Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_Who Knows]

I am looking for REASONABLE solutions that WORK for all parties concerned, and which don't dysfunctionally presuppose one party is RIGHT (since that is a key component to the dynamic/cycle). Your suggestion doesn't WORK for Mr. A or C or D. It may only work for Mr. B, and then only after Mr. B disbelieves in the product. It also, unwittingly, puts control of Mr. B's dynamic in the hands of Mr. A. That wouldn't be developmentally healthy for Mr. B.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It works for everyone - well, 99.999% of the population. If Mr. A and only .0001% of the population on earth believes in the product - then that should be a pretty good indicator that the product is full of crap. Thus, Mr. A should stop pedaling his crap, and everyone will be happy - well, 99.999% of the population will be happy. Mr. A and his 'believers' are free to continue to believe in their product. But they should know the rest of us think it's crap - so there's no reason to keep pedaling it.

The world isn't fair - there's not always a 'win-win' situation for everyone.

Grrr - and I said I was done with your silly word games...

[_wenglund]

One more comment in regards to the props point - I would guess that the delusion Joseph Smith really believed in wasn't that he actually had gold plates in his hand that an angel delivered (I think he likely had a dream that he later exaggerated to be a vision of some sort, so it is still possible he believed God had given him a revelation through a dream), but rather that he was called to restore the primitivist Christian church, and that it would benefit human beings to follow his vision, hence, the moral justification for props.

The end justifies the means.

Wade,

Your current claim in regards to your "what works" rather than what is "right" isn't coherent with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not exmormons' anger is simply a result of cognitive distortion. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that any anger, regardless of whether or not it may be a justified response, is a cognitive distortion that doesn't "work" and hence must be gotten rid of. That seems a very psychologically dangerous trend.

Actually, the cognitive distortions can apply to a variety of things that I intentionally did not specify in the OP (since they may not relate)--not the least of which is the possible distorted thinking that this issue may be resolved through divisive attempts at determining "who is RIGHT" rather than working together to find "what WORKS" for all parties concerned. I don't see any psychological danger there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Southern Redneck]

Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been selling a product that he firmly believes is true, and the best product of its kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great question Wade.

I would suggest there are two ways to look at this situation.

To stop the bad feelings that have already occurred is unlikely. Feelings of being betrayed do not fade easily with time.

What Mr. A needs to do is get informed about what he is selling and make sure up front that Mr. B understands the product. This will make Mr. A a better person, and help keep Mr. B's from occurring as often. There are still people who will brush off Mr. A and buy the product, and then get angry, but will occur less often.

Simply put. MAKE SURE BOTH SIDES ARE INFORMED!

Also keep Mr. A's company from telling people to no0t listen to bad stuff about their product. Makes Mr. A's company look real slimey to those who are questioning the goods.

INFORMING PEOPLE BEFORE HAND IS THE ONLY WAY....In my opnion.

[_wenglund]

It works for everyone - well, 99.999% of the population. If Mr. A and only .0001% of the population on earth believes in the product - then that should be a pretty good indicator that the product is full of crap. Thus, Mr. A should stop pedaling his crap, and everyone will be happy - well, 99.999% of the population will be happy. Mr. A and his 'believers' are free to continue to believe in their product. But they should know the rest of us think it's crap - so there's no reason to keep pedaling it.

The world isn't fair - there's not always a 'win-win' situation for everyone.

Grrr - and I said I was done with your silly word games...

If 99.999% of the world's population were to have believed Mr. B was lying and deceiving, and were thus hurt and angered and grieving therefrom, then you may have a point. They don't, and they haven't, and so you don't. There are conceivably far less of the world's population who are hurt and angered and grieving because they believe the Church lied, than those who believe the Church is telling the truth and are emotionally fine, or who don't believe but don't think the Church is lying and are thus emotionally fine, or who have no opinion one way or the other and are thus emotionally fine.

So, it is not to your advantage, or in the intrest of all parties concerned, to frame your solution based on a popularity contest. From the point of view of who stands the most to gain, you would be on the loosing end of that decision. Again, not wise.

But, I can accept that you aren't capable of coming up with a WORKABLE strategy that is in everyone's best interest except your own. That is okay. As you say, the world isn't fair--and that applies to creative abilities and others-centric strategizing.

