It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Self-spinning delusions.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Before I begin, I want to make it clear that this is not an attempt to attack any particular group. Members from all walks of philosophies are, as far as I can see, guilty of this. I merely wish to see if others see the trends I do, especially with forums such as this.

Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to address something that many of us are aware of, but either have not or will not make a dedicated discussion about. I'm talking about making claims without actually seeking input from outside views.

This can be witnessed in just about any discussion, especially with 'radical' topics, but I suppose this is completely natural. Very few people would like to be proven wrong, although I do wonder why some Doomsday theorists cling to their beliefs without even a little hope that they are mistaken. This problem plagues just about every forum that discusses that which is unknown, supernatural, and so on.

One of the greater errors I see is the complete disregard for the burden of proof. Claims are made about this conspiracy or that unexplainable event, but more often that not evidence is not given. It is then when either the poster is praised by others of a similar mindset or questioned by skeptics. However, instead of attempting to persuade the skeptics with material that might change their minds, the original poster and usually some of those who aligned with their viewpoint will label the skeptics as close minded, unenlightened, members of some secret society or shadow government, and so forth.

Is this really a healthy way to conduct conversation? Furthermore, if you were not looking for opposing view points, why share your information in a place where you know there will be those who dissent? Merely hearing praise from those who either shared your views all along or from those who are easily persuaded (especially in the cases where no evidence for a claim is given) will not give your theory or account any more merit than it originally had. Knowing this, do you merely need to hear positive reviews from your peers, regardless of how much weight it truly holds? Is this not denying reality to yourself? Throwing logic to the wind in return for comfort is anything but denying ignorance.

One of the very reasons strange subjects are completely disregarded by the 'main stream' is because of this disturbing trend. Outside input is rarely accepted with some of the more fringe theories, and is instead turned away with attacks.

There are skeptics who are guilty as well. Plenty of times when evidence is given it is continually disregarded because the concept or account proposed simply goes against everything the skeptic believes in. This type of attitude hinders the potential of forums like this, for this is the one of the very few outlets these incredible theories have to flourish in.

Personally, I am hard pressed to believe in that which seems very implausible. Even so, I am fascinated by many of the ideas communities like this can generate, regardless of their factuality. Ultimately though, I look for the truth in the discussions I monitor, as would most I hope.

This brings me to my point: as a community, do you find this self-serving cycle to be helping your credibility as a whole? Do you believe that having one sided discussions in some of your 'taboo' and 'strange' topics to bode well for your image? Would you propose a change to ensure this remains an even field to discuss the hidden reality?

I feel it might turn away those who truly wished to delver into the wilder, untamed side of scholarly pursuit. There are those who really do wonder about the things we do, but ultimately they find the only people to discuss these things with are either completely absorbed with them regardless of facts or those who are devoutly opposed to their credibility.

Of course I do realize they are extremes, but extremes are what outsiders see. So, are my worries unfounded?




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
thanks for putting into words, what I have been thinking for a while, and not having a biased attitude, and presenting the truth about most of our tendencies to prove our realities .
a massive change is necessary and, is already happening. Its growing more and more every day...

check out this book


especially page 31. Its a drawing that would explain a lot of the nonsense going on all over ats at large and with each and every one of us as well.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by iiinvision
 


Not a problem, that's the obligation one has in discussion to begin with.

But yes, the image there is a very good representation of the point I was trying to make. There are those who completely disregard the truth and facts presented to them and instead cling to their beliefs, skeptical and groundbreaking alike.

By not having leeway in their positions, they simply serve to continue the image of the crazy man in the tin foil hat. From what I have come to understand, that's what the majority of the remaining population now associates with this particular field of discussion.

Of course there is outside help in poisoning the perception people have of concepts (and the people who believe them) like this. In the mean time however, we only serve to bolster that image.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Not to detract, but perhaps some live in a small box, and some live outside the box? Some diligently research things, some just read what others post. Some have a truth meter, some believe anything. Evidence on things like UFOs is hard to come by, and the government hides things very well. For some, even a wealth of evidence will never be enough to convince them. For instance, look at how many believe in Jesus when there is not a shred of evidence to support that he even lived? On the flip side, how many believe the Shuttle Program is the highest technology that man has? Truth has many levels, some is easily provable, some is not. Some is channeled, some is read first hand, some are supported with photo evidence.

Some people like the box, and may never come out. My ex wife in a good example of this. she has never believed in ET/Aliens/UFOs. One night in the car we all saw one, in a field maybe 100 feet away, it came down and hovered slightly above the ground. We all saw it. My son and I woke up the ex, and pointed to it, and asked her if she saw it like we did. she said nothing, and laid back down. Later, at home, we were talking about the experience. when asked, the ex said she saw nothing, it didn't happen, and we were crazy or high for even thinking that.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I am not saying that every claim can have evidence to back it up, and accounts of things such as what you provided are good examples of this. The problem I see is when these stories are questioned, and instead of providing more details about their subject, the person making the original claims go on to call the skeptics hopeless disbelievers, ignorant, government agents, etc. It is this attitude that ultimately deters others from having a conversation about topics that I personally think do need to be discussed and explored.

