Devotion & prejudice - any difference?
- Thread starter Emma
- Start date
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
Devotion is a form of prejudice. Prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing.
We all take a lot of things for granted, and do not even think about questioning them. Things like that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the ceiling will not collapse in the next half hour, that there is no tiger at the door this instant, that our friends can be trusted. We need to take things for granted. We cannot afford to investigate everything and constantly weigh evidence. We cannot test every breath of air for poison before we inhale it.
Taking things for granted isn't even irrational. Empiricism is about trying to check assumptions against evidence, but if you formalize this mathematically, what you get is Bayes's Rule, and what that means is: Any given piece of evidence simply modifies, by a certain amount, your prior estimate of how probable it is that your assumptions are true. If someone begins with a strong belief, it may take quite a lot of evidence before their confidence weakens appreciably. That can be both practical and rational.
If someone literally pays no attention at all to adverse evidence, they are being foolish. As long as adverse evidence weakens their confidence even slightly, though, they may be thinking rationally and wisely. At some point, the camel's back may break.
We all take a lot of things for granted, and do not even think about questioning them. Things like that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the ceiling will not collapse in the next half hour, that there is no tiger at the door this instant, that our friends can be trusted. We need to take things for granted. We cannot afford to investigate everything and constantly weigh evidence. We cannot test every breath of air for poison before we inhale it.
Taking things for granted isn't even irrational. Empiricism is about trying to check assumptions against evidence, but if you formalize this mathematically, what you get is Bayes's Rule, and what that means is: Any given piece of evidence simply modifies, by a certain amount, your prior estimate of how probable it is that your assumptions are true. If someone begins with a strong belief, it may take quite a lot of evidence before their confidence weakens appreciably. That can be both practical and rational.
If someone literally pays no attention at all to adverse evidence, they are being foolish. As long as adverse evidence weakens their confidence even slightly, though, they may be thinking rationally and wisely. At some point, the camel's back may break.
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
I can't help but feel this video is incredibly damning. If the SP character was ever defined fully, it would be the response Marty gave to Gerry. Asking him to do something which is not possible. I felt like he was almost asking Gerry to bend to his will. I know that feeling, I have been asked on this website to provide 'DOX or STFU' by someone who knows full well that I cannot do that.
This video is also damning for the Freezone. My experience is that RO were not only good to me and helpful but also did not question my desire to leave and go and do something else. But I cannot say that about other people. But why is it, that only me and Diana are willing to speak out about the abuses in the Freezone? And we are attacked for it, quite heavily, not just on this board. Nobody wants to risk losing their auditing, so the truth goes out the window. I will reiterate a point I have previously made. No gains I have gotten from Scientology are worth using to attack, suppress or invalidate a person who is not trying to harm me by using a different viewpoint. Our time on earth is short, using it wisely is better than using it for endless conflict.
My only qualm with Gerry attacking the Freezone is that he is wrong to say that the injunction against him covers all non-Church Scientologists in a way which implys they support it. Because I can honestly say that the majority do not support it and the vast majority do not even know about it. Gerry is a non-entity to those that don't spend their spare time using google. Some know of him and others don't. That there are different factions in the FZ is good in that there is no central body or organisation that can wield power over a large area of people. If the Church falls, it is inevitable that the splinter movement will grow. I always warned that the splinter movement would have every possibility of becoming like the Church the moment the big 'dupes' left COS and joined. It's been slowly happening for years and now it's happening big time. I would say to Gerry that when this happens it is time for you to move on and get on with your life, have some leisure and luxury and enjoy yourself. You've left a wealth of information, but people who leave the Church will go the way they feel is best.
Many of the Freezoners from the earlier years were attacked and harrassed just as much as Gerry and many of them spoke out about their experiences with Scientology, both good and bad and about Hubbard. They are not the same as the movement we are seeing emerging now. I believe Emma's original point of 'Devotion & Prejudice?' is really relevant here and when it comes to people not learning from their lessons, well, you cannot tell them what to think and believe.
A lot of people walked out of Scientology or were thrown out when Miscavige, Rinder, Rathbun and a crew of others orchestrated their takeover of Scientology, possibly with the influence and guidance of Hubbard himself. That was in the early 1980's. Thorough research and people speaking out have put a wealth of information on the net. Marty is telling his followers stuff about Lisa McPherson and the IRS that has been known for years, although it has been hard to prove. The Scientology reformation has been and gone. Marty missed the bus. It's a case of one dictator trying to oust another.
degraded being
Sponsor
But why should anyone HAVE to get all meticulous about finding something nice to say about someone who is considered to be a scumbag? People can decide for themselves whether or not Marty is or isn't a scumbag. If people want say nice things about him there is nothing stopping them, but to coerce others to do the same is no more palatable than having to listen to someones "extreme" views.