Be that as it may, if the collective minds on this thread are able to come up with a WORKABLE solution that is in everyone's best interest, will you at least consider it, if not apply it to yourself?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

You know, Wade, I have no idea what the solution is that will benefit both sides. Why do I say that? I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that members of the church have valid reasons for believing what they do, and I'm happy to let them live according to those beliefs. I don't know that reciprocity is possible, however. If the church is what it claims it is, then it follows that there really isn't a valid reason for me or anyone else to leave. So, the entanglements we've heard about are inevitable, given that perception. The church also considers itself divinely commissioned to retrieve the lost sheep, so not only are our reasons for leaving invalid, but even if they weren't, church members would still be obligated to try to bring us back. That's not really conducive to a live and let live attitude, is it?

As I said, much of my frustration was that, having made my peace with my beliefs, I was not at complete liberty to live according to those beliefs. And please don't read this as blaming the church; I'm just saying that I very much doubt that a "workable" solution is possible given these realities.

[_beastie]

Mr. Liddy owns a department store that specializes in electronics, Liddy’s Department Store. Mr. Liddy ran a splashy ad advertising the sale of a high definition TV for a very low price. Five customers purchased the TV.

Customer A purchased the TV, took it home, hooked it up. After a few days, he became suspicious of the quality and began wondering if it really were a high definition TV after all. He did some investigation into the product, and discovered that it really wasn’t a high definition TV after all. He had bought a standard TV, believing it to be a high definition TV. He was angry about being deceived. He returned to the store and demanded his money back. But Mr. Liddy would not admit that this was a standard TV, and implied that Customer A was trying to pull off a scam. Customer A clearly either just changed his mind and was trying to blame Mr. Liddy, or Customer A was an agitator from the competition, or Customer A was mentally unbalanced. Mr. Liddy didn’t know which, but he wasn’t going to allow Customer A to cheat Mr. Liddy, so he refused to give him a refund. Customer A is now even angrier. He is filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, is telling all his friends and neighbors not to shop at Liddy’s Department Store, and is writing a letter to the editor of the paper warning others. He may even file a lawsuit.

Customer B purchased the TV, took it home, hooked it up, and enjoyed it. Of course, Customer B doesn’t know anything about High Definition TV other than it was The Thing to have, so he didn’t become suspicious from the poor picture quality. Customer B still believes he purchased a high definition TV.

Customer C didn’t actually purchase the TV, but his parents gave it to him as a hand-me-down. He knows enough about high definition to recognize that even though his parents believed it was a high definition TV, it really is a regular standard TV. But he didn’t invest any money or time in it, so he doesn’t really care. He’ll just use it as a regular old TV.

Customer D purchased the TV, took it home, and also realized it wasn’t a high definition TV. It was a standard TV. But customer D is Mr. Liddy’s cousin, and to make a fuss would cause a family problem. He grew up with Mr. Liddy and considers him his friend. He doesn’t believe Mr. Liddy would intentionally deceive him, either, so isn’t really mad. He just tries to shrug it off and enjoy it as a regular TV.

Customer E purchased the TV, took it home, and also realized it wasn’t a high definition TV. It was a standard TV. But Customer E happens to be a spinster who is deeply in love with Mr. Liddy and fantasizes about him noticing her one day and falling in love with her, too. Maybe even marrying her. Customer E not only accepts that Mr. Liddy wasn’t intentionally deceiving her, but convinces herself that the TV she actually has is far superior to a High Definition TV anyway, and is really happy about the situation.

Now, is Customer A suffering from “cognitive distortions”?

The only way to know is to know two things:

1) Is the TV a high definition TV or a standard TV?
2) If it is a standard TV after all, did Mr. Liddy knowingly deceive Customer A?

Whether or not Customer A is suffering from a cognitive distortion in his anger depends entirely upon number 1. How he will proceed later, in terms of filing lawsuits or whatever, depends upon number 2.

Assuming that the TV really is a standard TV after all, then not only is Customer A justified in his anger, but even if Mr. Liddy unknowingly sold him a standard TV as a high definition TV, it is Mr. Liddy’s responsibility to provide accurate information to the public before enticing people to buy his product.

Now imagine that the purchase of the product didn’t just result in some inconvenience and lost dollars. Imagine the purchase of the “product” entailed making every subsequent life decision based on the belief that the product was what it had been advertised to be. Imagine the possible losses incurred then.

So the dynamic of loss and hurt can only be resolved by first resolving what kind of TV was purchased in the first place. Pretending that doesn’t matter might even be called a cognitive distortion.

[_Who Knows]

Beastie always manages to say things how i wish i could say them - well done.

I have been saying all along that in order for Wade's theories to be correct, he needs the church to be what it claims to be. He says 'nuh-uh'.