And yes, there are a lot of people out there who will not even consider the possibility of the unknown. Those ones however will not have any interest in coming to a site like this. Who I worry about are the ones who get that spark, that urge to see what is really out there... but then find themselves taken aback by a those who do nothing but close themselves off through attacking their dissenters instead of attempting to convince them of their viewpoint.

As for nature of truth and evidence... well, I was not trying to question that, for it does come in many forms.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Why would you speak to me unless.... it is a truth or a lie! I am excited to listen to people because you get to make that determination. This is my reaction to the intellectual draw back from being a realist, so demanding of the truth. When they don't have facts, I probably become pyscho analytical but i like to see, observantly, are they convincing. It's a thrill, to have such intelligence to decipher the seeming boundless imagination of some who are easily discredited. Everything in this world is not in quotation marks. I believe some, just to say that there is a reality. To be a good judge of human character makes people feel safe, part of the smart crowd. When some one does not offer facts we feel betrayed, our ability to judge has been taken away. Truth maybe important to those needing realism, in a conversation. The lack of facts maybe enjoyable to spur the imagination. Cynicism to replace laughter? Some refuse fantasy, again the abuse of trust. Delusion, the minds natural process to produce the eurforic feeling of peace. Does untruth help the communicator? Are you doing your part in the conversation to receive the untruth? If I talk to you maybe you will feel better, smarter, a part of a world, full of people, who don't always tell the truth. However, gain something from it so that you do your part of human interaction


[edit on 24-7-2008 by rightwingnut]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Condescending Dogma
 



One of the greater errors I see is the complete disregard for the burden of proof. Claims are made about this conspiracy or that unexplainable event, but more often that not evidence is not given. It is then when either the poster is praised by others of a similar mindset or questioned by skeptics. However, instead of attempting to persuade the skeptics with material that might change their minds, the original poster and usually some of those who aligned with their viewpoint will label the skeptics as close minded, unenlightened, members of some secret society or shadow government, and so forth.


What may be an even more fundamental problem that flourishes in the same hedgerow is the question of what does and does not count as evidence. Even if a discussion manages to get beyond the plaintive cries of the "Pictures or it didn't happen!" school of debunkers, the participants are still stuck with the formidable task of deciding which sources are and which sources are not credible.

This issue is pretty close to being intractable for devotees of any fringe interest. By definition, there is a shortage of information about obscure topics and this is especially true when (as many of us believe) there is a concerted effort to stifle the flow of legitimate information and taint the information that does trickle out.

So you have people who care passionately about fringe issues, you have a shortage of information about said issues and what happens? The same information is recycled endlessly, sometimes repeated and reproduced faithfully and sometimes with important variations. Moreover, when this information finds its way into the hands of people with agendas (and everyone has an agenda) it is further distorted and edited.

Outlandish claims are repeated so often that they take on the appearance of being plausible. And we are dealing with interests in which pretty much all claims we make and defend and discuss seem outlandish when measured against the mainstream opinions. So the process of sorting out what is and isn't true becomes ever trickier.

This doesn't mean the discussions are useless, I don't think they are. It can just be exhausting when you realize that you've been discussing something with someone for a long time and the two of you aren't even working from anything resembling the same text.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by When the Spaceship Lands
reply to post by Condescending Dogma
 




This issue is pretty close to being intractable for devotees of any fringe interest. By definition, there is a shortage of information about obscure topics and this is especially true when (as many of us believe) there is a concerted effort to stifle the flow of legitimate information and taint the information that does trickle out.


I agree that, that is an offensive manner of discussion. When someone lies it is too blatent of an abuse of trust. I feel insulted, but absorb the issue so that i gain something from understanding what the issue is and why they lie. It must be impossible to be hurt by the lies that are read. That's the strength of education and you must use it to protect yourself against the lie.


So you have people who care passionately about fringe issues, you have a shortage of information about said issues and what happens? The same information is recycled endlessly, sometimes repeated and reproduced faithfully and sometimes with important variations. Moreover, when this information finds its way into the hands of people with agendas (and everyone has an agenda) it is further distorted and edited.

Outlandish claims are repeated so often that they take on the appearance of being plausible. And we are dealing with interests in which pretty much all claims we make and defend and discuss seem outlandish when measured against the mainstream opinions. So the process of sorting out what is and isn't true becomes ever trickier.


I can only say that i feel for you. The misinformer must be allowed to express their delusion. It can be sad or cynical that they may want you to decipher it, but you must keep in mind again the purpose of the issuance of misinformation. The contrasting point brings attention something ultra of the issue. The phrase "no one listens to me!" is 75% of the need for attention or most often the issue is quite secondary. These types of people need only to be understood. There may be that sprinkle of facts in the misinformation provided try to find those and disscuss only those, so that you don't feel robbed of your ability to interact with others. People like that are sometimes over critical of others because, perhaps they are left to feel uneducated or left out, like they should be. However, by discussing the facts, they, hopefully supply, you may still be the the powerful one and in control of the misinformer. The wrong should always be taken as an advantage. Perhaps you may not be interested in psychology. However the wrong can become a spontaneous, private study, of the mind.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by rightwingnut]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by rightwingnut]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join