Personal accountability/responsibility

[_moksha]

17. They may ask people questions regarding intents, motives, beliefs, etc., and rather than waiting to learn the answer. they will answer the question themselves, and suppose (often incorrectly) they answered correctly, and consider the matter closed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hear you. I have gotten a chuckle before from some of my fellow LDS posters at Beliefnet, who have ended their closing comments on an argument with the capital intensive summarization of CASE CLOSED! That reminded me of Mammy Yokum from the Lil Abner cartoon.

Have you ever considered kayaking the Yukon River?

[_Yoda]

Actually, Wade, I do have another item for your list:

18. In order to avoid seeing the fault in themselves, they criticize others utilizing veiled tactics such as "conducting a study", so that they appear to be "above it all".

I'll add more as I think of them. You're right! This is proving to be very informative.

;)

[_Mister Scratch]

That was very interesting and insightful, but I prefer to wait in telling some of my experiences until after collecting a non-partison, generic list of characteristics and attributes of those who are resistent to self-criticism, and who lack open and honest introspection, and/or fail to accept personal/group responsibility for difficulties they may experience with others?

here are a few of my own (that I am adding to some of the excellent things you and msnobody have mentioned):

I think this is an excellent list. Since it's pretty clear that this has to do with FAIR, I thought I'd offer up my take on it:

1. Difficulty recognizing, let alone admitting, when they are wrong.

Like the FAIRmods never admitting when they have screwed up, or when they have booted people for reasons not sketched out in the Posting Guidelines. Or the FAIRmods swooping in to DCP's defense whenever he'd getting whipped. Or juliann in her "apostate" threads.

2. Evasive when pressed on personal matters--some times to the point of isolating themselves away from the pressure or preventing access by, or banning away, those doing the pressing.

Like the FAIRmods hiding behind a double layer of anonymity.

3. Victim mentality

Like juliann characterizing the FAIRites as "refugees" from ZLMB, since it was "open season on LDS."

4. Conspiratorial minded

Such as the rampant tendency to dismiss textually and research-supported assertions with "oh, that's just conspiracy theory." Or the tendency to assume that people are sockpuppets, or that they "lie in wait to deceive."

5. Negatively oriented towards others, while positively oriented towards self

Such as accusing others of being "vile" and "hateful," while asserting one's own friendship with the doyen of apologetics: DCP. Or saying that your opponents "howl," while boasting about your attendance at CGU.

6. Delusions of grandeur

Such as exclaiming about how Brian Hauglid's Book of Abraham presentation is going to blow the critics away.

7. Tend to talk and not listen, or not communicate at all.

Such as not being able to understand how "subversive" and "apostate" aren't mutually exclusive. Or booting out your critics, thereby preventing them from continuing to communicate on the forum. Or ignoring PMs and emails.

8. Quick to point fingers at others, and seldom if ever point fingers at oneself or one's group/organization.

Such as a complete inability to cite any problems or flaws whatsoever in the contemporary Church and its leaders.

9. Prone to gossip, backbiting, ridicule and blame-games.

Such as dishing out labels like, "traitor," and reading people's PMs.

10. Closed minded--i.e. unable to recognize or acknowledge reasonable divergent perspectives and unwilling to thoughtfully consider feedback.

Via booting out critics.

11. Repeat the same dysfunctional life/social strategies and mistakes over and over again while expecting different results.

Such as juliann coming back again and again to the topic of apostasy. Or Pahoran and MMM.

12. Quick to anger and accuse or are hyper-sensative and over-reactionary and belligerent

Describes Pahoran and juliann to a tee.

13. Myopic to mote/beam issues in themselves.

Yup.

[_wenglund]

Actually, Wade, I do have another item for your list:

18. In order to avoid seeing the fault in themselves, they criticize others utilizing veiled tactics such as "conducting a study", so that they appear to be "above it all".

I'll add more as I think of them. You're right! This is proving to be very informative. ;)

That is excellent! In principle, I agree completely. Now, whether your example fits the principle, and whether your example is actually a valid case here or not, is to be seen. For my part, I am open to, and actually willing to look into (not to be confused with "avoid") whether it is one way or the other--though, given the several times on this thread where I have EXPLICITLY acknowledged having, to some degree, the fault in question, and was the first to do so, I am not sure how that would constitute "avoiding", let alone appear to be "above it all", and so the evidence seems to suggest that it may not be valid in my case. However, given how you have denied the fault in yourself, and have criticized FAIR, well...I will let you decided if you have been "avoiding" and "above it all". ;-)

Whatever the case, I value you contributions in whatever form they may come (whether directly through the points you raise, or indirectly through inadvertantly providing illustrations of the points being made).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

Actually, Wade, I do have another item for your list:

18. In order to avoid seeing the fault in themselves, they criticize others utilizing veiled tactics such as "conducting a study", so that they appear to be "above it all".

I'll add more as I think of them. You're right! This is proving to be very informative. ;)

That is excellent! In principle, I agree completely. Now, whether your example fits the principle, and whether your example is actually a valid case here or not, is to be seen. For my part, I am open to, and actually willing to look into (not to be confused with "avoid") whether it is one way or the other--though, given the several times on this thread where I have EXPLICITLY acknowledged having, to some degree, the fault in question, and was the first to do so, I am not sure how that would constitute "avoiding", let alone appear to be "above it all", and so the evidence seems to suggest that it may not be valid in my case. However, given how you have denied the fault in yourself, and have criticized FAIR, well...I will let you decided if you have been "avoiding" and "above it all". ;-)

Whatever the case, I value you contributions in whatever form they may come (whether directly through the points you raise, or indirectly through inadvertantly providing illustrations of the points being made).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you may have either misunderstood or misread a prior post of mine on this thread:

I am the first to admit, that I am resistant to criticism from others, particularly if I really feel I have done my best on something....but...I am very critical of myself. I think that the reason I am resistant to criticism of others at times, is because I am so critical of myself, and my work before it is even presented to someone else. Does that make sense?

