NationStates Jolt Archive

Some interesting thoughts for all those out there who preach, argue, challenge, or even believe in a dogmatic ideology of any kind:

Whoever can scare people enough (produce bio-survival anxiety) can sell them quickly on any verbal ap that seems to give relief, i.e. cure the anxiety. By frightening people with Hell and then offering them Salvation, the most ignorant or crooked individuals can "sell" a whole system of thought that cannot bear two minutes of rational analysis. And any domesticated primate alpha male, however cruel or crooked, can rally the primate tribes behind him by howling that a rival alpha male is about to lead his gang in an attack on this habitat. These two mammalian reflexes are known, respectively, as Religion and Patriotism. They work for domesticated primates, as for the wild primates, because they are Evolutionarily Relative Sucesses. (So far.)

The emotional-territorial or "patriotic" circuit also contain the pack's status programs or pecking order. Working in tandem with first-circuit bio-survival anxieties, it is always able to pervert the functioning of the semantic-rational circuit. Whatever threatens loss of status, and whatever invades one's "space" (including one's ideological "head space") is a threat to the average domesticated primate. Thus, if a poor man has one status prop in his life--"I'm a white man, not a goddam ******" or "I'm normal, not a goddam faggot" or whatever--any attempt to preach(1) tolerance, common humanity, relativism, etc. is not processed through the semantic circuit but through the emotional circuit and is rejected as an attack on status (ego, social role).

(1) Of course, preaching itself is bad second circuit politics, since it puts you one-up on the person preached-at. You are not one-up unless imprinted as such by being an alpha male in the same gene-pool or conditioned as such by being a "boss" or other authority-figure. The counter-cultre of the 1960s, like so many other idealistic movements failed because it did so much preaching from a morally one-up position when nobody had been imprinted or conditioned to accept it as one-up.

Some interesting thoughts for all those out there who preach, argue, challenge, or even believe in a dogmatic ideology of any kind:

It amuses me that those who follow Christian Creation (and other similar myth) object so strongly to the 'humans' as animals premise, and are (usually) so in favour of the concepts of faith and patriotism.

They choose to ignore humanity as evolved animals, but cling to two evidences of the animal.

It amuses me that those who follow Christian Creation (and other similar myth) object so strongly to the 'humans' as animals premise, and are (usually) so in favour of the concepts of faith and patriotism.

They choose to ignore humanity as evolved animals, but cling to two evidences of the animal.

True as that is it has absolutely nothing to do with my post...

True as that is it has absolutely nothing to do with my post...

Really? It is a thought that occured while reading the passage, where it mentions certain types of primate behaviour, and their current continuation due to being "Evolutionary Relative Successes"... it further occured to that it is curious that the people that espouse those doctrines MOST emphatically, are the very people who DENY the connection between human and primate.

I think it has everything to do with the passage you posted, although maybe not the part of the passage you were concentrating on?

"Some interesting thoughts for all those out there who preach, argue, challenge, or even believe in a dogmatic ideology of any kind"

Perhaps you didn't want anyone to respond to this opening gambit? Or perhaps you only wanted certain responses, and mine wasn't one of them?

Hey, you take what you want from the passage and I'll take what I want.

I shall now honour your decision, and discuss it no further.

Really? It is a thought that occured while reading the passage, where it mentions certain types of primate behaviour, and their current continuation due to being "Evolutionary Relative Successes"... it further occured to that it is curious that the people that espouse those doctrines MOST emphatically, are the very people who DENY the connection between human and primate.

I think it has everything to do with the passage you posted, although maybe not the part of the passage you were concentrating on?



Perhaps you didn't want anyone to respond to this opening gambit? Or perhaps you only wanted certain responses, and mine wasn't one of them?

Hey, you take what you want from the passage and I'll take what I want.

I shall now honour your decision, and discuss it no further.

