Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_beastie]

No organization or person who slanders those who once accepted, and then rejected, their claims in advance is acting good faith.

[_beastie]

I'm going to use my example of Liddy's Department Store selling high definition TVs, with the result that some customers believe they are standard TVs, not Hi Def.

First - Mr. Liddy proactively advertised that anyone who states that the TVs he is selling are NOT Hi Def is mentally ill, or perhaps a con artist trying to scam customers.

Does this demonstrate good faith?

Second - It is possible Mr. Liddy, out of ignorance, sold standard TVs while believing they were Hi Def TVs. Perhaps he was scammed by his own source. The customer may choose to forgive Mr. Liddy his ignorance, but if Mr. Liddy keeps insisting that the TVs are Hi Def and advertises them as such, does or does not the customer have the moral duty tp tale action to prevent others from being taken advantage of?

And is it possible that the customer will take action to prevent others from being scammed simply out of a desire to warn other potential victims, and not out of any anger or frustration?

[_wenglund]

LOL!

Wade, you construct so many hasty ad-hoc defenses and arguments that you don't even remember what your primary argument was supposed to be.

Let me remind you.

You state that your argument is that regardless of original fault or culpability on the party of any party (IE, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, only what works) - exbelievers should stop feeling angry because it is counterproductive to their own lives, and is a "cognitive distortion" because so many "satisfied customers" exist (by the way, the fact that you dwell on this point belies your claim that rightness or wrongness is immaterial).

Then you make a long grocery list of angry behaviors, most of which you display in copious measures. You are extremely judgmental, you are accusatory, disrespectful, unloving, uncharitable, closeminded and unnecessarily hurtful. You seem angry and while you don't seem to be grieving, you certainly seem to vent in unhealthy ways.

These behaviors, when you list them as present in exmormons, are supposed to be hurtful to the person possessing the behavior. In other words, we should give up these supposed behaviors because it doesn't WORK in our own lives.

Yet, when it is pointed out how many of these behaviors you demonstrate, you ask US if it's "working"?

Well, how the heck should I know? Is my name "Wade"?

The question is, if we follow your supposed theory - how are these behaviors working for YOU, Wade?

Rather than assuming you are being belligerent, insulting, and obtuse here, and thereby possibly be frustrated and hurt and angry and grief-stricken, I will CHOOSE to chalk your comments up as a good faith misunderstanding.

And, given that most of the misunderstanding in your last post are repeats from earier in the thread, and thus my attempts to correct them have been for naught, it may be best to leave you with your misperceptions, and be fine with that.

Out of respect for you, though, I will, unlike what you CHOSE to do with me, I will CHOOSE to directly answer your question:

To the extent that I haven't been like Mr. D, but have behaved like Mr. B and A, it hasn't WORKED for me. I have UNNECESSARILY experienced hurt and anger and grief, and found myself locked into the dynamic/cycle with good folks like you.

For the longest time, I held tenaciously to the dysfunctional notion that returning insult for insult and criticism for criticsm, and pressing my RIGHTness and their WRONGNESS, would WORK. I figured it was the only thing my opponents seem to understand and respect (since that was their methodology). I had seen how relatively ineffectual and even counterproductive some of the more empathetic apologist were at ZLMB and FAIR (in terms of affecting positive change at least in terms of respecting our beloved faith), and so I figured brute force is what is needed to fight brute force.

But, upon careful, open, and honest reflection, I realized that not only didn't my strategy WORK, it exasserbated things in the extreme.

For a time, though, I figured that was to be expected and necessary, thinking that sometimes a raging storm needs to billow and toss in order to clear the air and return the world to peace and calm. When the peace and calm never seemed to come, though, I became convinced that my strategy didn't WORK either.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and I still have a tendency to trot out the textual mirror at times, and to return insult with insult and criticism with criticism--forgetting that it doesn't WORK.

However, the more I am able to emulate Mr. D, the more it WORKS for me, and the more I see it WORKING with others--not that minds have necessarily been changed (that is not so much the objective), but others have been less likely to be hurt and angered and grieved by me. This will become more the case as people discontinue filtering my comments through the lense of their past perceptions of me.

