Certain people can't ever get it right

[Morley]

Tell me I am...a binary thinker.

OK. You’re a binary thinker. Just like the rest of us. That is our natural condition/default. No shame in that. The concern we ‘moderns’ have is that binary thinking doesn’t serve us well in all situations. Especially when it comes to placing things into categories. Just where do we draw the line between one category and the next? My placing you in a certain category without really knowing you is a bit foolish, and yet I do it. I’m sure that you, at times, may find yourself doing the same thing. We’re all prone to doing so.

You're pretending I said something that I didn't--then you replied to it. You dishonestly misrepresented what I actually said. Even employing an ellipsis, you had to change my words to get that. Please don't do this. It's wrong on so many levels. You've been called on this before.

It's more than amusing how everyone who disagrees with you eventually gets called a binary thinker.

There seems to be a tendency towards the default position of binary thinking without looking at the possibility that there may be something more to it than meets the eye.

I could not disagree more.

I actually find myself going, “what?...” when I read stuff about me that just ain’t so. And I’m sure that I fall into the same trap and judge others without really knowing what makes that person tick. Black and white thinking. And in your case, not really knowing the first thing about you, except that you have issues with a certain belief system, makes it difficult to ascertain what makes you tick.

Okay. Since this is a Mormon discussion board it makes sense that I would air some of those issues here.

So I find it sort of funny and a bit disingenuous on your part

It’s not clear what definition of disingenuous you're using. Now, if I'd said something that I knew wasn't true, that would have been disingenuous. For example, it would be disingenuous if I took a quote of yours, changed it, and then pretended you'd posted it while I responded to it.

However, since I can't seem to recognize my own disingenuousness here, perhaps you'll show it to me.

that you and others think you can play armchair psychoanalyst

You can't be serious. Writing an analogy isn't psychoanalysis. Neither is speculation is about someone else's motivation. I'm not sure what you're saying here. What definition of psychoanalysis are you using?

and determine what traits (often negative) a believer must have...simply because they are a believer.

I can't find where I've enumerated your traits. Neither can I locate where I've listed what traits any believer should possess. Perhaps you'll find where I did that and list them for me?

Pigeonholing.

Yeah, maybe I've got you pigeonholed. Maybe not. I can only go by what you've written. If you write something different, I'm willing to change my mind.

One last word. When you're criticized on this board, you often take shelter in the idea that we're criticizing all believers. We're not. We're criticizing your (MG's) beliefs, as you express them here. Failing that, you seek refuge in the concept that we're mocking God. We're not. We're mocking the arguments you (MG) are making.

Usually, I'd advise folks to not take the things people say personally. But, in this case, I'd appreciate if you would personalize this. I'm not responding to the church--or God--or other believers, I'm responding to you, personally, and the things you're typing out and posting on this board.


.

[mentalgymnast]

There seems to be a tendency towards the default position of binary thinking without looking at the possibility that there may be something more to it than meets the eye.

I could not disagree more.

Fine. Care to elaborate?

by the way, are you suggesting that you’re not a binary thinker by default?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I could not disagree more.

Fine. Care to elaborate?

by the way, are you suggesting that you’re not a binary thinker by default?

Regards,
MG

How about responding to my post.

[Gadianton]

I don’t need to travel to Syria. I can walk to the daily newspaper that came just today.

Had you been born in the middle east and lived there your whole life, you would have walked to the daily newspaper there and believed whatever it told you about western politics and religion, and you would have realized that you didn't need to investigate any further. This is hardly startling, MG.

[Morley]

There seems to be a tendency towards the default position of binary thinking without looking at the possibility that there may be something more to it than meets the eye.

I could not disagree more.

Fine. Care to elaborate?

by the way, are you suggesting that you’re not a binary thinker by default?

I'm suggesting that there's little or no theoretical framework in psychology for your assertion.

[mentalgymnast]

There seems to be a tendency towards the default position of binary thinking without looking at the possibility that there may be something more to it than meets the eye.

Morley:
I could not disagree more.

Fine. Care to elaborate?

by the way, are you suggesting that you’re not a binary thinker by default?

Regards,
MG

Morley: How about responding to my post.

MG: Huh? I did. Then I asked you to elaborate. Two questions based on what you had said previously.

If you’d rather not answer, that’s obviously up to you.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Of course. If only everybody did what you say your particular deity (one amongst many) wants them to do, everything would be fine.

But I'm sorry sir, you have to take a numbered ticket and wait your turn to be called. We have such a lot of advocates for different deities in today, so we have to operate a strict queuing system. Of course, as you notice there is a special VID (Very Important Deity) line over there, reserved for deities who turn up in person rather than sending a representative (or, in most cases, several representatives who keep shouting over one another and sometimes starting fist fights), but so far none of them has actually turned up. So we are doing the best we can, and ask you to bear with us.

Next, please ....

Someone missed the point of your post, Chap.

[mentalgymnast]

There seems to be a tendency towards the default position of binary thinking without looking at the possibility that there may be something more to it than meets the eye.



Fine. Care to elaborate?

by the way, are you suggesting that you’re not a binary thinker by default?

I'm suggesting that there's little or no theoretical framework in psychology for your assertion.

Upthread I referred to this site:

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer ... lex-world/

Dutton seems to take the position that our brains naturally go into binary mode when pressed to make decisions. We learn to override this natural inclination. Some do and some don’t.

And yes, there is an ongoing conversation among neuroscientists on this topic.

I’m sure you’re aware of human development and the fact that we, generally speaking, go from concrete (black and white) thinking as young children onwards and upwards towards a more nuanced way of processing information. Some folks progressively climb the ladder towards this goal and others, not so much.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Morley: How about responding to my post.

MG: Huh? I did. Then I asked you to elaborate. Two questions based on what you had said previously.

If you’d rather not answer, that’s obviously up to you.

Once again:

I'm suggesting that there's little or no theoretical framework in psychology for your assertion.

From which you can assume that I don't think anyone is a binary thinker by default.

My bad. I thought that was obvious.


.

[mentalgymnast]

From which you can assume that I don't think anyone is a binary thinker by default.

My bad. I thought that was obvious.

It was. You may be mistaken though. See my previous post.

Regards,
MG