Hmm... Perhaps I misunderstood your response. Allow me to clarify my intention so that perhaps the misunderstanding may be removed. My hope was to start a sort of meta-discussion about the discussions we see on this forum every day, their causes and effects. I mispoke when I said that your post had nothing at all to do with the subject of mine, but I maintain that it does not fit into the intended topic of discussion. You named a specific group who subscribe to a dogmatic ideology and are unwilling to apply reasoning because they feel that debate and dissent are threatening to status, which is good, but is not what I was hoping for. I find that nearly no one escapes the critisisms leveled in the passage, so naming a specific group serves only to perpetuate the argument without in anyway moving to its resolution or elucidating the situation for those involved.

Anyway... I aplogize for what I said, I spoke too quickly and without thought. If you would like to continue the discussion (whether it evolves away from my original idea or not) I would be glad to continue it with you.

Hmm... Perhaps I misunderstood your response. Allow me to clarify my intention so that perhaps the misunderstanding may be removed. My hope was to start a sort of meta-discussion about the discussions we see on this forum every day, their causes and effects. I mispoke when I said that your post had nothing at all to do with the subject of mine, but I maintain that it does not fit into the intended topic of discussion. You named a specific group who subscribe to a dogmatic ideology and are unwilling to apply reasoning because they feel that debate and dissent are threatening to status, which is good, but is not what I was hoping for. I find that nearly no one escapes the critisisms leveled in the passage, so naming a specific group serves only to perpetuate the argument without in anyway moving to its resolution or elucidating the situation for those involved.

Anyway... I aplogize for what I said, I spoke too quickly and without thought. If you would like to continue the discussion (whether it evolves away from my original idea or not) I would be glad to continue it with you.

Accepted. No hard feelings.

The thing is... I agree with the bulk of your post. People who come to the table ENTIRELY armed with a preconception (especially in the absence of evidence) instinctively take any discussion (now matter how civil or logical) as an attack of personal nature - since it 'hits them where it hurts'.

Perhaps this also explains why they fight so vehemently over details, since allowing even one concession would be tanatamount to admitting their whole premise would be flawed.

(I am trying to keep this away from the direction of my original post, but it seems to veer back into the direction of the Christian ideology - perhaps because that, and certain political ideologies, are the most discussed arenas on the forum.)

I think there are SOME who are using the debate forum in a different way. I, personally, come to the forum to debate as a pure exercise, using it as a tool for learning. If one debate in a day strikes a chord in my head, makes me think a new thought, or consider a new angle, then I feel I have lost nothing, and gained much.

So - this thread has already 'made my day', in terms of a new thought.

Accepted. No hard feelings.

The thing is... I agree with the bulk of your post. People who come to the table ENTIRELY armed with a preconception (especially in the absence of evidence) instinctively take any discussion (now matter how civil or logical) as an attack of personal nature - since it 'hits them where it hurts'.

Perhaps this also explains why they fight so vehemently over details, since allowing even one concession would be tanatamount to admitting their whole premise would be flawed.

(I am trying to keep this away from the direction of my original post, but it seems to veer back into the direction of the Christian ideology - perhaps because that, and certain political ideologies, are the most discussed arenas on the forum.)

I think there are SOME who are using the debate forum in a different way. I, personally, come to the forum to debate as a pure exercise, using it as a tool for learning. If one debate in a day strikes a chord in my head, makes me think a new thought, or consider a new angle, then I feel I have lost nothing, and gained much.

So - this thread has already 'made my day', in terms of a new thought.

You sound like me back when I used to spend hours a day here.

I find, when I think back to my experiences here that I've often been the one "preaching" tolerance, common humanity, and relativism and this passage just made me think about how difficult it is to get people to give up on any idea, no matter how small, once they've convinced themselves that it's true. Another passage from the same book describes how "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." It sounds a little strange, but what it means, essentially, is that once the thinking part of the brain makes a decision about the way the universe is the prover censors and doctors incoming information, ignoring rationality, to make the assumptions the thinker made hold true. Once a person becomes convinced that all Black people are inferior it takes an immense effort for them to overcome that belief because their paradigm, slicing of the world shows them only the evidence that supports their belief, even when others try to force them to see the evidence to the contrary. This is why I think it is silly to have the prosecution present its entire case then allow the defense to present its case, because may of the jury members, or the judge, will have made up their mind about the innocence of guilt of the accused before the defense gets a chance to present its evidence, so the preformed paradigms and prejudices of the judge or jury will be used to censor the defense's case. The same is true of dogmatic Christians, and Democrats and Republicans, they have become so convinced that the universe is a certain way that they are unwilling to even process the evidence rationally, but instead (as RAW says) process it as an attack on status. Sometimes I despair of ever finding a way to open the minds of some people short of brainwashing, but then I realize that evolution is a slow process and we can't expect everyone to jump ahead just because a few have.

