Wisdom Without Zealotry - Authoritarians and their Followers

 That didn't happen. 

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

I recently read two works by wise folks who are studying authoritarians. The first work I read was the free ebook "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer. It takes several things I have been posting in my blog, under the Wisdom Without Zealotry heading, and brought it to an elevated clarity on authoritarian followers and leaders, what they believe, why they believe it, and what they are capable of doing. He backs this up by decades of studies and research in the Western world as a University of Manitoba professor. He describes his refinement of the research first done at the University of California as well as his research and growing concern of those whom are authoritarian followers and the authority figures that lead them. 

Authoritarians and their followers are defined by three traits: submissiveness (defer to a societal model they consider legitimate), aggression (hostility towards those whom their leader(s) determines to be the enemy), and conservatism (abidance to traditional rules determined by their society and leaders). Over the decades he has refined his analysis and question bank to measure RWA or Right-Wing Authoritarianism. His book is short and a link is available at the end of the article.

 

An RWA score is high when giving a strongly agree or very strongly agree answer to the following questions within a series of questions given to a group. 

    1.     The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.

    2.     Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

    3.     Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

    4.     It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds

    5.     The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

    6.     Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

    7.     The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

    8.     What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.

    9.     God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.

    10.  There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

    11.  Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.

    12.  This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

 

How many authoritarians have you seen or read about that would score high on these beliefs? The followers who puppet them? Read the opening sequence of statements that authoritarians go through when responding to something bad that they or people under their sway have done. Bob Alemeyer was particularly concerned about the USA in recent decades, which is backed up by studies of more than double the high RWAs than any other G7 country. It was 25.6% prevalence in a 2021 Morning Consult study, to name one.

 

Some associations with high RWAs are that they exhibit illogical thinking, are dogmatic, and have contradictory beliefs which are linked to taking the beliefs from their group rather than thinking things through critically (see my post on “The Righteous Mind” on why people of all kinds adhere to their belief system). 

High RWAs also do not have a significant awareness of world events or general knowledge, are unaware of people who are different from them, are bullies when they have power over others, help cause and inflame intergroup conflicts, seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation, and are easily put off by things they consider disgusting. They also believe they have no personal failings, avoid learning about their personal failings, be highly self righteous, and use religion to erase guilt over their acts to maintain their self-righteousness.

This is very odd because the main religion in the Western world is Christianity and last I looked in the New Testament of the bible there was lots about forgiveness and loving of others and leaving the punishment up to God. There was nothing in there about persecuting, isolating, segregating, humiliating, beating, and killing others because you feel your "side" is entitled to do so. The fearful high RWAs have fallen into the trap of zealotry and chauvinism. I say fearful because of the next researcher.

 

Abner Fog, in his 1999 book “Cultural Selection”, and later refined in 2017, determined that high RWAs are only aggressive when there is an environment of fear and conflict. They need that threat to begin responding and follow a rigid hierarchy, with authoritarian leaders, to solve the current crisis. In peaceful and safe times, high RWAs will adhere to a tolerant and egalitarian society. 

So why have I spoken of all this so far? A large part of it is the media machines that are currently out there and that high-RWAs embrace and the fuel they use...fear. Politicians, news, and social media prey on the authoritarian follower's mindset by building on fear/hate of what is different or threats to their social order. It creates echo chambers so that they are in a continuous state of fight or flight, but mostly fight. It is emboldening these authoritarian leaders to say they have a plan and like-minded people had better listen and obey them because (fill in the blank) is a scourge to those same like-minded people. Those authoritarian leaders demand someone does something about it because this scourge is evil and sub-human.

During World War two, the Reserve Police battalion 101 was formed from German people from Hamburg and under control of the SS. Already indoctrinated to obey "rightful authority" of the Nazi party, their first activities were to guard Polish peoples and expel Polish people from their homes for "resettlement actions" around Poznan and Lodz. This was done to make room for German colonists. This escalated to small mass killings, then more mass killings, then large killings like 33,000 Jewish persons at Babi Yar, Ukraine, over two days. Also horrible were the mass killings of persons were at three concentration camps by a group of less than 500 men of this unit over one day to the total of 43,000 people. At the start of these mass killings, there were persons of various ranks who refused to shoot unarmed civilians, and they were removed from the firing lines but enough were left to continue to slaughter. There is a strong need amongst people to belong to a group, to not make waves, that powerfully affect all people to do awful things. This is particularly true of authoritarian leaders, the initial rush of authoritarian followers, and the meek who go with the mob.

In July of 1961, the Milgram experiment was conducted. It involved men aged 20 to 50 of various education and employment backgrounds for the role of teacher and learner. They were told that the teacher was to ask questions to a another study participant, the learner, and if the learner answered wrong, for the teacher to give them an electric shock. Subsequent wrong answers would be responded to by a larger electric shock, from 15 to 450 volts. The participants were also told of the danger zone of voltage for people. Payment would occur for their participation regardless of the outcome of the experiment. The role of teacher and learner was to be determined randomly. The only other person in the evaluating room was a man in a lab coat known as the evaluator. Once the experiment began and the questions answered wrong, the learner would yell in pain louder and louder as the electric charge was given. Towards the upper levels the learner would ask for the shocks to stop. If the teacher refused to administer the shock, the experimenter would declare "Please continue" or "Please go on". Further refusal would have escalating responses of "The experiment requires that you continue", "It is absolutely essential that you continue", and "You have no other choice. You must go on". If the teacher pressed the button to activate 450 volts three times or they refused after the fourth prompt, the experiment would stop. The interesting thing about the experiment was that the learner was not a volunteer but part of the experimenting group, both papers to pick who was the teacher or learner had teacher on both of them, and the device to shock didn't produce voltage.  Disappointingly all teachers gave 300 volt "shocks" or more and 63% went up to 450 volts. before the experiment, and in subsequent experiments, only zero to 3 percent of subjects thought that they would inflict maximum voltage. All participants in the original study stopped at least once during the experiment and would have to be prodded by the experimenter. This shows the power of an authority figure, high RWA or not.

