Denying the Existence of Denialism

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Its not like inventors of this concept can explain it in short simple language , and that's a primary indicator of a fallacious construct .

You don't say :-) Imma gonna bite my tongue


So, here you go:
In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

Who - or what - is your common user base?

...she wants to presuppose their inferior intellect .

Do you think everyone knows as much as other people? Are we all as smart as each other?

Do flat earthers get a pass so we don't hurt their feelings?

Enough with PC culture I say! Let the chips fall where they may

a reply to: Spiramirabilis
@Damla , it's like Jaws the shark is circling round lol

Yes you're probably right it does exist to certain extent , but I find broadening the concept both clumsy and misrepresentative and unnecessary , and the guardian article linked was long and tedious in places . It looks like theyre trying to spread a diseased smear onto the normal conversations of those who question so called established facts . It looks like theyre confusing what shills do with what conspiracy theorists front , it looks like they're trying to set trapped ground for those that question by lumping them with vested interests, psychological problems and trolls . That said those people have a right to free speech and thought too .
Maybe Im seeing illusions there, maybe not . They had a go at trump for being a denialist over climate change , that's a point they do have imo , i mean established facts about co2 release make sense . Then again , they dont talk about o2 depletion do they

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

I like to boil this down to something simpler than even you seem to want

Questioning things is how we learn - and move forward. The quest for knowledge is human

When it begins to border on a kind of intellectual paranoia, our ability to sort fact from fiction goes out the window

You see him as being arrogant and judgemental - I see him as performing a public service

Good mental hygiene takes a village

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

who is she?

a reply to: Damla

Edited because she is a he :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

the shark?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You see him as being arrogant and judgemental - I see him as performing a public service Good mental hygiene takes a village

To me that sounds like groupthink .

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

To me that sounds like groupthink .

Please promise you won't use the word sheeple

We are a group. Consensus is what sometimes determines fact

Questioning a given is natural. Our knowledge is always expanding - but only if we can replace what we know with more facts

From your definition:

The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Denialists seem like they live this definition. Pizzagate, Q,, Flat earthers - the group makes it seem like anything is possible. They create their own reality

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Consensus had its place but is outdated, outmoded , outlandish in the modern age , politically redundant , and highly questionable .

You're extending trollable issues as if they were all already disproven , and equating separate issues which do not equate . You're conflating to trump up a coverall charge.

When collective intelligence (a supposed outgroup from your point of view ) has assessed something like pizzagate , the collective have found it generally to be not disproven at all . In fact what was certainly proven again during that era was that there aremany bigots who are probably pedophiles themselves , denying hard put realities in the face of easily recognisable facts .
Can we assume you're a moon hoax beleiver too , a full time mainstreamer who needs further tools such as the false label 'denialist' to maintain a slipping grip upon the mass consciousness ?

Collective intelligence (CI) is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making. The term appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. It may involve consensus, social capital and formalisms such as voting systems, social media and other means of quantifying mass activity. Collective IQ is a measure of collective intelligence, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence. Collective intelligence has also been attributed to bacteria[1]:63 and animals.[1]:69

Collective intelligence strongly contributes to the shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective. According to Eric S. Raymond (1998) and JC Herz (2005), open source intelligence will eventually generate superior outcomes to knowledge generated by proprietary software developed within corporations (Flew 2008). Media theorist Henry Jenkins sees collective intelligence as an 'alternative source of media power', related to convergence culture. He draws attention to education and the way people are learning to participate in knowledge cultures outside formal learning settings. Henry Jenkins criticizes schools which promote 'autonomous problem solvers and self-contained learners' while remaining hostile to learning through the means of collective intelligence.[7] Both Pierre Lévy (2007) and Henry Jenkins (2008) support the claim that collective intelligence is important for democratization, as it is interlinked with knowledge-based culture and sustained by collective idea sharing, and thus contributes to a better understanding of diverse society.

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

Consensus had its place but is outdated, outmoded , outlandish in the modern age , politically redundant , and highly questionable .