You sound like me back when I used to spend hours a day here.

I find, when I think back to my experiences here that I've often been the one "preaching" tolerance, common humanity, and relativism and this passage just made me think about how difficult it is to get people to give up on any idea, no matter how small, once they've convinced themselves that it's true. Another passage from the same book describes how "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." It sounds a little strange, but what it means, essentially, is that once the thinking part of the brain makes a decision about the way the universe is the prover censors and doctors incoming information, ignoring rationality, to make the assumptions the thinker made hold true. Once a person becomes convinced that all Black people are inferior it takes an immense effort for them to overcome that belief because their paradigm, slicing of the world shows them only the evidence that supports their belief, even when others try to force them to see the evidence to the contrary. This is why I think it is silly to have the prosecution present its entire case then allow the defense to present its case, because may of the jury members, or the judge, will have made up their mind about the innocence of guilt of the accused before the defense gets a chance to present its evidence, so the preformed paradigms and prejudices of the judge or jury will be used to censor the defense's case. The same is true of dogmatic Christians, and Democrats and Republicans, they have become so convinced that the universe is a certain way that they are unwilling to even process the evidence rationally, but instead (as RAW says) process it as an attack on status. Sometimes I despair of ever finding a way to open the minds of some people short of brainwashing, but then I realize that evolution is a slow process and we can't expect everyone to jump ahead just because a few have.

I have almost reached the point of giving up on trying to get others to ignore their convictions long enough to rationally examine a situation. I realise that it is an important task... maybe some more people can be 'brought into light' if I just show often enough that, while there are two sides to every story, you don't HAVE TO believe either of them, and you can go find that information for yourself, and make your OWN decision.

What we are talking about here, is what I refer to as "The Convocation of the Poisoned Mind' - a communal adulteration of consciousness by inbuilt mechanisms and external forces.

I have almost reached the point of giving up on trying to get others to ignore their convictions long enough to rationally examine a situation. I realise that it is an important task... maybe some more people can be 'brought into light' if I just show often enough that, while there are two sides to every story, you don't HAVE TO believe either of them, and you can go find that information for yourself, and make your OWN decision.

What we are talking about here, is what I refer to as "The Convocation of the Poisoned Mind' - a communal adulteration of consciousness by inbuilt mechanisms and external forces.

I haven't given up trying to convince people to give up their dogmas yet, but sometimes it can be very frustrating. I don't know if you're experienced Letila on the forum, but he is a powerful example of how dogmatic adherance to a specific set of beliefs can lead directly to ignorance and irrational behavior.

I haven't given up trying to convince people to give up their dogmas yet, but sometimes it can be very frustrating. I don't know if you're experienced Letila on the forum, but he is a powerful example of how dogmatic adherance to a specific set of beliefs can lead directly to ignorance and irrational behavior.


Those stupid anarchists drive me insane.

Those stupid anarchists drive me insane.

Letila isn't annoying because of his specific beliefs, he's annoying because he's unwilling to listen to anything that anyone has to say unless it agrees with what he already believes and he's unwilling to think rationally about what it is that he has decided is correct. Quite frankly, you seem to be the same way, but that's just my first impression.

My rather dogmatic ideology is not concerned about hell or even salvation; why do you think this has to be such a prevailing element in Christian thought?

We are concerned about strong caring communities, peacemaking, personal self discipline, honesty, and simplicity.

It's dogma, but it won't keep you out of hell. The love of God does that, and you can't earn it.

Of course I get tired with God's leniency and if I ran the big show there'd be some smack-down fer sure! But I don't.