So what can we simple humans do against things and people like I have discussed. Well, in the short term we can:

-Reduce fear because fear induces hate and therefore aggression;

-Reduce self-righteousness and promote costly grace over cheap grace. This encourages continual following of your religion's scripture rather than being one and done after you first step into your religious worship location's door or because, for example, your authoritarian charismatic religious leader tells you that for 10% or more of your paycheck, you will be saved. Being good takes continual effort to make it a habit and should be applied by everyone, religious or not;

-Reduce ethnocentrism by promoting the fact that we are all human beings first, then members of the overall religious framework that is followed, then of the sub-section, then of the sub-denomination, etc. This reduces the us and them mentality;

-Teach people not to trust authorities automatically but be skeptical. Not all authorities are bad but just knowing that they sometimes can limits blind trust;

-Have people read the links at the end but realize that high-RWAs will think it is about people who are not them; and

-Show authoritarian followers that they are being played for fools, which will likely not work because they have invested so much already.

Some long term solutions are tough as there is no special one shot cure. Try thinking about these though:

-Play on the desire for all beings to be normal, even high-RWAs. They do not want to be extreme but they have made their extreme their normal. Since we are all open to like minded people, find common ground and start on that. This will lead into them wanting to belong when they find out that others, whom are not like them, want many of the same things;

-Exposure to visible minorities, because the world is diverse and authoritarians promote fear of the "other". By making the "other" another human being it reduces that fear and encourages doubt in the fear mongering authoritarian;

-Higher education reduces a high RWA score by 15-20%, so it is no surprise that many authoritarians want to cripple or destroy the public school systems;

-Make laws to protect everyone and make it enforceable. The majority of high RWAs will follow laws they do not like;

-Oppose what is not right for everyone. Defiant role models inspire defiant followers and lack of opposition inspires bullies to grab for more power as long as they feel threatened. generally people will not acknowledge something is wrong because they think everyone knows it is wrong. It starts with one voice, one heart, one song;

-Engage in non-violent protest because if it is a violent one, high RWAs will see it as breaking the law and insulate themselves from the goal of the protest. Just look at the skewed angles far-right news organizations and talking heads used when speaking about Black Lives Matter protests, as they focus on the extremely small amount of violent incidents to paint the whole movement;

-Vote. In all levels of government, vote. Do research on the candidates and issues. Talk about them with others. The more people vote, the more accurate and reflective of the populace our representatives are. High RWAs are energized to vote out of fear and in recent years are more represented in government because most others do not feel their vote counts. It does when most of the population votes;

-When child rearing use authoritative not authoritarian methods; and

-Increase civic and debate classes in high schools. We need to better understand the history of laws and what our current laws are now. We also need the ability to converse about topics responsibly and rationally, not emotionally.

Wrapping up, there is a fear I have that democratic institutions are descending into authoritative rule with a thin façade that it is by the will of the people. It is not as it is increasing being made up of fearful and hateful high-RWAs who are being force fed more fear and hate by their leaders. With effort, we can make our institutions reflect the populace it serves and not that of select zealots. 

References and Inspirations

The book Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer

Right Wing Authoritarian Personality

Theory of Regal and Kungic Social Structures and Abner Fog's website on this with a free pdf or XML.

Wisdom without Zealotry - Created Realities

 "I'm not strange, weird, off, nor crazy, my reality is just different than yours."

Lewis Carroll, author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Since I last wrote a post, with the tag of Wisdom without Zealotry, there has been a lot of thinking in my life but nothing that I have not touched upon before. Unfortunately there are still folks who, singly or in groups, create their own realities that are nothing more than self-affirming mental gymnastics that allow their brains to release endorphins as they congratulate themselves. 

Although I have had many partial ideas for posts since June of 2019, I was frankly tired of these fictional created realities masquerading as non-fiction. In particular there were those created realities that hurt or attempted to force others to obey these falsehoods. Instead I read actual non-fiction and wonderfully created fiction stories for personal enjoyment. No subversion attempts by me but I was ignoring those folks who were.

That was until I saw the below video from Dan Olson on his Youtube Folding Ideas channel. I recommend watching it as it has a wonderful way of speaking about the topic of created realities, focusing on the Flat Earth and QAnon movements.

His delivery is accessible and honest, in order to understand why people believe the created realities they cling to. I knew that QAnon, in particular, had conspiracies. But I had no idea of the plethora of them and the massive graveyard of ones they do not speak anymore. Even though reality folded those unfounded theories, encouraged devotees were encouraged to continue with the cult by telling them to "trust in the plan" driving them deeper into the rabbit hole as endorphins were released when they did so. This is a very insidious failsafe because when their beliefs hold no water it is part of the "plan".

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was a marvelous book of fiction that played upon the parts of Lewis Carroll's society and popular culture. So when someone is attempting to push their created reality onto you, repeat back what they are saying in reworded form. Lay bare their created realities and show others they are the farce they are.

Wisdom Without Zealotry - Falsehoods

“If a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect . . . like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

It has been more than 300 years since Jonathan Swift wrote the above on the utility of falsehood. He describes the harm that lies can have by distracting us from the truth. It means that efforts will be misplaced and emotions are wasted for no benefit. This does not stop many form listening and believing falsehoods, especially if they want to believe.

A deep seated mindset can strengthen the resolve of people as much as blind them. Mindsets like equality, democracy, justice, healing, and others are noble traits but when taken to extremes they can be dangerous for others. What if equality is deemed to mean that everyone has an equal shot at being a firefighter, even when someone has one leg? What if democracy is forced on a country when that counties own government not only works but is loved by its people? When brutal justice is demanded over rehabilitation? Yes, these are strawman arguments but they illustrate the extremes.

And what about the actual extremes? Those who demonize other people for being part of a different group? If someone dares to criticize their group leaders? Ignore evidence against the group or their leaders even when it is given by that same group or group leaders? Other undefendable viewpoints? Those people often tell or believe falsehoods, if only to maintain their viewpoint, because it makes them comfortable in that belief. Their brains also provide endorphins when they re-establish those falsehoods, giving a warm fuzzy feeling to cement the lies. To outsiders, however, it seems like the self-deluded are becoming more detached from reality. What can be done to give the right solution for preventing harm when you are distracted by falsehoods?

Ignore the falsehoods.