And, I figure that if my old behaviors didn't work for me, they likely aren't working for others as well. However, if my "solution" does WORK for me, then it might WORK for others. Besides, what harm would there be in trying it out for awhile--taking it for a test drive? Try innitially being charitable and understanding. Try responding with kindness and understanding. Try focusing more on building and uplifting people and relationship, and make that more a priority in some situations than being RIGHT. What do you have to loose? Think of what you may gain?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Rather than assuming you are being belligerent, insulting, and obtuse here, and thereby possibly be frustrated and hurt and angry and grief-stricken, I will CHOOSE to chalk your comments up as a good faith misunderstanding.

And, given that most of the misunderstanding in your last post are repeats from earier in the thread, and thus my attempts to correct them have been for naught, it may be best to leave you with your misperceptions, and be fine with that.

Out of respect for you, though, I will, unlike what you CHOSE to do with me, I will CHOOSE to directly answer your question:

To the extent that I haven't been like Mr. D, but have behaved like Mr. B and A, it hasn't WORKED for me. I have UNNECESSARILY experienced hurt and anger and grief, and found myself locked into the dynamic/cycle with good folks like you.

For the longest time, I held tenaciously to the dysfunctional notion that returning insult for insult and criticism for criticsm, and pressing my RIGHTness and their WRONGNESS, would WORK. I figured it was the only thing my opponents seem to understand and respect (since that was their methodology). I had seen how relatively ineffectual and even counterproductive some of the more empathetic apologist were at ZLMB and FAIR (in terms of affecting positive change at least in terms of respecting our beloved faith), and so I figured brute force is what is needed to fight brute force.

But, upon careful, open, and honest reflection, I realized that not only didn't my strategy WORK, it exasserbated things in the extreme.

For a time, though, I figured that was to be expected and necessary, thinking that sometimes a raging storm needs to billow and toss in order to clear the air and return the world to peace and calm. When the peace and calm never seemed to come, though, I became convinced that my strategy didn't WORK either.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and I still have a tendency to trot out the textual mirror at times, and to return insult with insult and criticism with criticism--forgetting that it doesn't WORK.

However, the more I am able to emulate Mr. D, the more it WORKS for me, and the more I see it WORKING with others--not that minds have necessarily been changed (that is not so much the objective), but others have been less likely to be hurt and angered and grieved by me. This will become more the case as people discontinue filtering my comments through the lense of their past perceptions of me.

And, I figure that if my old behaviors didn't work for me, they likely aren't working for others as well. However, if my "solution" does WORK for me, then it might WORK for others. Besides, what harm would there be in trying it out for awhile--taking it for a test drive? Try innitially being charitable and understanding. Try responding with kindness and understanding. Try focusing more on building and uplifting people and relationship, and make that more a priority in some situations than being RIGHT. What do you have to loose? Think of what you may gain?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey, Wade. What if there is no cycle? You seem to assume that grief and anger over a traumatic loss is a vicious cycle that continues to repeat itself, as you have suggested that if I don't understand how to avoid the kind of reaction I had in leaving Mormonism, I'll repeat the process at the next trauma. Do you have any data to suggest that this is true? When my brothers died, I experienced tremendous grief, but I don't see it as a repeating cycle. Likewise, I got over the anger with the church. I don't see it as a recurring pattern in my life at all. I never experienced anything like that before, and I haven't since.

What if it's not a cycle at all, Wade?

[_wenglund]

That would make sense if the CSSAD up to this point had intended to present solutions. Since it hasn't, then, as expected, it doesn't make sense for you to do that.

Why you flaming hypocrite. You trolled on boards for homosexuals pretending to wanting to "help" them, and now you claim that your site never intended to present solutions?

So why were you trolling on the gay boards, Wade?

I am glad you asked (though it would have been more WORKABLE were you to have waited for my answer rather than falsely accusing me and mistakely presuming about and impune my motives).

My intent in visiting those sites was to test my reasoning and to get added perspective. It was also intended to initiate reasoned dialogue (which happened to be the intent of CSSAD at the time, and has been up to this point) that may at some future date be used to then work towards solutions. In other words, I wasn't offering solutions, but rather attemtping to establish a communicative framework that may be used for working out mutually efficacious solutions.

