What's new

True-believer syndrome

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
I found the following at Wikipedia. I will let you judge for yourself if it describes Independent Scientologists and freezoners.

True-believer syndrome

Terminology
Coined byM. Lamar Keene (1976)
DefinitionThe condition of continuing to believe a paranormal event/phenomenon after it has been debunked
SignatureBelief continues without grounds or base
True-believer syndrome is an informal or rhetorical term used by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. Keene considered it to be a cognitive disorder, and regarded it as being a key factor in the success of many psychic mediums.
The term "true believer" was used earlier by Eric Hoffer in his 1951 book The True Believer to describe the psychological roots of fanatical groups.


Examples Raoul In his book The Psychic Mafia, Keene told of his partner, a psychic medium named "Raoul" in the book. Some in their congregation still believed that Raoul was genuine even after he openly admitted that he was a fake. Keene wrote "I knew how easy it was to make people believe a lie, but I didn't expect the same people, confronted with the lie, would choose it over the truth. ... No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie."
Carlos According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, an example of this syndrome is evidenced by an event in 1988 when stage magician James Randi, at the request of an Australian news program, coached stage performer José Alvarez to pretend he was channelling a two-thousand-year-old spirit named "Carlos". Even after it was revealed to be a fictional character created by Randi and Alvarez, many people continued to believe that "Carlos" was real. Randi commented: "no amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary."
Keech In the book When Prophecy Fails, Festinger and his colleagues observed a fringe group led by Marian Keech who believed that the world would be destroyed on December 21, 1954 and the true believers would be rescued by aliens on a spaceship to a fictional planet Clarion. When nothing happened, the group believed that their devotion convinced God to spare the world and they became even more feverish in proselytizing their belief. This is one of the first cases that led Festinger to form the theory of cognitive dissonance.


Psychology In an article published in Skeptical Inquirer, psychologist Matthew J. Sharps and his colleagues analyze and dissect the psychology of True Believers and their behavior after the predicted apocalypse fails to happen. Using the 2012 Mayan apocalypse prophecy as example, and cited several other similar cases, Sharps contributes four psychological factors that compel these people to continue the belief (or even stronger belief) despite the conflicted reality.

  • Subclinical dissociative tendencies: While not suffering from mental illness, people with subclinical dissociative tendencies have a higher inclination to experience disconnection with immediate physical reality and propensity to see highly improbable things with enhanced credulity. Such subclinical dissociation is usually associated with paranormal thinking.
  • Cognitive dissonance: The more one invests in a belief, the more value one will place in this belief and, as a consequence, be more resistant to facts, evidence or reality that contradict this belief. Some of the True Believers in the Keech case in the example above had left their spouses, jobs and given up their possessions to prepare to board the alien spacecraft. When the world did not end, cognitive dissonance provided an enhancement of their beliefs and outlet for their heavy investment and discomfort in front of reality.
  • Gestalt processing: In the continuum in human information processing, people with Gestalt processing will consider a concept without detailed analysis (as opposed to feature-intensive thinking) and accept the idea as a whole relatively uncritically. Sharps suggests a relationship between dissociative tendencies and gestalt processing. People who incline to believe paranormal activities will be more likely to credulously entertain the ancient Mayan prophecies whose details most people know little about.
  • Availability heuristic: Under the mental shortcut of availability heuristic, people place more importance and give more weight to a belief when examples related to the idea are more readily recalled, most often because they are recent information and latest news. The information of Mayan prophecies has been abundantly available, especially in the media, before the expected apocalyptic date. People's judgments tend to bias toward this latest news, particularly those with dissociative tendency toward supernatural and favor gestalt processing.

 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
scientologists are the easiest people on the planet to get to believe the most bat shit crazy theories as factual.

Disputing their 'facts' can you get you killed by the more active zealots that abound in their ranks & file.
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
A lot of what people call real “science” is also very political and based on an agenda.

Just because a person believes in something after it has been debunked does not mean a person has a cognitive disorder. He may just not believe the “scientific study.”
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
1. It is possible to stage a paranormal event, say telepathy, then reveal it was staged. This only debunks that one happenstance. That doesn't mean that true telepathy isn't going on elsewhere.

2. Debunkers have an interest in "disproving" paranormalcy. Take the idea of reincarnation -- someone will say they remember being somewhere long ago, and the usual "rational" explanation is that their parents took them there when they were too young to remember the trip (but do remember the place). This is a contorted explanation that is very unlikely, but it's usually stated as that's the explanation and that's the end of it.

3. Many paranormal events can neither be proven or disproven. What about something like love at first sight? How do you explain that? Is that some sort of paranormalcy at work?

4. Those who are in a position to attempt to prove something like going exterior with perception may be unwilling to call attention to themselves. Worst case scenario: they are spirited away to a government laboratory and dissected in a vain attempt to "see how they did it".

5. The teachings of most mainstream religions are chock full of paranormal activity, but few question those. Ultimately, it comes down to what percentage of the population is willing to entertain the idea of the existence of whatever phenomena.

Helena
 

Hypatia

Pagan
I suspect they might say their opinions are based on their observations and experiences. But that's generally what any true believer generally claims.
 
1. It is possible to stage a paranormal event, say telepathy, then reveal it was staged. This only debunks that one happenstance. That doesn't mean that true telepathy isn't going on elsewhere.