That's right...one line with three words. Ignore the falsehoods. I have already described the lies and misplaced actions of the deluded as something they do only to make them feel good about their positions. Its a smokescreen they put up to hide behind, hug themselves, and feel joy as to what they have said or done even though it is false.

Certainly it is good to repeat back to those telling falsehoods, using slightly different phrasing, in order for them to reaffirm their false dogma or realize their error and reject it. But for those who maintain the zealotry, keep going to the truth and let them come out of the smokescreen of lies to keep up. If they keep on putting up smokescreens in front of them then disregard their actions as unimportant and inadequate as you proceed.

If you get distracted in trying to fix their zealotry, you fall behind in trying to do what is right. Like Johnathan Swift said, the medicine will not be dispensed and the patient will die. Those who are zealous might think you are not cooperating but they really mean they want you to capitulating to them, another smokescreen.

Do not be deceived and limp behind. Do not fail in speaking the truth because of their zealotry.

Wisdom without Zealotry - Narcissism

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm, but the harm [that they cause] does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."  T. S. Eliot

Many organizations or groups identify humanity as special among the worlds organisms. Some go so far as to say certain groups of humans, because of a cause/belief/nationality, are more special than other humans. So what would make them believe this? One of the reasons could be narcissism.

The definition of Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own abilities. It is also considered a social or cultural problem, because of the ability to form groups of like minded persons with an inflated view of leadership/authority, superiority/arrogance, self-absorption/self-admiration, and exploitativeness/entitlement.

Because they (individual or person that is narcissistic) view themselves as having amazing talents, demand admiration from others, and are selfish because it is supposed to be all about them, others who are not like them will not enter into the narcissist's viewpoint (beyond how it benefits them or praises them). This includes what they believe is right and that see themselves as being the only right people around.

It does not end there. If others pay attention to someone or something else that is not them or their organization, it is a threat. If others are doing something that they have declared bad, it is a threat because the limelight is not on them as paragons of excellence. They will declare that "evil" is being done by those less than themselves and the other becomes a target. History has many narcissists and narcissistic groups attempting to eliminate what they view as wrong. To do otherwise would be to deny their importance in their world.

What is worse is that the narcissist will never admit to be wrong, to themselves or others. Their wrongness can never be proven, explained, nor rationalized to them because of the emotional love they feel for themselves and their cause, and lack of empathy they feel for the other.

What is the solution? Helping the narcissist disassociate from the negative feelings they have when confronted with a threat to themselves is the prime goal. Unfortunately, they need to acknowledge the fault within themselves first. An uphill battle with this form of personality disorder. Its even worse when they mob up with others having the same disorder or fan the flames of their awesomeness.

In previous posts on people who are emotionally connected to a wrong viewpoint, I have neglected this disorder because I was unaware. Now that I am, I see this psychological disorder in some people in the world. Because some of them are in positions of power and influence, they try to skew the world to try to make others come on their side of the looking glass and to see them as being amazingly talented, to give acknowledgment with admiration, and to make everything be about them. What is dangerous is when they attack those who do not share their skewed viewpoint and encourage others to join in. Just another kind of zealotry to me.

Inspiration
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201404/9-enlightening-quotes-narcissists-and-why
http://uk.businessinsider.com/narcissism-object-constancy-2017-8

Wisdom without Zealotry - Gag Laws and the Right to not be Offended

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

Do you have the right to not be offended? Does a government in your name have that right and can it also pass laws to prevent being offended? Laws that only allow one point of view are dangerous to a democratic society. Take for example the recent law in Poland in which:


"The amended act provides for a penalty, in precisely defined [circumstance]s, for the purpose of preventing intentional defamation of Poland. The final determination of a specific case will rest with the courts. The provisions of the amended act [shall] not limit freedom of research, discussion of history, or artistic activity."


The criminal charge can be up to three years in jail, a fine of community service if used unintentionally, or no charge if mentioned for artistic or scholarly activities. You might be wondering what this intentional defamation of Poland would be. Well, it is the use of phrases such as "Polish Death Camps" because the Polish government want it to be known that no Polish people were complicit with the Germans during WW2 in concentration/death camps built by Germany in Poland. None. Zip. Nada. Not likely, say many historians including Polish ones.


To detail the law further:
"Anyone who, in public and against the facts, ascribes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State, responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich, [as] defined in...or for other offences which are crimes against peace [or] humanity or [that are] war crimes, or who otherwise grossly reduces the responsibility of the actual perpetrators of said crimes, is subject to..."


So why is this important? History revision/denial is a dangerous thing. It starts a dark path from what is truth to whatever the government says is truth with the goal of not wanting to be offended. Is the Polish government and people embarrassed that there were Nazi death camps in their traditional borders...yes. Do they have a right to be embarrassed about them...yes. Should they be upset when the phrase "Polish Nazi Death camps" or "Polish death camps" is said...sure, but only to clarify for the speaker that they were initiated by the Nazi regime. But to say, so they won't be offended, that the people in the occupied country's government nor citizens of Poland were not in any way intimidated/rewarded into assisting the goal of the "Nazi death camps situated in Poland" would be highly improbable. Historians, Polish or otherwise, agree as the Nazis had other concerns that took their attention. Like the war.


This topic of truth also brings me to another story, of Sanal Edamaruku of India. He has made it his goal to expose those who cloak their subterfuge and trickery under the guise of faith. He replicates the tricks "holy men" use to get money in small villages, exposes false powers on TV, and has made himself a nuisance of these charlatans. It was not until, in 2012 when he exposed a bleeding statue of Jesus as a result of bad plumbing, that his life was put in danger. This was because of section 295a of India's penal code established in the British colonial era. This code makes deliberate and malicious speech that targets a religion punishable by a fine and prison time. It was done in 1927 to curb religious tensions, a notable goal for an act with anti-democratic results. Now this law, under powerful lobby groups, has made this person unable to return to his native country because he exposed a false claim and offended someone. This law, as other laws in the world have, fails to address the root of the problem and suppresses free speech with the goal of not wanting to be offended and to attempt to correct behavior. Like the defamation of religion at the UN, which changed its anti-blasphemy approach to one of anti-intolerance, thankfully. Like the hate speech laws many countries have. Like the Republic of Ireland's blasphemy laws. Like the Putin clown image in Russia. Like China's President Xi banning a multitude of words and Winnie the Pooh images. See how not wanting to be offended moves from seemingly ok to "what the?".


