What I'm specifically getting at is that only one response is deemed to be "right", and that is one of "experiencing the moment as it is without reference to fault or fixes"

It is perfectly understandable that statements such as "I am now feeling tense" in response to something said by another can be looked at as blame-placing. In fact, it seems to be the most common cultrual-lingustic meaning of such statements. Regardless of what one means by saying such a thing, it is hard to imagine that it will not be seen in this manner. In fact, the person going by this method has most likely used that type of phrase in the manner it is interpreted in the past.

Stef likes to talk about how one will not be angry if they don't understand you, using the example of someone speaking Manderan to a non Manderan-speaker. Using his own take on this, it would seem that indeed the recipient of this line of dialouge does understand, and that indeed the goal of the initiator is to place blame.

But leaving that aside and giving the initiator the benefit of the doubt, perhaps one can modify the language metaphor to one who speaks a foriegn language where there are many phrases which sound like phrases with different meanings in English. For example: the sound "Shove your foolishness where the sun doesn't shine." translates to the English "How has your day been going?"

Interpreting one's deciphering of your words to mean something which you are aware those words often mean to be manipulative or negative in some other manner seems quite irrational. To expect them to take on your new language without giving them some lessons, using their own language as the translation tool, seems rediculous. The net effect is of walking up to one who you know is a mono-lingual English speaker, talking to them in Manderin, and determining that they are somehow bad beacause they do not follow Manderin linguistic conventions.

Hey, guys.

I saw that thread, Conrad, and wondered if there was a good place to link to it here, but I see you have done the work for me. But I'm glad to use it as a segue to something else I ran across yesterday. It was a study of brain scans of people listening to expert advice. Basically, the parts of the brain that light up when you are making decisions on your own do not light up when you hear what an expert says you should do. It was performed in a financial context, but it's perfectly applicable--to the extent that such a small, preliminary study can apply to anything--to these people who have taken up Molyneux's (any leader's, really) point of view.

A quote from one of the scientists:

Quote:

This study indicates that the brain relinquishes responsibility when a trusted authority provides expertise, says Berns. "The problem with this tendency is that it can work to a person's detriment if the trusted source turns out to be incompetent or corrupt.

I'm not sayin' anything definitive. I'm just sayin'.

Thanks for that, Karen; that's fascinating.

That's F'ing Horrible.

Every single method of communication used by the brother is perfectly acceptable, rational and pragmatic, according to Stef.

This s--t wasn't always this blatant was it?

Goddamn.....

Well...kinda...

heh heh

Which brings up a question, why the hell does Molyneaux give such perfect instruction on how to see that he's a prick?

I knew better than to start posting here today; now I'm sucked in for the moment.

Here is some more analysis between the poster linked to by Conrad and his brother.

Stet's Statist Intervention

The email they all go over with their highlighter pen appears in this one, too, so I know it's the same person. The brother makes excellent points in his first paragraph, too. I wonder what will ultimately happen.

My favorite part is when the poster says this:

Quote:

I must confess that I believe that some things Adolf Hilter said was true! For example, Hitler said, "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

It continues to astonish me how difficult it is for people at FDR to apply anything they say to themselves.

I'm sad I looked at that thread. All the over the top melodrama and faux profundity and exaggerated empathy, an innocent college kid is being judged so harshly by people who really ought to know better for nothing more than some informal, offhanded e-mail exchanges. He has no idea how SEEEEEERIOUSSSSSS this is on the other end, no clue that he's being psychoanalyzed and picked apart and judged behind his back, but he's the one "stuck in his fantasies?" Oh, come on! And I suppose the great balding one has the monopoly on truth, so if you don't trust Holy Moly, well, you're just too lame to associate with anymore.

That thread is a steaming pile of shit. I feel sorry for the college kid, but frankly, he's probably better off if his brother deFOOs him for a while. His "little bro's" trajectory through FDR will probably put far more strain on the relationship than a temporary break and later reconnection would. Can you just imagine the RTR? Poor guy.

So here's one to watch:

Thoughts on Causes of Psychological Problems

Long story short: The poster has suffered from psychological problems since age 14, but cannot find--even after looking--any way to blame her parents for it. She wonders what non-environmental (non-parent) causes might have caused her to suffer things like agoraphobia and panic attacks. She puts the question out to the crowd.

Greg G asks for clarification first; he doesn't know what she means when she says things like, "I have a good relationship with them... I'm very happy when I'm around them, and I was raised in a very loving, honest, and supportive environment" (emphasis his).

Shack says that he's never heard of anyone with psychological problems who has had good parents, and suggests that she asks Molyneux about it by chiming in on a call-in show. She says she might try it. I wonder if she's just being polite.