The best solution for FDR

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

NonEntity wrote:

Just because a large number of people, or certain "special" people, consider something to be so - does not necessarily make it so.

- NonE

Ummmmmmmmmmm........like fdr theories?

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

I like that. Just because Stef says it - doesn't mean anyone should believe it - perfect!

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Well I definitely agree that "qualifications" don't automatically make someone right, but at the same time, there's clearly something to be said for elevating the opinion of individuals who have spent their entire lives focusing on certain issues (keeping in mind that they might still be wrong). It's not like anyone wants to put Stefan's ideas or practices in front of a board of experts to determine whether he'll be permitted to continue holding his vews or be sent for "reeducation." Bringing in experts is a great way to settle disagreements where both sides may lack the experience and understanding to arrive at an uncontroversial conclusion on their own.

Conrad · Subject: Re: The best solution for FDR Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:49 am

in a way it is quite incredible that Christina does not notice or chooses not to notice the planting and the leading etc. I mean, she supposedly is trained to avoid that sort of stuff.

Anyway, Ouder, just two weeks ago or so one of the hardcore FDR'ers (PCRS) left FDR (or so it seems at least) for what appear to be all the right reasons, so there is hope for your child.

_________________
My Blog

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well I definitely agree that "qualifications" don't automatically make someone right, but at the same time, there's clearly something to be said for elevating the opinion of individuals who have spent their entire lives focusing on certain issues (keeping in mind that they might still be wrong). It's not like anyone wants to put Stefan's ideas or practices in front of a board of experts to determine whether he'll be permitted to continue holding his views or be sent for "reeducation." Bringing in experts is a great way to settle disagreements where both sides may lack the experience and understanding to arrive at an uncontroversial conclusion on their own.

Danny,

On the surface your position here appears eminently reasonable. Yet when I ponder it, I'm not so sure. And I bring this up just for the sake of discussion, not because I think I know the answer.

Take, for example, the guy who just won the Nobel prize for being completely wrong about economics. Or Galileo. Or Einstein. Or Lynn Margulis. The first guy is totally wrong, but accepted as a god. The others were completely at odds with all others and yet it was they who were right and all others wrong.

It appears that "going along to get along," or "everybody knows that's true" kinds of thinking are part of the human experience, and yet, isn't this exactly the same dynamic as lemmings, or stampeding herds of any animal (or fish) (or bird)?

I can see how on some levels mass unthinking group action may have some survival qualities for the group, on average. Maybe even most of the time. RUN, RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! THE SKY IS FALLING! That is exactly the dynamic of AIDS, Global Warming, the Cholesterol scare, "Al Qaeda", and on and on ad infinitum. Total unthinking mass hysteria. I'm not sure that I can see any survival benefit in any of these mass hysterias, yet, on the balance does the dynamic still have superior group survival benefit?

On the other hand, we are social animals, not cats or lizards. We depend upon group dynamics to thrive. As the term has arisen in computing, we need "the cloud" source of knowledge, as one person is totally incapable of thinking up and perfecting all of the knowledge required for basic survival, let alone thriving.

Hmph. The more I look at this, the more I see the whole thing as simply a large dynamic being played out with no rhyme nor reason and no destination, with each of us being but one snowflake in the avalanche, equally a powerful actor and an insignificant pebble in the flow.

Okay. I guess I've got that out of my system for now. Go on as you were...

- NonE

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Well you're completely right to be skeptical of our ability to truly know what's right, and to be cautious of those who would claim to have The Truth. But to say that we should ignore the experts is essentially to say that trying to become informed about something is no more likely to produce better quality opinions than worse quality ones. And that just seems clearly unreasonable. Experts can certainly be wrong, and at times they can be gravely and horribly wrong. But in my experience, random schmoes are typically wronger, and when they're right, it's often largely due to chance.