Laws cannot force someone to comply with accepting another being/religion/organization different from themselves. Nor should it be a tool to beat someone over the head to comply with a status quo. To use these laws to intimidate those who speak the truth or falsehoods should be intolerable to a democratic nation.


Should some speech be outlawed? Speech that is not true? Should holocaust deniers be arrested and incarcerated? Should those that purport one race of people is better than another with no exceptions also be gagged? Should we turn our back on their mistaken and untruthful views but help to care for the person themselves? Yes to the last statement and no to the other things. The person has a reason for those beliefs that if assisted can result in self-realization of those false views.

If you suppress speech, you also give it value to those who feel they are being suppressed. Few who are emotionally attached to wrong things stop when a government tells them no as they will, or already have, stopped trusting the government. When those who have wrongful views can express themselves, it makes them known to the community and the community can help make it known that their view is not shared. It gives them a support network in the hope of them changing their wrong beliefs because you cannot beat it out of them. If not, they hate in secret...roil in secret...meet in secret...plan in secret...act in secret. Do you want that? Do you not want to be offended that badly?

I also hurt when wrong and hateful things are said and spread but as a student of history I know what can happen if speech is suppressed in the the name of conformity. It can be abused. Do you also want a person who tells the truth to be able to be silenced...arrested...disposed of? Having the right to not be offended is antithetic to democracy and is another form of zealotry.


Inspirational websites for this post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26815298

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World"

"As children tremble and fear everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear what is no more to be feared than things children in the dark hold in terror..."

Lucretis - On the Nature of Things ~60 BCE

Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" is an exceptional book. In a nutshell, it is a series of short chapters on the scientific process and how to instruct people about it, how science and wonder are not exclusive to one another but beneficial, why it and critical/skeptical thinking are important, problems that arise when it isn't, and ways to use them in everyday life and to improve our society. To me it articulates what I think, but the methods and facts he uses are more poignant and provide a better definitive justification of my viewpoints than I could give.

One of the best takeaway from this book is his baloney detection kit. The items in the kit are are:
-Independent confirmation of the facts presented.
-Encouraging debate on the evidence, by knowledgeable persons, from all points of view.
-Arguments from authority have little weight in of themselves.
-Think of all the ways a thing can be explained, test each one, and remove that which can be disproved or cannot be proved. The remaining answers are the most likely explanation.
-Never get attached to a hypothesis just because it is your hypotheses. Always compare it fairly to the options.
-Quantify (use multiple methods of analysis) because something vague and based only on its quality is open to other explanations.
-If there is a chain to an argument then every chain must stand up to inquiry.
-Occam's Razor; if there are two equally valid explanations then the simpler one should be chosen.
-Ask if it the results can be falsified and if so, then they are not worth your time without independent verification of evidence.

A great quote, one of many, used in the book is from Morris Cohen: "To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the results of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important difference between an establishment that is open and invites everyone to come, study its methods, and suggests improvement, and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of heart...Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith."

There is much in this book that can defend against what I fear, the use of zealotry to overthrow democracy for no other reason than power and control over others.  Highly recommended.

Wisdom Without Zealotry - Chauvinism or Ultra-Nationalism

"There is a fuzzy but real distinction that can and I believe should be made, between patriotism, which is attachment to a way of life, and nationalism, which is the insistence that your way of life deserves to rule over other ways of life." Todd Gitlin

Due to recent ultra-nationalism, especially in the United States, I was agog as to why people were thinking the way they are. In particular, the protest by NFL players against racism, and unequal treatment due to race, in the United States. The action of taking a knee or linking arms is emotionally considered by some as a spit in the eye for the flag, country, veterans, military, president, government...fill in the blank. These offended persons also feel personally attacked by the NFL players, and demand action and justice.

I was researching a good word to describe the "offense" being taken by persons on the news and online. That is when I discovered the actual definition of the word "chauvinism" and please keep the below in mind during the rest of this post. The definition is:

1. Exaggerated or aggressive nationalism or,
2. Excessive patriotism or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own group, cause, or gender.

Other words used to describe chauvinism are jingoism, excessive patriotism, blind patriotism, sectarianism, flag-waiving, isolationism, xenophobia, racism, partisanship, bias, discrimination, bigotry, and sexism.

Back to the example of the NFL. Firstly, these "victims" fail to consider the NFL players are protected under the United States first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and 

to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Secondly, they also do not consider why the NFL players are on the field during the United States anthem either, which only started in 2009 for primetime games but it existed for non-primetime games for decades before this. For primetime games, players used to do as they wished: in the locker rooms getting ready, receiving last minute tactics, getting pep talks...etc. There was no protests for not standing or being on the field for the anthem during primetime games before 2009. During 2009, the NFL received funds from the department of defense and at the same time the NFL told teams the players had to be on the field during the anthem during primetime games. A coincidence perhaps, but it does make it seem the teams and the NFL were paid to be patriotic, a foul thing.

Thirdly, some of the "victims" then say that the NFL players are employees, have to do what their bosses say, and should be told to stand for the National Anthem as good employees. In the public rulebook of the NFL, it says "should" not "shall" for the national anthem. Therefore this stance by the "victims" is otherwise known as the "do what I say and shut up" method of discourse by the "offended" because further thought from the "offended" would lead one to conclude that if the NFL or employees were told to stand, they could successfully sue using the first amendment as a defense.

Discourse is not what these "victims" want, as the quote alluded to at the beginning. They want "my country, right or wrong" mentality. Forcing others to be the people you want them to be is not democracy, and thinking you can is another form of zealotry. Be mindful of it. Confront it. Dispel it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/sep/25/short-history-national-anthem-and-sports/
http://time.com/4955704/nfl-league-rulebook-a62-63-national-anthem-rule/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism

Wisdom without Zealotry - Propaganda

"We have now sunk to a depth at which
the restatement of the obvious
is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell

 

Question. What have you read, seen, or listened to recently that you have identified as biased? What is bias? It is: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. How does a person or group push their prejudice to the masses? Through propaganda. Propaganda is defined as: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Synonyms of propaganda include: spin, disinformation, counter-information, hype, alternative facts.