Granted, I was about as successful there as I have been here in keeping the discussion to reasoned interactions, and emotions ran high and tended to predominate the discussion. And, as hard as I have tried to keep things to reasoned interactions(though not always successfully), I am not the only party at the table, and I can't control how others may CHOOSE to REACT. And, I am fine with that as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Rather than assuming you are being belligerent, insulting, and obtuse here, and thereby possibly be frustrated and hurt and angry and grief-stricken, I will CHOOSE to chalk your comments up as a good faith misunderstanding.

And, given that most of the misunderstanding in your last post are repeats from earier in the thread, and thus my attempts to correct them have been for naught, it may be best to leave you with your misperceptions, and be fine with that.

Out of respect for you, though, I will, unlike what you CHOSE to do with me, I will CHOOSE to directly answer your question:

To the extent that I haven't been like Mr. D, but have behaved like Mr. B and A, it hasn't WORKED for me. I have UNNECESSARILY experienced hurt and anger and grief, and found myself locked into the dynamic/cycle with good folks like you.

For the longest time, I held tenaciously to the dysfunctional notion that returning insult for insult and criticism for criticsm, and pressing my RIGHTness and their WRONGNESS, would WORK. I figured it was the only thing my opponents seem to understand and respect (since that was their methodology). I had seen how relatively ineffectual and even counterproductive some of the more empathetic apologist were at ZLMB and FAIR (in terms of affecting positive change at least in terms of respecting our beloved faith), and so I figured brute force is what is needed to fight brute force.

But, upon careful, open, and honest reflection, I realized that not only didn't my strategy WORK, it exasserbated things in the extreme.

For a time, though, I figured that was to be expected and necessary, thinking that sometimes a raging storm needs to billow and toss in order to clear the air and return the world to peace and calm. When the peace and calm never seemed to come, though, I became convinced that my strategy didn't WORK either.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and I still have a tendency to trot out the textual mirror at times, and to return insult with insult and criticism with criticism--forgetting that it doesn't WORK.

However, the more I am able to emulate Mr. D, the more it WORKS for me, and the more I see it WORKING with others--not that minds have necessarily been changed (that is not so much the objective), but others have been less likely to be hurt and angered and grieved by me. This will become more the case as people discontinue filtering my comments through the lense of their past perceptions of me.

And, I figure that if my old behaviors didn't work for me, they likely aren't working for others as well. However, if my "solution" does WORK for me, then it might WORK for others. Besides, what harm would there be in trying it out for awhile--taking it for a test drive? Try innitially being charitable and understanding. Try responding with kindness and understanding. Try focusing more on building and uplifting people and relationship, and make that more a priority in some situations than being RIGHT. What do you have to loose? Think of what you may gain?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey, Wade. What if there is no cycle? You seem to assume that grief and anger over a traumatic loss is a vicious cycle that continues to repeat itself, as you have suggested that if I don't understand how to avoid the kind of reaction I had in leaving Mormonism, I'll repeat the process at the next trauma. Do you have any data to suggest that this is true? When my brothers died, I experienced tremendous grief, but I don't see it as a repeating cycle. Likewise, I got over the anger with the church. I don't see it as a recurring pattern in my life at all. I never experienced anything like that before, and I haven't since.

What if it's not a cycle at all, Wade?

In cases where it is not a cycle, then there is only the possible dynamic to concern oneself with.

And, I am not suggesting that there will always be a dynamic or even a cycle. I am not even suggesting that the dynamic and cylce is necessary dysfunctional in all instances.

Would you grant, though, that there are instances where the dynamic and cycle may be dysfunctional--i.e. the result of a cognitive distortion?

Are you certain that you, through your venting and grieving about the Church at RFM, and even now when you speak uncharitably about the Church allegedly lying and decieving about what it claims to be, haven't unnecessarily hurt and angered and caused grief to others (thus triggering at least one turn of the cycle)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Who is "Mr. D", Wade? Do such people as Mr. D even exist? Or is this just some figment of your and juliann's imaginations? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Mr. Ds" exist, or are you totally and completely speculating?

As indicated to Runtu, I am personally acquainted with quite a few Mr. D's (and even some Mrs. D's), some of whom are close relations and friends.

But, it is not uncommon for the some of the Mr.s B's, in their binary (either/or) way of thinking, to assume that there can only be Mr. A's and B's, and thus no C's and D's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, basically what you're saying is that you only have anecdotal evidence. How very interesting indeed.