Like Beastie's example illustrates - it is the church's responsibility to 'sell' what they claim they are selling. It doesn't only matter that they believe they're selling what they claim they're selling. They have to KNOW what they're selling - especially given the extraordinary claims.

Oh, and in answer to Wade's question, if Mr. A offers a no-questions asked full money back guarantee, I think that would go a long way towards resolving the issues.

[_wenglund]

Great question Wade.

I would suggest there are two ways to look at this situation.

To stop the bad feelings that have already occurred is unlikely. Feelings of being betrayed do not fade easily with time.

What Mr. A needs to do is get informed about what he is selling and make sure up front that Mr. B understands the product. This will make Mr. A a better person, and help keep Mr. B's from occurring as often. There are still people who will brush off Mr. A and buy the product, and then get angry, but will occur less often.

Simply put. MAKE SURE BOTH SIDES ARE INFORMED!

Also keep Mr. A's company from telling people to no0t listen to bad stuff about their product. Makes Mr. A's company look real slimey to those who are questioning the goods.

INFORMING PEOPLE BEFORE HAND IS THE ONLY WAY....In my opnion.

I am seeing an intriguing pattern emerging in the solutions that are being offered. It appears that the solutions are geared towards Mr. A doing things that will prevent the Mr. B's of the world from getting hurt and angered and grieving. In other words, the solutions empower Mr. A with Mr. B's emotional disposition.

While I can see that happening unavoidable in certain situations, I wonder if it is unavoidable in this situation? In other words, does Mr. B have to empower Mr. A with his emotional disposition, or can Mr. B take back that control?

Well, as I see it, if Mr. D is any indication, I think he can. For that matter, I think that both Mr. A (at step 3) and Mr. B (at step 2) could benefit from Mr. D's way of looking at things.

The reason that I may question whether the "externalized" solutions (where one party's emotional disposition is controlled by another party) may be WORKABLE, whether well intended or not, is because it adds an extra layer of complexity at the expense of personal control. If Mr. A reasonably determines that he "is right" and that he has already, in good faith, provided sufficient information in order for his customers to make an informed decision about the verity of his product, then the Mr. B's of the world will, unless they take control, slip into the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger etc. And thus it isn't WORKABLE for Mr. B. And, who is to decide how much information is sufficient to make an informed decision (Mr.'s A & C & D seem to be fine with the current level of disclosure), and who is to enforce it? See what I mean?

The same complexity and loss of control applies to Mr. A at step 3. If he is looking for Mr. B to stop falsely accusing him and not smear his reputation and product, there is little he can do about that if Mr. B believes he is "right" in his accusations. And thus it isn't WORKABLE for Mr. A.

I would think that the more WORKABLE solutions (if not more simple solutions) would have to do with "internalizations", where all parties take back control over their emotional dispositions. In other words, we take back control of the only person we ultimately have control over--i.e. ourselves.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You know, Wade, I have no idea what the solution is that will benefit both sides. Why do I say that? I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that members of the church have valid reasons for believing what they do, and I'm happy to let them live according to those beliefs. I don't know that reciprocity is possible, however. If the church is what it claims it is, then it follows that there really isn't a valid reason for me or anyone else to leave. So, the entanglements we've heard about are inevitable, given that perception. The church also considers itself divinely commissioned to retrieve the lost sheep, so not only are our reasons for leaving invalid, but even if they weren't, church members would still be obligated to try to bring us back. That's not really conducive to a live and let live attitude, is it?

As I said, much of my frustration was that, having made my peace with my beliefs, I was not at complete liberty to live according to those beliefs. And please don't read this as blaming the church; I'm just saying that I very much doubt that a "workable" solution is possible given these realities.

You may very well be right about all the "entanglements".

But, I am not attempting to find solutions for all the "entanglements" at this point. In this thread I am simply trying to find a solution for the specific issue outlined in the OP. I think that a WORKABLE solution to everyone's benefit is possible. In fact, I think it quite simple and obvious--though perhaps not so simple and obvious some.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I would think that the more WORKABLE solutions (if not more simple solutions) would have to do with "internalizations", where all parties take back control over their emotional dispositions. In other words, we take back control of the only person we ultimately have control over--i.e. ourselves.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you are quite right that it is a choice to become angry. Unfortunately, most of us were completely unprepared for the loss of our faith. As long as the church continues to play fast and loose with the truth, people will get hurt. And many of those will become angry. It's easy to blame people who have been lied to for reacting badly to the lies, isn't it? Of course, you'll just say that the very fact that the church lies is a cognitive distortion. Whatever.