Why am I speaking about bias and propaganda? Because it is out there, on the left and right. "What?!?", some might say, "My side does not have bias nor does it lie and spread propaganda." Well, they do but it is especially heinous and disturbing when spread by the zealous left and right. By the zealous learned and uneducated. By those who are self-delusional. We all deep down want to be correct and acknowledged as such by others. It takes an acceptance of our ability to make errors in order to admit we are wrong. 

A zealot also redoubles their efforts to defend their views through further delusion, when confronted with facts, statistics, and truth. They will go through the gamut of denial, or F.L.I.C.C until their brain feels the sanctity of their delusion is intact and rewards the brain with a hit of dopamine. Seriously, that's how it works.

Here is what F.L.I.C.C means:
     F=Fake experts
     L=Logical fallacies (Red herring, Misrepresentation, Jumping to conclusions, False dichotomy)
     I=Impossible expectations
     C=Cherry picking
     C=Conspiracy theories

I present a transcription of the youtube video of the person who created it, John Cook.

“Firstly, fake experts are used to create the impression of an ongoing scientific debate. The general public rely on expert opinion as a guide for their own beliefs about science. For this reason, casting doubt on a scientific consensus is a key strategy for those looking to manufacture doubt about the science. Fake experts appear to be highly qualified but don’t have actual expertise in the relevant scientific field […] Number two is logical fallacies. These are logically false arguments that lead to an invalid conclusion. […] The third characteristic of science denial involves impossible expectations. This demands unrealistic standards of proof before acting on the science. […] Fourth, there’s cherry picking, which focuses on specific pieces of data, often out of context, while excluding any data that conflicts with the desired conclusion. […] Fifth and finally, when someone disagrees with an overwhelming scientific consensus, there is always the resort to conspiracy theories. How else would you explain that all the world’s experts, scientific organizations, and journals agree on something you disagree with?” For more on John Cook, go here to his website on skeptical climate science. So now that you know this, stop yourself before you fall into these traps or recognize them as they occur. Then you can cease your own illogical bias and the spreading of false facts. 

Also analyze what does the person or group, that spreads the misinformation have to gain. This data can be the key to the deconstruction of those lies made by those who emotionally cling to them or use for their own gain. 

Now back to propaganda, its out there and hard to counter because you don't know how far it has spread. All of us are responsible to stamp out propaganda and call it what it is. Some have made the effort and are making strides in their fields, like a group of climate scientists who decided to analyze the 38 papers that are the most referenced by climate change deniers. What they found was not extraordinary. Those 38 papers cherry picked data (ignoring 6000 years of data in one instance), ignored basic scientific processes (blaming the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn without giving a reason why that would affect climate in another), or don't agree with one another. This is contrary to the other 97-98% that do agree with the principles of climate change. 

I mentioned before that besides an emotional bias, there may be something else to gain. This comic explains it nicely. 

So if you see something wrong, analyze yourself so that you know you are not clinging to something emotively, then analyze the thing for what it is and what it is attempting to achieve. Nip that propaganda in the bud and spread the truth of the matter.

Wisdom without Zealotry - Morality and Ethics...Which is best?

“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

What determines what is good? Bad? What determines morality? Is it the same as ethics? Some think we get these things from a creator being. Some think it is innate. Some say it is society. Some say all are correct and others are unsure. What do you think?

Firstly ethics and morality are commonly viewed to be the same thing. The truth is different enough to be discussed.

Ethics is hard to pin down even with a dictionary. The Oxford dictionary says it is:

1. Moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity. Moral correctness of specified conduct.

2. The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Morality in the Oxford dictionary is defined as:

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. A particular system of values and principles of conduct. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

So morality is a set of principles, a system of values, the extent to which a thing is right or wrong. Ethics are moral principles, govern a person’s behavior, govern conduct of an activity, is the moral correctness of specified conduct, a branch of knowledge dealing with moral principles. Sounds like we cannot have ethics without morality.

Or can we? Which principles? Which values? What is right and wrong? Who decides? Perhaps empathy can be our guide. Is it empathy for other beings that let you know when to stop doing a harmful act? Is it a lack of empathy, and associated dehumanization, that leads to wrongful activity? Is empathy innate in most human beings going through a normal life? Can a need that overcomes their empathy cause people to commit wrongful acts? Sounds like empathy for others can help determine what is right and wrong in normal circumstances.

But can we say empathy is ethical, moral, or both ethical and moral? First let’s go back to the definitions but ask a few questions. Is empathy (substituting it for morality in the given definition) a set of principles, a system of values, the extent to which a thing is right or wrong? It does not fit for the statements except for the last one; it does help a person determine the extent to which a thing is right or wrong. Is empathy (substituting it for ethics in the given definition) moral principles, govern a person’s behavior, governs conduct of an activity, moral correctness of specified conduct, or a branch of knowledge dealing with moral principles. Many of the points do fit right in. Empathy should govern a person’s behavior. Empathy should govern conduct of an activity. Empathy should determine the correctness of specified conduct. As Confucius said, “What you would not have done to oneself, do not do to others”. It seems that empathy is more closely linked to ethics than it does for morality.

Let’s talk about morality for a bit. So what sets principles, a system of values, and determines the extent to which a thing is right or wrong? The laws of nations do. So do rules in religions. Organizations and movements also set do’s and don’t. Does that mean laws, religions, organizations and movements claim to be moral? Yes. Are they always empathetic? No, but they do say what is right and what is wrong, use those rules to determine what is moral to them, and determine how people under them should conduct themselves.