One qualification to that point, though, might be made with regard to newer and "sexier" theories: if a new perspective becomes popular and replaces a view which worked very well for a long time, it might make sense to give the old view an added bit of consideration in light of the potential for experts to be biased towards their own theories and to underrepresent the uncertainty with which they hold them. That goes double for situations where people are screaming and yelling about doomsday scenarios or where the experts are demanding that they be given the power to carry out coercive policies based on their ideas.

But even in light of that qualification, it seems like it would be unreasonable to think that we would have nothing to gain by at least listening to what people have to say after they've studied something for a long time. I mean, even if you end up going a different direction, at least you'll have a more informed opinion as you do so.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

That being said (thank you Danny), I felt very comfortable asking my therapist to review what was going on at fdr. This is because over time she has proven to be excellentin her field, and her opinion has proven to be highly valued among her peers. When she gave me her expert opinion that the leader there, and certain posters were "deeply disturbed", I took that very seriously. When she advised me to take my leave from fdr, I took that very seriously as well.

Paul · Subject: Re: The best solution for FDR Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:01 pm

Does anyone have an idea of how much it would cost to get a cult expert to analyze FDR?

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Who was "conspectis"? Was he a cult expert? I think maybe he was (?)

Paul · Subject: Re: The best solution for FDR Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:18 pm

nelle wrote:

Who was "conspectis"? Was he a cult expert? I think maybe he was (?)

I got the sense that he was just very knowledgeable, but did not have any professional training.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Ahhhh...yes. I am seeing that as I read past posts. Good question Paul. It would be interesting to have a cult expert, or a even psychologist/psychiatrist who specializes in this area.

Paul · Subject: Re: The best solution for FDR Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:57 pm

nelle wrote:

Ahhhh...yes. I am seeing that as I read past posts. Good question Paul. It would be interesting to have a cult expert, or a even psychologist/psychiatrist who specializes in this area.

Come back to me in a few years, my sister is studying to become a psychiatrist. study

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well you're completely right to be skeptical of our ability to truly know what's right, and to be cautious of those who would claim to have The Truth. But to say that we should ignore the experts is essentially to say that trying to become informed about something is no more likely to produce better quality opinions than worse quality ones. And that just seems clearly unreasonable. Experts can certainly be wrong, and at times they can be gravely and horribly wrong. But in my experience, random schmoes are typically wronger, and when they're right, it's often largely due to chance.

Danny,

In the part I "bolded" it appears that you are making the assumption that I am rejecting study. That is not so. In fact, the opposite. What I am rejecting is the "granting of authority" (sorry to appear to be badgering you on this issue, but hear me out) to said "expert." To me, an "expert" is no more likely to be right than a non-expert, but I will certainly be more inclined to listen to what the "expert" has to say and to make my own judgement on several points. 1) Does he seem reasonable, 2) do his sources appear credible, and 3) does his reasoning make sense to me?

So I am not rejecting study, nor am I rejecting the idea that study by others has potential value. In fact, I think that we must rely upon the research of others if we are to thrive. But I (getting back to "authority") reject the idea that anyone should accept the judgment of another because he is an "expert."

The part I italicised seems perfectly sensible and I don't feel that it addresses anything I was saying. I was not implying that study does not provide benefits. Only that it is not necessary a direct correlation. I know some really dumb doctors. In fact, I do believe that often the structure of education in an institutional setting may directly train out the ability to be open minded and thoughtful, instead focusing on getting the answers "right" on tests rather than focusing on developing the ability for critical thought.

It seems to me that my thinking has these two concepts, "the guru" and "the authority," inescapably intertwined. And the word which perhaps most resolves my issues hereabouts is perhaps "humble."

- NonE

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

To make the point in a way that tries not to contradict anything you've said, it seems reasonable that if a third party were to be brought in to give another opinion, then it would be best to choose an expert to be that third party, since the chance of compelling insight from such an individual would probably be higher than if the third party were just some average guy.

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Are there members of this forum who might be interested in contributing towards the cost of an expert doing something like this?