What evidence do you have that Mr. D's don't exist? Or, are you completely speculating?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are the one making the claim, Wade. It is up to you to supply the evidence. Good luck with that.

Edited to add: the existence of these so-called "Mr. and Mrs. Ds" are absolutely crucial to your and juliann's position vis-a-vis those who leave the Church. But where is your evidence on them? Can we look at any testimonials? Can we read about their reasons for leaving? If not, then you are essentially arguing from a position of ignorance, my friend.

[_wenglund]

Who is "Mr. D", Wade? Do such people as Mr. D even exist? Or is this just some figment of your and juliann's imaginations? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Mr. Ds" exist, or are you totally and completely speculating?

As indicated to Runtu, I am personally acquainted with quite a few Mr. D's (and even some Mrs. D's), some of whom are close relations and friends.

But, it is not uncommon for the some of the Mr.s B's, in their binary (either/or) way of thinking, to assume that there can only be Mr. A's and B's, and thus no C's and D's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, basically what you're saying is that you only have anecdotal evidence. How very interesting indeed.

What evidence do you have that Mr. D's don't exist? Or, are you completely speculating?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are the one making the claim, Wade. It is up to you to supply the evidence. Good luck with that.

Were my questions to have been an attempt to shift the burden for my so-called claim, then what you just said might have some relevance and your avoiding answering my question may have made some sense. But they weren't, and so, as expected, it doesn't. I had provided evidence for my so-called claim, and my questions to you were intended to shift the burden, or even to invest you with a burden, but simply by way of querying for information. I simply wanted to know if you have evidence that Mr. D's don't exit?

Do you? Or, are you simply speculating?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

Even as you claim you are trying to change, you shift the responsibility of your past and current bad behavior onto others. "Textual mirrors", instead of just admitting you behaved badly.

Human beings operate under the Tit for Tat moral theory, even if they claim otherwise. We tend to initially offer cooperation to a newcomer in good faith. If that cooperation is returned with bad faith, then we alter our behavior accordingly, and return bad faith for bad faith. If a long history of bad faith has been established, it may take a very long time to overcome.

This point is important in regards to two things - your own behavior and the bad faith of the church in regards to apostates. You have long history of bad faith with exmormons. I was just looking at some of the old archives on Z, and you have consistently been nasty, snide, etc. Of course, at the same time, you refuse to accept responsibility for your own behavior by claiming you are simply mirroring the behavior of others, or that people consistently misunderstand you. You must be the most misunderstood person on the net, given not only your interactions with exmormons, but Mormons (witness their frequent banning of you from boards they control) and homosexuals. There is one consistent factor in all these failed interactions. That is you.

You encourage other people to take responsibility for the one person they can change. You need to do the same. Not with stating your intentions to do so over and over, but to analyze why, if you sincerely are acting in good faith, you are so consistently misunderstood. Begin to establish a pattern of good faith behavior and maybe people will respond to you in kind. It may take a while, you have a long history. And you also have a history of claiming the high road while behaving poorly. I have not yet seen this changed behavior in you, on threads on this board. Go reread some of your comments to Tal in his interview, for example. He commented:

You write that you have "great confidence in the verity of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS". You further write that "if it turns out that my confidence was misplaced, then how that will affect me will depend upon what the truth turns out to be", before going to describe a few possible outcomes.

I believe many of those familiar with Moroni 10:3-5 would find your language here surprising. You even go so far as to contemplate the possibility that there might not be any God at all. Indeed, your entire answer here appears to reveal the bedrock of your testimony, if it can be called that, to be optimistic but pragmatic, belief-based calculation as opposed to the knowledge promised in Mormonism's foundational epistemic claim. Your answer reminds me of Pascal's Wager - but obviously, this type of reasoning could have no place if Moroni's promise was really true, could it?

And you responded:

I suppose if people in and out of the Church were relatively ignorant of the nature of faith and knowledge, and thus were unaware of the overlap, on several levels, between these two notions (consisting of varying degrees of confidence); or if they were fundamentalistic in their thinking, and were thus overly narrow and rigid in how they conceptualize these notions; then I can see how they might think that.

Tal had been nothing but polite to you by that point. Yet you were already calling him "fundamentalistic" "overly narrow and rigid" in his thinking.