So what about ethics? I think it is a more civic term rather than the same as morality and by civic I mean an ideal goal for a society. You want the citizens around you to follow their empathy…their desire to care for others as they themselves would want to be cared for. You do not want a set of laws and rules determined by any group that disregards the raw desire to do what is good and right in order to do what is not good or right for others. Therefore, I propose, in order for everyone to get along you have to strip away all of the tenets, beliefs and obligations that dictate morals and morality. That is because they are specific to the religion, organization, and movement that utilize and promote them. This will get to the core of what a democracy needs to be: treatment of human beings as equal and not to promote harm or hindrance against them unless they themselves disregard these rights in other beings. Sure someone could have an anti-democratic un-ethical viewpoint in this society but they cannot force that morality/belief to change a law or governing principle. They cannot harm or hinder another based on that morality/belief. People should have the freedom to act like jerks but not change government to be an anti-democratic jerk, one who is neither empathetic nor ethical.

On a side note, a nation’s laws are one of the things that can overlap morality and ethics. It can have roots in a moral past with historical and/or religious traditions but those principles should pass the ethical or empathetic test for it to be valid in a democratic society. Not all laws are like that. They are the first things to be changed or made by zealous religions, organizations and movements that think they are moral but are actually unethical and lack regard for their fellow human beings. That is something we must be on the lookout for us to retain our common wisdom. 

One does not have to join a zealous group or following to be an ethical person. Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes zealotry.

Inspiration

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/01/13/Research-suggests-morality-can-survive-without-religion/6411452715270/?spt=sec&or=sn

Five Steps to Tyranny

Reddit Thread: Atheists have What I Call True Morality

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Wisdom without Zealotry - Fragmentation and Isolation

 “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell

How fortunate are we who have choice in our world. We can choose the food we eat, the entertainment we consume, ideals we follow, and the goals we wish to strive for. In the modern world many wonders have been created for the masses. The fortunate in this world are not starved for choice.

Or are we?

What tribe do you belong to? The left? The right? Capitalist? Socialist? Muslim? Christian? Rock? Country?

Do the words of your tribe define you? Do they make it convenient to put you in a convenient box for others to identify? To build a common structure with other like-minded boxes? Does this make it easier for others to attack those structures? What role does the internet play in this tribe mentality?

Computers can help you with the goal of defining you like no other tool before. Have you not noticed that you will have articles, products or other websites recommended to you? Did you notice that those recommendations become more specific over time? The web browser in your computer is helping to make it convenient to define you and put you in an easily identifiable box. The box of the tribes you belong to. It does this through your web browser history and the cookies that are saved for each site you visit that use them. These websites you visit and products you pick builds up that box just a little bit more. It also makes it easier to give you what you want. It makes it convenient.


Because eventually you will be seeing articles, products and websites that make it seem the world was built for you. It will allow you to have conversations with more like-minded people. Everything will be great.

It makes you feel safe.

And then that jerk wanders in. The one that does not share your views and does not have the same box that you have...they are not of the same tribe. They are the other.

Now you feel unsafe. Your world view is threatened. You want them to get them away from you and the place you have made. Your box is under siege.

Do you lash out? Do you convert? Do you unfriend them or block them? Do you isolate yourself? Do you then seek out only news and information that supports your tribe and world view? Do you seek it out even though it is fake or extreme? Do you claim the other is a lesser being than you thereby making it easier to demonize them? Dehumanize them? Commit acts of hate and violence against them?

Does this not make you more fanatical? More zealous?

Or do you learn? Do you grow? Do you step out of your box to look around? To examine your own box and tribe? Gain wisdom?

Take a breath and dwell on this: Is there anything wrong in going down a road that you know what to expect every single time? It will certainly get to where you want to go but you will never see other paths that will take you to the same place. Maybe it will take you to a worse place but then you will know not to take it in the future. Maybe it will take you to a better place.

If we stay in our boxes, that look like the box everyone else has around us, we will never grow. Never learn. You may hate others that think and act differently. You may never ask them why they like what they like and hate what they hate. You will never know the path that took them there. The reasons for taking that path. You will never start the conversation for mutual understanding. For living together in our society.

I'm not saying that we have to adopt other people's viewpoint but perhaps we can see the world from their position. Walk a mile in their shoes. They are the way they are for a reason and understanding the root of that reason may help them and help you move forward to improve things for all, or at least as many as possible. By doing that, we grow in wisdom a little bit each time because of the efforts we have made.

Is it hard to make the effort? Not really. We have to clear our browser history and cookies in our computer and do the same to our minds. Look at things not with blinders or filters but with open minds and ears. Remove the confirmation bias from the equation. If we do not, we will remain in our tribes...our boxes...and not understand others who are not the same. Dislike and hate those who are not us.

Don't be the fanatic or the zealot. For the fanatic is one who won't change their mind and won't change the subject. Be the wise one.

Inspiration
Wired: Echo Chamber
News Truthiness Graphic

Wisdom Without Zealotry - Feelings, Opinions, and Dopamine

There can be great differences in what a person feels is true and if that feeling is actually truthful. This is because feelings are based on emotion, and facts are based in logic. It is perfectly possible that both the feeling and the truth are the same but if the feeling is not true it is difficult to have a person understand that it is false. I will explain, using some knowledge gained from an exceptional book, The Righteous Mind, and other sources.

Feelings are sometimes used to armor up opinions to give them more weight and value. Someone might say that X and Y are facts and that they are not debatable; but the opinion is actually just a feeling to the person who said it. Not fact. When opinions/feelings are factually wrong it will be hard to sway the person who said them and no amount of evidence will convince the group who is feeling they are right to acknowledge reason. They are not processing the new information because of strong feelings about the "truth" of a claim. The more zealous the person the more entrenched they will be. This is because the brain or kidneys may be rewarding the brain/body pathways with dopamine when it keeps the armor up on a very strong opinion/feeling. In order to change it, their feelings have to change and/or they have to understand the evidence and/or they have to see their feelings for what they are; emotion rather than logic.

Feelings are personal. They are closely held viewpoints on topics that can range from politics and religion to cooking and child rearing. One can never argue against a feeling because the person who has them is invested in that viewpoint regardless of its truth or untruth. They will defend it and the more strongly they feel it to be true, the more likely they will want to be rewarded with a hit of dopamine. The key to identifying if someone is arguing from a feeling is to determine if the statement is valid for the person who has it (or a small group) but is not valid for a neutral observer. Remember that this may not be yourself if you feel very strongly in the extreme opposite (Be objective, B..E..objective). That will help with the next step...