Who gets to decide which scumbag has nice qualities which should be acknowledged by one and all? Is Adolph Hitler to be given "equal time" on considering his good qualities? What about LRH? What about Miscavige? Saying that people are lazy for having extreme views is itself a bit lazy and possibly untrue. Insisting that people see things through your understandings, and that they should acknowledging good things about Marty seems just as objectionable as insisting that they be extremely devoted or anti IMO.
Let Marty's words and actions show people that their extreme views are not defensible. Extremists will provoke extreme positions. Hubbard did not get enough extreme reaction against him. He sucessfully shut nearly all of it down. The "good side, extreme devotion won the day, and look where that got us.
Last edited:
Petey C
Silver Meritorious Patron
Excellent post, Ems, an interesting issue to gnaw on. IMO being devoted requires a certain discarding of judgment (= prejudice? or at least a decision to cleave to the beliefs/principles/ideas of the object of the devotion. It's a pretty word that nevertheless applies to lots of scientologists (and muslims and christians and hindus).
I'm sort of in the middle about Marty. I long ago stopped reading his blog because I didn't enjoy it or get much from it. But I also don't know him. On the other hand, plenty of people I do know and respect have expressed opinions about Marty that I feel I should pay attention to. And frankly, the only time Marty comes to my mind is when I read about him and his doings on ESMB. Therefore I don't have an opinion. But I do recognise he's a target for bashing and that sort of puzzles me, DESPITE the explanations people have written above, much of which I agree with.
Interesting, Face. What do you think the disease is?
I'm sort of in the middle about Marty. I long ago stopped reading his blog because I didn't enjoy it or get much from it. But I also don't know him. On the other hand, plenty of people I do know and respect have expressed opinions about Marty that I feel I should pay attention to. And frankly, the only time Marty comes to my mind is when I read about him and his doings on ESMB. Therefore I don't have an opinion. But I do recognise he's a target for bashing and that sort of puzzles me, DESPITE the explanations people have written above, much of which I agree with.
Interesting, Face. What do you think the disease is?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
He's hurt a lot of exceptional people through a lengthy history spanning multiple decades of general thuggery. Additionally although he claims to be 'reformed' as an individual, he has not been especially honest or forthcoming about that history. He's also not been notably different in his behaviors, merely having adopted a different set of criteria for selecting his primary targets.
Hence the fully warranted atmosphere of general distrust.
A leopard can change its spots. But it can also just choose to go for a dye job.
Mark A. Baker
degraded being
Sponsor
He was good for the German economy (I think).
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Yeah. Germany was looking real good the day WWII ended.
Boy Howdy did Hitler ever leave that country - and most of Europe - doing just hunkey dorey !
What a man !
Oh, are we talking about the dog he tested the poison on?
That one?
The one he killed?
Was the deadth toll of WWII on the order of 50 million dead ?
And somebody posts Hitler was good for Germany. OK.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
He wasn't. It may be argued that the policies pursued by the nazi party towards reconstruction of Germany were. Unfortunately those policies entailed corporate cooperation with the german government and military, a forerunner of the u.s. military-industrial complex but with even closer ties between private corporations & the german government. The country was rebuilt, people were employed, 'national security' was strengthened, some individuals became extremely wealthy and the whole apparatus was tied to the expansion of power and increased control of access to overseas resources of and by the german state .
Arguably not so good although clearly archetypic.
Mark A. Baker
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Some people seem to suffer from a personality flaw which causes them to need a leader. That's how the Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots do their damage. Hubbard is not in the same league as these, but he was able to recruit thousands of people with this personality flaw to put his plans into action. Not everybody who was in Scientology had that flaw, but I think the ones who are still in have it, and I include some of Marty's 'followers' in there.
That's my opinion.
YMMV.
That's my opinion.
YMMV.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Damn, I was afraid someone was gonna ask me that, Petey C.
OK...here’s my “Readers Digest Version”:
The general class of the disease is ologies, isms, anities and ocracy’s. The pathology of this particular disease is to be or find or follow, "The One", "The Way" and/or "'IT'".
This disease is, in effect, a slow burn predator.
In the particular form of the disease I was speaking of in my post, a very insidious, vigorous and pernicious disease organism has mutated into millions and millions of infective word spores. Previously infected disease carrying and transmitting hosts work rapidly and ceaselessly to come in proximity prospective hosts. Once the prospective host is in contact with disease carrying hosts these transmitters work rapidly as a team to spread as many of the word spores all over the prospective host, hoping that one or several of the spores will be ingested and lead to infection. At the same time, the infected transmitters also work intently and methodically to spread particular spores that have proved to be particularly infectious and to find the particular word spores, out of the millions, that the prospective host will willingly and comfortably ingest. The most certain sign to the carriers that the prospective host has contracted the disease is an urge and desire on the part of the newly infected to infect others and bring prospective hosts in proximity to the carriers “hive”, if you will.
