Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_wenglund]

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-

[_Runtu]

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 forth right, 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-

What if they're both right?

[_wenglund]

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 forth right, 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-

What if they're both right?

I am glad you asked.

To me, the objective isn't to determine whether, if, or who all is RIGHT, but rather WHAT WORKS in preventing, stopping, and resolving the dynamic and cycle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Accusing Mr. A of lying about his belief in the product would be cognitive distortion.

Accusing Mr. A of potentially lying about specific claims of the product (if the claims were untrue) would be fine.

Proclaiming the falseness of the product, spreading the word about the untrue claims of the product would be fine.

Being angry with Mr. A for lying about specific claims of the product would be fine (especially if the product doesn't even actually exist - or rather, the product may or may not exist, but Mr. B has yet to see the product even after paying for it, and following all of the instructions for it - when Mr. A said that if he paid for it and followed all of the instructions, he would get the product).

Again, being angry with Mr. A by accusing him of lying about his belief in his product would be cognitive distortion.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

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-

I have no idea what he is talking about do you????

I think his post are to boring to read and way to complicated for my BITCH brain....

I prefer posts that actually sense and do not talk about peolple I don't know like A<B>C>D

I don't know these people do you????

Well when you meet them send em over to me okay

[_wenglund]

Accusing Mr. A of lying about his belief in the product would be cognitive distortion.

Accusing Mr. A of potentially lying about specific claims of the product (if the claims were untrue) would be fine.

Proclaiming the falseness of the product, spreading the word about the untrue claims of the product would be fine.

Being angry with Mr. A for lying about specific claims of the product would be fine (especially if the product doesn't even actually exist - or rather, the product may or may not exist, but Mr. B has yet to see the product even after paying for it, and following all of the instructions for it - when Mr. A said that if he paid for it and followed all of the instructions, he would get the product).

Again, being angry with Mr. A by accusing him of lying about his belief in his product would be cognitive distortion.

Perhaps you misunderstand the objective. I am not looking for self-justifications and rationalization, nor am I looking to see who is right. The intent here isn't to foment hurt and anger and grieving (which is what your knee-jerk suggestion would invariably do by infusing back into the mix the very thing that is at the heart of the dynamic and cycle--i.e. unnecessary perceptions and accusations of lying), but to prevent, stop, and resolve the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grieving.

Now that you have been enlighted as to the real objective here, would you care to try your hand at suggesting something else--preferably something that WORKS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

No one is right...and no one is wrong...

Why does there have to one that is right or one that is wronga......all the time with you?????


I frankly think you have been trying way to hard to prove something you will never prove...because there is nothing to prove.............

[_beastie]

Wade is correct that it doesn't make sense to be angry at someone who believes their own delusions and hallucinations. Now whether or not Joseph Smith did or did not believe in his own assertions is a matter of great debate, and beyond proof.

But the question of anger is not limited to anger at Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was a conman engaged in a knowing fraud, then anger would be appropriate towards him, although without resolution.

Is anger appropriate towards other believers in the hierarchy who cherry-pick history to present to believers to convert them? It's human nature to massage and manipulate evidence to make one feel better about one's beliefs. I think it is beyond debate that the church hierarchy deliberately manipulated and massaged historical evidences to present to believers or potential believers, but if they are sincere believers, it is likely they did not do this with ill intent, but rather with the belief that the ends justified the means. Like Packer says, not all truth is useful. (paraphrasing by memory, but clearly he believed there exists historically accurate information that can lead to loss of belief, so he believes people should not be exposed to that information)

I never did feel anger towards individuals within church history or the church hierarchy, other than in isolated moments when learning some new, particularly egregious event. But that is because I viewed their behavior within the larger view of how human beings act in general, particularly in connection to religion.

But at the same time, I concede that whether or not Joseph Smith or any other believer in the hierarchy actually believed in their own teachings is information we do not have. People who believe otherwise can present persuasive evidence as well. So for Wade to pretend that we can close the case, in some authoritative fashion, on whether or not the participants were deliberately lying to take advantage of others, is unsupported by the actual historical information we have.

For example, Joseph Smith did, at times, admit to knowingly misleading people. He stated in a letter to the seller of the swamp land in Nauvoo, that he was presenting the land in the best possible light, while knowing it was a sickly hole. (I will post the letter later today if I have time to locate my file)

And there is evidence he planted "evidence" that would help people believe his claims (like the feather he planted to verify his treasure digging claims). To pretend that he didn't plant that feather would mean that one believes that Joseph Smith really could see underground treasure in a rock, and most LDS can't quite go there.

So this is an open question, in my opinion. Anger towards Joseph Smith and other hierarchical leaders is justified if the angry person believes the evidence that they deliberately lied is persuasive. Anger is not justified if one believes, as I do, that it is more likely all these actors actually believed their own claims, and simply adding "evidence" or manipulated information to help people believe what the individuals thought was for their own good. I suppose, even under that scenario, anger is justified regarding the patronizing decision to decide what others need to know or do not need to know.

[_wenglund]

No one is right...and no one is wrong...

Why does there have to one that is right or one that is wronga......all the time with you?????


I frankly think you have been trying way to hard to prove something you will never prove...because there is nothing to prove.............

Would someone please help the "B" fix her Ignore Button so she can go back to ignoring me. It is right next to the depressed button that reads: "Lobotomize"--which may explain why she can't fix the button herself, and why her posts have been so mindless (pun intended). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

If only there could be a Better Business Bureau to help mediate ill feelings and an independent testing laboratory to verify the efficacy of the product.

So Wade, are you saying the product is fine as long as your are a satisfied customer and the other unsatisfied customers should just take their business quietly to another vendor?