Patience is required in dealing with feelings. Remember that you can never tell a person that their feeling or opinion is wrong because you are not them. It will cause them to rationalize their stance and potentially release dopamine when they are successful, if it is a very strong stance. It is addictive and may cause the person to be even more extreme to hold onto their emotional stance to maintain their hit. Remember that they came to that feeling/opinion based on a lifetime of experiences. You can help them analyze the whys and wherefores of how they came to that viewpoint.  By doing so you offer new viewpoints while reassuring them on their current ones so as to not shut them away from you.

Use a phrase like, "I understand that you feel this way because of your experiences. You feel that X and Y are the way they are because of Z. I have had different experiences and do not see them as being connected. Why am I wrong?". This has less of a chance of driving them further down the rabbit hole while keeping them engaged. It also helps them verbally describe why they feel their stance is right.

Ensure you keep them on topic because if they drift off topic it may be that they sense their original viewpoint is changing. They might say something that will reinforce their viewpoint to get the hit of dopamine.

People can also change their own minds independently and usually occurs with an emotional response to a new experience.

In conclusion offering other viewpoints, evidence and logical points through calm and patient dialogue and reassurance can help others realize their feelings are not truth. Do not be overtly confrontational, as an emotional response on your part will invoke one on theirs. Finally, realize that you could be the one that has the emotional stance and are wrong. The wise man calls themselves a fool at least once a month.

References not listed above:

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/a-guide-to-arguing-with-a-snopes-denier-6384551

Wisdom without Zealotry - Giving to Charities

Giving is one of those universal activities that make a person feel great. Biologically the brain releases chemical componds to reward ourselves when we do something that reinforce our viewpoint. The question is: Do we do enough thinking about to whom we are giving? I do not mean if we should give or not. That is a question you should ask yourself based on your circumstances. This post is rather on the whole process of giving: is the charity we are giving to a good one, does it solve the condition it was created to help, and is there another way of helping a charity.

Knowing if the charity is a good one might seem easy. There are lots of websites of organizations who investigate and do the research on charities, some even cost money to use (which is odd). Charity Intelligence from Canada is one but the best advice I have read is to volunteer for the one you are interested in. By volunteering you are seeing the inner workings of that charity and seeing how effective it is, plus you are helping them as you do so. So do research to the level you can.

There are lots of "feel good" charities out there but do they help solve the condition they were created for. By "feel good" I mean those charities where there is lots of flash and glam, possibly with items given to you in exchange for donation money, and that the emphasis is on being seen to help. If you donate a $10 minimum and you get a T-shirt that costs $4 to make that says you donated to charity X, would it have not been better to give $10 and not accept the T-shirt? Perhaps you could donate more to increase the difference in the amount of money spent and raised? Some charities have been more showy for little results. All the pink being worn in the NFL, with thier official products, has raised no money for cancer research. Money raised through the NFL pink drive goes to funding for awareness, education, and screenings. It is a tiny fraction of $10 billion the NFL makes each year. Lots of showy pink for little gained but it looks impressive, therefore we feel good. Why not ensure the charity you are donating, solves the condition it was created to help: directly to good medical research, giving jobs or micro loans to the poor, mosquito nets, water pumps, solar heating devices...whatever. Go with results not fluff.

Lastly is there other ways to help charities? Why not donate your skillset? In 2013, Toyota donated the time of thier engineers to help a New York food kitchen, food pantry, and food bank. They looked at what they were doing and came up with solutions to maximize efficiency. Wait times for meals were cut to 18 minues rater than up to 90. Times to get food to the needy and make food boxes were also cut down. Thier time and expertise helped the organization help others, even after they left. What is your skillset? Are you a carpenter who can build or repair something? An electrician who can set up lighting? Do you have bookeeping skills? All these things can help a charity in more ways than a monetary donation can.

Doing research head of time you will be prepared for when someone comes to your front door or calls you (often part of an organization that takes a big cut of the money raised). I would advise to not blindly give your money and personal information, no matter how much chemical compounds are released into the brain. Make your efforts count.

References
http://www.smartgiving.ca/
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/cntct/nfrmtn-eng.html

Wisdom Without Zealotry - Lack of Awarness of Surroundings

There are a few steps to bettering yourself:
1. Knowing yourself;
2. Knowing your goal;
3. Knowing where you are at now compared to your goal;
4. Knowing what you need to achieve your goal; and
5. Moving to your goal.

I have realised over time, and particular during the holiday season, that many people have no idea about the special asterisk in steps three above: awareness of their surroundings. It is the key to not being an ass in life. You see a great example of this when shopping. People know they want the things on a list, acknowledge that is the goal, know where they are, how to get to the places they need to get to and go to them. They do not see beyond the pinprick circle of vision they have in front of them. They do not know that they are blocking the isle with their cart. They do not know that they are blocking traffic. Don't acknowledge the world around them.

It irks me because part of any journey to a destination is the journey itself. Sure the end goal is important but how you get there is as, if not more, important. Its how you made the decisions, the sweat, the learning and helping along the way. People can be so focused on the goal that they miss that and therefore miss the lessons along the way that can improve yourself.

When travelling with my spouse or on my own, I generally have an itinerary and try to stick to it. I also incorporate a little fudge factor. This is not to exclusively be ready for any difficulties that may arise but also to look around as I'm getting to the next place. To live in the moment and see what can be seen. Experience the wonderful world around me.

Therefore, the next time you are heading to your goal, try to be more aware of your surroundings. Not only will those around you be more appreciative as you go on your journey but you will also learn and experience more. You might just be suprised what you see.

Wisdom Without Zealotry - Same Sex Marriage

A vocal portion in the United States are arguing against making it legal for another portion of the population to have the same rights and privileges as themselves; namely same sex marriage. Sounds weird as America has been touted the land of the free...the place of equality and liberty. It appears that this vocal portion would rather have a system where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others...the others they don't like.

Under the rule of Voltaire (I may abhor what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it) I must permit them to say what they feel using bizarro world logic and emotion. It is when that vocal portion uses religion to determine law, that I have have a problem.