Face
Last edited:
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
I've always said that any virtue in excess becomes a vice.
This seems like another example of that.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Terril park
Sponsor
Right on compadre.
Sindy
Crusader
Where did I say that anyone had to go out of their way to find anything nice to say about anyone? I never, ever, said that and have never berated anyone for not doing so. Believe it or not, I could care less who likes or doesn't like Marty.
You completely missed my point and the point of the OP. When I asked if Smilla could (was capable) of even noticing or commenting on a possible good, it was simply to ask if it was possible (as in the person is open and thinking and not being extreme for the sake of doggedly and stubbornly sticking to a stance no matter what the evidence). I knew (or thought I knew anyway) what Smilla's answer would be and knew it wouldn't be extremist. It wasn't a question asked from a haughty place.
It was a hypothetical, not a requirement. Think what you want about Marty or anyone else, I could care less. What I don't gel with real well is closed minded thinking and extremism - the exact point of the OP.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Damn, I was afraid someone was gonna ask me that, Petey C.
OK...here’s my “Readers Digest Version”:
The general class of the diseases is ologies, isms, anities and ocracy’s. The pathology of the disease is to be or find, "The One, The Way or 'IT'".
In the particular form of the disease I was speaking of in my post, a very insidious, vigorous and pernicious disease organism has mutated into millions and millions of word spores. Previously infected disease carrying and transmitting hosts work rapidly and ceaselessly to come in proximity prospective hosts. Once the prospective host is in contact with disease carrying hosts these transmitters work rapidly as a team to spread as many of the word spores all over the prospective host, hoping that one or several of the spores will be ingested and lead to infection. At the same time, the infected transmitters also work intently and methodically to spread particular spores that have proved to be particularly infectious and to find the particular word spores, out of the millions, that the prospective host will willingly and comfortably ingest. The most certain sign to the carriers that the prospective host has contracted the disease is a urge and desire on the part of the newly infected to infect others and bring prospective hosts to the carriers “hive”, if you will.
Face
You didn't - and neither did I.
Nor did I say anything about "coercing" anybody to think anything. I don't think you did either.
(The strawman arguments are getting a good run today.)
All I asked was for some opinions on why people get stuck in their thinking and whether devotion & prejudice are essentially the same thing.
I'm surprised at some of the reactions on this thread. Touchy subject this "black & white thinking".
Just about 12 months on from the ESMB "be nice to newbies" debarcle and I'm still no closer to understanding.
ESMB is not a cult so we can 'permit' soft sell. We don't really have a "message" or something to buy or an agenda to sell.
Tough love has its place. So does tolerance, understanding and baby steps.
So my "be nice to newbies" message wasn't cult-like enough????
freethinker
Sponsor
I understand what you are talking about and those two extremes exist but I don't think you can say it's an either/or; black or white thing.
Man has a composition of intellect and emotion and every person is a different mixture of the two which makes us all at least a little different from each other.
Some act more with their emotions than intellect and others more with there intellect than emotion and for each individual the mixture varies per situation.
I think some think of Marty, Hubbard, Scientology et al with much more emotion than intellect and you get either the devotion or the prejudice depending upon their experiences with any of the above.
Those who use more intellect than emotion tend to analyze it all and come up with logical conclusion for any given situation also based on their own personal experience with it. Those without any experience and using mostly intellect can tke a detached view and rationalize away things that the experienced emotional ones just can't accept at all and respond accordingly; either pro or con.
So the conditions you state do exist but there is a spectrum based on the emotional/intellectual mix where you might get someone who appears prejudice against marty but actually has experience or facts that cause that response, but that response can change if factors change.
You can say I am prejudiced against Marty but if Marty went to the authorities and spilled all he knew which resulted in an invetigation and prosecution of the abuses, I wouldn't be devoted to Marty for that but I wouldn't be prejudiced anymore either.
Man has a composition of intellect and emotion and every person is a different mixture of the two which makes us all at least a little different from each other.
Some act more with their emotions than intellect and others more with there intellect than emotion and for each individual the mixture varies per situation.
I think some think of Marty, Hubbard, Scientology et al with much more emotion than intellect and you get either the devotion or the prejudice depending upon their experiences with any of the above.
Those who use more intellect than emotion tend to analyze it all and come up with logical conclusion for any given situation also based on their own personal experience with it. Those without any experience and using mostly intellect can tke a detached view and rationalize away things that the experienced emotional ones just can't accept at all and respond accordingly; either pro or con.
So the conditions you state do exist but there is a spectrum based on the emotional/intellectual mix where you might get someone who appears prejudice against marty but actually has experience or facts that cause that response, but that response can change if factors change.
You can say I am prejudiced against Marty but if Marty went to the authorities and spilled all he knew which resulted in an invetigation and prosecution of the abuses, I wouldn't be devoted to Marty for that but I wouldn't be prejudiced anymore either.