I think that most people, if honest, will admit that they don't like criticism....who does? What we learn to do, as adults, is to take criticism that is given to us and learn from it. That's the challenge.

Where did I deny the fault in myself? I didn't. I admitted that it is difficult for me to take criticism. I also accepted your further definition of what you meant by self-criticism later in the thread:

OK....going with your definition....yes, if it is difficult or impossible for someone to receive criticism, then it is going to be harder to own up to their mistakes, and get along with other people.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's wise to be caught up in the victim mode. If someone has wronged you, you do what you can to defend yourself or your reputation, when it's appropriate, and then move on. You own your decisions, and your life is what you make it.

Yes, I have been critical of FAIR, and, if you bothered to read my history with FAIR, I think I am critical for good reason. You can agree or disagree. You obviously disagree which is fine.

And yes, you did acknowledge that you had the same fault, but that your assessment is that it has been steadily improving and it's not as prevalent now as it used to be.

Considering this last little snipe at me,

However, given how you have denied the fault in yourself, and have criticized FAIR, well...I will let you decided if you have been "avoiding" and "above it all". ;-)

Whatever the case, I value you contributions in whatever form they may come (whether directly through the points you raise, or indirectly through inadvertantly providing illustrations of the points being made).

it may be time, Mr. Englund, for another "self-critique".

;)

[_wenglund]

Hi Scratch,

You certainly have a demonstrated ability to find this fault in others.

And, the timing of your criticism of FAIR was perfect--coming so quickly on the heals of the attribute that Liz positted to the list. I do appreciate both your intended and unintended contributions to the discussion.

Perhaps, though, you weren't listening and were just intent on talking and pointing fingers, but let me respectfully reiterate my request: "I prefer that you wait to get into your blame-game until after the participants on this thread have compiled a non-partison, generic list of characteristics and attribute, and after discussing advantages of not being resistent to self-criticism, lacking open and honest introspection, and/or failing to accept personal/group responsibility for difficulties they may experience with others. Afterwards, if you wish to evade what I have actually said, or be closed minded to my reasonable point of view, and quickly point fingers and accuse in a repeatedly reactionary, belligerent, mote/beam way (similar to what you just did again), then that might prove very useful as an unwitting object lesson or illustration of what has just been discussed. Fair enough?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_truth dancer]

Hi Wade...

Just wondering... would you agree with my opinion that it is basically a human characteristic/condition to want to be right? To feel the ego? To defend our positions, beliefs, self?

Do you think such behaviors and beliefs as I described (war, greed, abuse, slavery, elitism, etc), are indicators of this?

Thanks for your thoughts,

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

OK, Wade, this is what you, yourself deemed as the primary purpose of this thread:

I am trying to create a generic litmus test that we each can openly and honestly apply to ourselves to see if we suffer from these conditions.

I think it's fairly safe to say that most of us suffer from at least some of the conditions on the list we're compiling.

My question is....after this "litmus test" is compiled, then what?

Do you want to discuss solutions? Do you want us to discuss solutions?

What is the overall outcome you are trying to achieve here?

If you want people to honestly participate in a study, you need to be honest with them about what you're hoping to achieve.

[_wenglund]

Hi Liz,

I appreciate the clarification and feedback, and as mentioned several times to Scratch, I don't want the discussion to get bogged down, just yet, dealing with specific cases. But, I just want to clear up what appears to me to be a persistent, slight misunderstanding. When I speak of "self-criticism", I am not so much speaking about the "self" accepting criticism from others, but the "self" opennly and honestly criticizing the "self". Resistence to self-criticism, then, is resistence by the "self" to criticism from "oneself". From what I could tell from your innitial post, it implied to me that you were the opposite of resistent to "self-criticism", and said: "I critique myself all the time, and rather harshly. I have a pretty strong drive to achieve excellence in the things I care about, so I analyze my own work very carefully..."

That having been said, I mentioned that I would leave it to you to decided for yourself.

Anyway, you are right, it is time for my "self-critique". I think it should always be time for that.

This may be a good lead-in to my next question: "Is it in the individuals', groups', or orginizations' interest to stop or reduce resistance to self-criticism, and be open and honest in their introspections, and accept personal/group responsibility for difficulties they may experience with others?" And, if so, why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade...

Just wondering... would you agree with my opinion that it is basically a human characteristic/condition to want to be right? To feel the ego? To defend our positions, beliefs, self?

Yes, in fact I said as much earlier in the thread.

Do you think such behaviors and beliefs as I described (war, greed, abuse, slavery, elitism, etc), are indicators of this?

I think they are results thereof, just as are peace, freedom, liberty, growth in knowledge, progress in science, etc.

My reason for not responding to your post wasn't because I didn't thing it correct (I did think it was correct), but I was looking more for attributes, behaviors, and characteristic by which one may identify resistence to self-criticism and so forth, rather than the consequences thereof. However, given my last question, it may apply there. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-