2. Debunkers have an interest in "disproving" paranormalcy. Take the idea of reincarnation -- someone will say they remember being somewhere long ago, and the usual "rational" explanation is that their parents took them there when they were too young to remember the trip (but do remember the place). This is a contorted explanation that is very unlikely, but it's usually stated as that's the explanation and that's the end of it.

3. Many paranormal events can neither be proven or disproven. What about something like love at first sight? How do you explain that? Is that some sort of paranormalcy at work?

4. Those who are in a position to attempt to prove something like going exterior with perception may be unwilling to call attention to themselves. Worst case scenario: they are spirited away to a government laboratory and dissected in a vain attempt to "see how they did it".

5. The teachings of most mainstream religions are chock full of paranormal activity, but few question those. Ultimately, it comes down to what percentage of the population is willing to entertain the idea of the existence of whatever phenomena.

Helena

"3. Many paranormal events can neither be proven or disproven. What about something like love at first sight? How do you explain that? Is that some sort of paranormalcy at work?"


Yeeaah......that's a toughie. How does that happen? :duh:
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
I suspect they might say their opinions are based on their observations and experiences. But that's generally what any true believer generally claims.

It is the same with "science." Scientists make opinions based on their observations and experiences.

It is still a belief system. The belief is that their "scientific method" is the correct.

Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
<snip>
Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

It's not so much that science claims that NOTHING happened... it's that the paranormal explanation must be proven.
It is similar to the "God of the gaps" position.

So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.

Totally debunked in all cases and forever? I agree with you on that one but that is not the issue.
Don't you just want to believe it?
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
It is the same with "science." Scientists make opinions based on their observations and experiences.

It is still a belief system. The belief is that their "scientific method" is the correct.

Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.

Ah, did you leave about the part about science being able to repeatable consistently being able to re-create their results - or did you just skip that nagging little fact ?

Faith - feeling - emotion, yep people have those feelings. Like love. Love is a feeling.

Then their is logic - reason. That 'proves' up things.

Those who want to go down the high school freshman road of trying to debate faith with reason - or reason with faith ? Go for it.

Sort of like resolving an orange with the number 17 - go for it !
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Is there such a thing as demonic possession?
Or would this be better explained as severe mental illness (brain malfunction)?
 

RandomCat

Patron with Honors
It is the same with "science." Scientists make opinions based on their observations and experiences.

It is still a belief system. The belief is that their "scientific method" is the correct.

Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.
If the person who performed the 'paranormal' activity later admits that it was just a trick, i. e. that they were just faking it. Then yes it is 'debunked'. The point is that some people will continue to believe even when a prophecy proves false or those perpetrating the activity admit that it is fake.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
<snip>
Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

Someone tells me that the Virgin Mary manifested and revealed her presence in their tea leaves yesterday morning.
Should I believe this story? Why not?


So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.

If a scientist talks about leprechauns and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say that the existence of leprechauns has been "debunked" is arrogance. (Get my point? :) )

There is no absolute proof against the existence of paranormal any more than there is absolute proof against the existence of unicorns, fairies, or leprechauns.
 
Last edited:

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
scientologists are the easiest people on the planet to get to believe the most bat shit crazy theories as factual.

Disputing their 'facts' can you get you killed by the more active zealots that abound in their ranks & file.


No doubt this is a great comfort to you, reassuring you in your irrational belief that you are so RIGHT and Scientologists are all WRONG.
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
"3. Many paranormal events can neither be proven or disproven. What about something like love at first sight? How do you explain that? Is that some sort of paranormalcy at work?"


Yeeaah......that's a toughie. How does that happen? :duh:
You meet someone whom you've known, and have had a really good relationship with, in a previous life. You "recognize" each other, even though you both have different bodies and different names. Perhaps there's a different explanation, but this one is certainly good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnP-__yj8ik

Helena, to whom this has happened
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
You meet someone whom you've known, and have had a really good relationship with, in a previous life. You "recognize" each other, even though you both have different bodies and different names. Perhaps there's a different explanation, but this one is certainly good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnP-__yj8ik

Helena, to whom this has happened

We don't recognize each other from some "past life".

1. physical attraction,
2. personality (behaviour) attraction.

There is no need to appeal to paranormal to explain it.
And this can happen very quickly THEN they can get married and divorced in just a few years (or even months).
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
We don't recognize each other from some "past life".

1. physical attraction,
2. personality (behaviour) attraction.

There is no need to appeal to paranormal to explain it.
And this can happen very quickly THEN they can get married and divorced in just a few years (or even months).
This is JUST what I'm talking about. Since it IS POSSIBLE to explain this without recourse to the paranormal, then that "debunks" paranormalcy and "proves" that the paranormal explanation MUST BE wrong.

Helena
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
I believe in love, otherwise wouldn't get up in the morning, although not sure I subscribe to the idea that it's due to past lives.

It never really made sense to me that previous family members would simply come back, as some scientologists believe, as if it's just one big casting session in the after life. So mum dies, and somehow is born into the exact same family but as a child. It seemed creepy, but most scientologists I knew had people identified.
 

Hypatia

Pagan
It is the same with "science." Scientists make opinions based on their observations and experiences.

It is still a belief system. The belief is that their "scientific method" is the correct.

Their belief system is that if you can't prove something with currently known methods then it isn't true.

So if a scientist talks about paranormal activity or past lives and says "It can't be proven with my current tests and standards, then I'm OK with that." But to say paranormal activity has been "debunked" is arrogance.

People often see and believe what they want. I'm sure that includes me. It's hard to really open up the mind.
 
Top