Outlandish? Really? How will you replace it? How will you determine what your facts are? How will you come to understand reality? I can guess based on this:

When collective intelligence (a supposed outgroup from your point of view ) has assessed something like pizzagate , the collective have found it generally to be not disproven at all . In fact what was certainly proven again during that era was that there aremany bigots who are probably pedophiles themselves , denying hard put realities in the face of easily recognisable facts .

Can we assume you're a moon hoax beleiver too , a full time mainstreamer who needs further tools such as the false label 'denialist' to maintain a slipping grip upon the mass consciousness ?

Are you seriously resorting to this as part of your argument? I hit a nerve looks like

Mass consciousness - for reals?

Does it come down to my mass consciousness can beat up your mass consciousness ?

Also - out of here again - back tomorrow. I have to wonder if you can give me your real argument. Your OP seems like (now) something you came up with because you're feeling vulnerable

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness.

— Emile Durkheim[7]

You were alluding to the war over true facts , the one that the forces of darkness and deceit will always lose .
You showed your cards here:

They create their own reality

What you dont seem to like is that whatever condescending label you put on those who continue to question what they're expected to believe , they will still make up their own minds . And when the mass / collective consciousness evolves through the understandings of those who have broken free of biased pseudo scientific auto- authoritarian hegemony , you'll have to put up with the fact they made their own minds up too.

ETA : not here to get any psychoanalysis thanks and if those are the kind of directions you're likely to take it stops here

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

durkheim. is he talking about an individual? i think being an individual and realization of being an individual are different things. he is talking about the realization of being an individual in my opinion and that requires being part of lots of group thinking until you cant thus lots of dehumanizing done on you as an outgroup too.

so..can i be shark?

how ironic it would be if we found the sharks to be made of most fragile fragments of the soul.

a reply to: Damla

No you're apparently far too sweet and innocent to be a serious predator . Thanks for your input

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

it was fun. thanks for the thread. i think discussions are important. even though sometimes lots of folks pretend.

a reply to: DoctorBluechip

The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness.
— Emile Durkheim

The totality of beliefs? Because we all believe the same thing? The collective is never agreed on more than one thing? It's never wrong? Confused even?

You were alluding to the war over true facts , the one that the forces of darkness and deceit will always lose .
You showed your cards here:

My cards were never hidden. Everything I’ve said has been nothing but obvious - and inquisitive - and playful :-)

But, I can see how someone that's all afear'd of the forces of darkness and deceit would be invested not in an actual back and forth discussion - but only in winning. Pretty much like everybody these days

What did you win? :-)

You and your pizza gate posse have proven that pedophiles and bigots exist. Together or separately we can’t be sure, but - that’s quite a prize. What else?

What you dont seem to like is that whatever condescending label you put on those who continue to question what they're expected to believe , they will still make up their own minds . And when the mass / collective consciousness evolves through the understandings of those who have broken free of biased pseudo scientific auto- authoritarian hegemony , you'll have to put up with the fact they made their own minds up too.

It’s not a matter of me liking it or not. Its just a matter of not taking you seriously. You let me know when that mass collective consciousness turns into something that doesn’t just titillate and satisfy it’s own Mickey Mouse club members and then we’ll have something to talk about

Until then - most of us are going to go with facts

ETA : not here to get any psychoanalysis thanks and if those are the kind of directions you're likely to take it stops here

You weren’t here to get psychoanalyzed - just to psychoanalyze everyone else. Your entire OP happened because of a hurt ego and a need to be taken seriously. One writer from the Guardian got under your skin and you thought you could write an entire OP based on: nuh uh - we are smarter than the rest of you idiots

Tsk tsk. And still unable to explain how you prove what you know, as opposed to fondling what you think you know and then calling it true - and just

Clean up your own house

Then if you’re still interested - I’d like to hear you explain how the collective consciousness is going to prove it’s facts. Or, are you all just going to agree en masse about your emotions and connect-a-dot gut feelings, then start in with the executions?

:-)