent. I have no control over the constructs at issue here. They are what they are and their relationship to eachother is not defined by my description of it.
quote:
So please, first tell me how you read my mind to know what "make a difference" meant to me, and then tell me how the veracity of the NIST report "must" (you keep bolding it, so I will) make a difference to me.
It's not a matter of reading your mind, davey. The phrase "make a difference" is a common phrase. And unless you have some secret meaning for it, I understand what the phrase means. If you want to play word games to defend your ego, just let me know...
quote:
(I'm still interested in your evidence that any of us here are afraid of facing "the truth" as you've suggested several times, but I'm willing to put that discussion on hold for a while, since you seem to think it's independent of the above.)
Do you think it is independent of the above? If not, by all means attempt to show me how each is dependent on the other.
quote:
Actually, before you even start on the "make a difference" stuff, would you tell me if you think the veracity of any assertion of fact would "make a difference" to me?
Only in you are aware of the assertion.
quote:
I mean, would the veracity of "ergo trimmed his toenails on Nov 4, 2006" make a difference to me, or is it just the veracity of the NIST report that allegedly makes a difference to me?
Well, davey, you came up with that assertion, so it must have some relevance to you... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/11/2006 11:27:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