Up to that point, you had both been cooperating. At that moment, you returned bad faith for his good faith.

and in the same post you said:

I suppose, too, if these same people inanely confused a positive expression of belief with a philosophical response to a hypothetical question (that I explicitly said I tend not to think that way about or see value in exploring), then I can also see how they might think that as well. I certainly didn't confuse the two.

You do understand what "inanely" means, right? Again, example of bad faith being returned for good faith.

Tal, however, continued in good faith. In your response, you launch back into your "fundamentalistic" bit. Tal still doesn't take offense and continues on in good faith. When you refused to ask a question Tal viewed as important to continuing, you said:

That is not the real reason you are folding up the interview tent, is it? Reasonable and secure people don't suddenly break off interviews genuinely intended to learn about others, if the people they are interviewing don't see the value (not to be confused with "refusal") in responding to a few "what if" kinds of questions, and have suggested much more reasonable and effective approaches to learning about them. Certainly, they would not need to frame a lame excuse that stands insipidly against AUTHORITATIVE evidence to the contrary. Nor, for that matter, would they think they have learned something about the person's beliefs other than that the person does not value answering "what if" kinds of questions.

Look at those bolded words, Wade. In terms of human interactions, there is no way comments peppered with those sort of words are viewed as being offered in good faith and in cooperation. No, they are clearly offered to attack, belittle, and in bad faith. By this time, most people who begin to return like with like. Instead, Tal continues to offer good faith. Of course, he does remind you that he has heard you clearly:

You might have people who don't even know you making fun of you, casting aspersions on your character, labelling you a "fundamentalist" or a man who could no longer control his basest urges and just wanted to "rebel against what he deep down knows is true", and all kinds of things. And you would have no way to refute them. They wouldn't even really want to listen to you, and even if they ever did, they would never fully believe you. Etc. etc.

And the pattern continues.

I could present many other examples of your bad behavior. In fact, I'm guessing I could provide evidence of your bad behavior on nearly every thread you've posted on.

So perhaps you can begin to understand why exmormons are a bit skeptical of your claims to only want to "help" them, and claiming the high road. You will have to demonstrate the high road instead of just claiming, over and over, that you take it, and you will have to do it for quite a while to overcome your history.

The second point has to do with the interactions between Mormons and exmormons. You never really dealt with my statement about how the well is poisoned even before one becomes an exmormon due to the pejorative statements and teachings the church makes about apostates. There has already been established a long history of bad faith extended by the church. It will take a long time to overcome that, and the first step will be to stop teaching these ideas about people who lose faith. Decent, sincere people lose faith in the LDS church not due to psychological problems, not due to wanting to sin, not due to laziness, having their feelings hurt, etc etc, but due to real issues that can easily cause reasonable people to lose faith. When they leave, knowing that their LDS friends and family now view them with fear and suspicion due to the church's teachings creates a "bad faith" moment, and they will return that bad faith Tit For Tat. Each person is responsible for his/her behavior, but it makes no sense to talk about stopping a "cycle" of anger without talking about where the cycle begins.

An additional problem is this - you have a tendency to read emotions and ideas in other people that are not present. You read anger in people, you read bigotry in people, when none exits. I have seen you do it many times. Given your propensity to flawed readings of other people, I suspect you over-exaggerate whatever problem may actually exist.

[_Runtu]

In cases where it is not a cycle, then there is only the possible dynamic to concern oneself with.

And, I am not suggesting that there will always be a dynamic or even a cycle. I am not even suggesting that the dynamic and cylce is necessary dysfunctional in all instances.

Would you grant, though, that there are instances where the dynamic and cycle may be dysfunctional--i.e. the result of a cognitive distortion?

Sure, Wade. I learned all about that in therapy. I'm just not sure it applies to this particular dynamic.

Are you certain that you, through your venting and grieving about the Church at RFM, and even now when you speak uncharitably about the Church allegedly lying and decieving about what it claims to be, haven't unnecessarily hurt and angered and caused grief to others (thus triggering at least one turn of the cycle)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I try to treat the church charitably. I don't think it's particularly charitable to not speak frankly or truthfully about the church. I'm sorry you find my posts uncharitable. If I've hurt you, I'm genuinely sorry. But again, if you choose to be angry and grieve over what I say, maybe the cognitive distortion rests with you. I don't know.