 

Its not difficult to exclude the writings of religion from being used exclusively to make laws, as religion does not have that right in an egalitarian democracy. To dance around using religion as a reason, or in some instances outright declaring it as the reason, this vocal portion says it is against "traditional marriage". This is laughable as I'm not sure which of the many forms of marriage that is depicted in the bible that they are referring to as "traditional" and which their biblical god is ok with. For example:

Monogamy in Titus 1:6
Polygamy: Abraham and David and loads of others.
Same Sex relationship: David and Johnathan, Ruth and Niomi and David and Ashpenaz (1 and 2 Samuel, Ruth and Daniel 1:9)
Male Adultery: Its alright for a married man to have sex with unmarried women (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17)
Rape: The female victim must be forced to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Marrying Sister-in-law: A man must marry his sister-in law when she becomes a widow regardless if he is married or not (Deuteronomy 25:5-10, Genesis 38, Ruth 2-4)
Celibacy in Corinthians 7:8 and 28
Castrating yourself "for the kingdom" (Matthew 19:12)
Forbidding marrying foreign women (Erza 10:2-11)

And here...

(image from an article on The biblical world website.)

There are also the ones described in the image above. They are all "traditional" if the vocal portion against same-sex marriage use the bible as their guidebook for defining it. The bible also says slavery and stoning people who work on Sundays are alright and we do not practice either of those two things in democracies. Only in theocracies.

There is a last point. A logical point using the old and new testaments of the bible. If you were in charge of a group of people who you viewed as special and wanted their bloodline to carry on, you might want rules and laws forbidding anything that could interfere with that. These laws and rules would prevent same sex relations and would promote any other relationship that would make more babies. After a while you sacrifice a part of yourself to yourself to forgive everyone from the sin you didn't stop them from committing in the garden when the project started. Now everyone can get down with worshipping you, not just those of a particular bloodline. The rules you made against a man laying down with another man no longer applies to proliferation of your special people. Now...what does it matter that two people who want to spend the rest of their living lives with each other and also want to be legally recognized for it by the government?

I do not expect those who base their decisions and outlook on life by emotion and outdated writings, rather than logic, to change their mind immediately. The above two things can at least get them thinking that the reasons why they think it are false. And many religious groups that accept same sex marriage so do not label them all with the same brush of disappointment.

References
Patheos.com
Religious Tolerance.org and here
rebjef.com

Wisdom without Zealotry - Cults

Are you in a cult? Do you know anyone in a cult? Are cults harmful? What is a cult?

According to many websites, it generally is any religion or social organization with bizarre or unusual practises and beliefs.

According to the Oxford dictionary from 1952 is: A system of religious worship; devotion, homage, to person or thing. Fairly innocent and can be applicable to many things and does not sound harmful.

The modern definition has changed and is located on the Oxford dictionary website:

1.1 A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object;

1.2  A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members;

1.3 A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing. 

2  A person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.

So using the above definitions, are you in a cult?

Combining the first and the forth sub-definitions, many of my friends enjoy things that might be labelled as a devotion or homage to a person or thing in a particular group or section of society, but it is not religious. I know lots of who are proud of their knowledge of their section of the geek empire but I would not say it is misplaced or excessive (third sub-definition).Cultish but not excessive. For most

Looking at the first definition, religious veneration and devotion directed towards a figure or object is not harmful in and of itself. Many families and friends are devoted to one another and this is not harmful unless emotion rules over logic (for instance defending a sibling who committed a crime and you know they committed this crime). The religious part can potentially be harmful, especially if the religion is based on total unquestioning faith with no logic and can have at its core strange and imposing excessive control with misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing.

In my opinion, it is the second and third definitions that make a cult harmful. In particular, the imposing of excessive control over members and misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing combined seems like a recipe for disaster.

It is the excessive devotion to beings that are immaterial and themselves ineffectual that I am concerned about. People who follow a person or being that tells them to hate and kill in their name. I feel that definition 1.2 should have the word small removed.

So where does the wisdom in this post come from? It is by acknowledging that a cult exists, that it is potentially harmful, and can it be left behind.

-Knowing a thing is a cult. It creates a target for your efforts to be rid of it. Knowing can lead to...

-Analyzing if the cult is harmful. This can be based on time spent on it, harmful influence or interaction, money or a host of other things. If you know a thing can be a cult and don't like what it is doing to your life then you...

-Plan to leave the cult activity behind you and do it. Get help to do this, especially if it was an activity that consumed your life and time. It will be hard but others have done so before. Once you are no longer influenced by the cult activity...

-Remind yourself of what you were like before. This will be what hurts the most but retrospection will help you not repeat returning to that activity. Same as an old scar. If you received it doing a stupid act, it is a wake-up call to not do it again.

In conclusion: know the warning signs, determine the harm, plan to leave it behind and do it, then remind yourself where you were before the activity.

Wisdom without Zealotry - Questions

One of the most powerful tools we have to determine truth, and therefore wisdom, is to ask questions. Not all questions are as useful as others and not all people you are talking to understand the topic you wish to know about.

When talking to someone with a logical viewpoint and rational way of talking about it, it is perfectly permissible to ask pointed questions. That way you come to an understanding of a subject. Questions could be: Why is X like Y? In what way did Z become that way? Explain the process of that?

This is true dealing with personal topics when talking with a logical and rational person: What is the history behind the writing of this religious text? Why does this stereotype exist? What are the cultural and historical reasons for behaving this way?

This changes when dealing with persons who speak from emotion and/or dogma. From a familiarity with a subject rather than an understanding of it. They feel something is a certain way. They believe it is a certain way. As mentioned in my last post on this topic, feelings and beliefs are not facts and also may be false. They do not mean an understanding on a subject but a familiarity on it. Familiarity, feelings and beliefs can get in the way of understanding and wisdom.

Since it is very hard to get an emotional person to speak on the root of a topic, they must be treated carefully. The background of their familiarity is based upon their gut or upbringing or basic knowledge, not their mind. It is reactive knowledge. For both of you to reach the point of gaining understanding and wisdom on a subject one is emotional about, you have to ask the right questions. There are two ways of doing this:

1. Why do you feel this way, and what are the steps that led to that belief? This sets up the conversation to start on the right foot. You are immediately indicating you want to learn why and are offering the other person to explain it to you and they will want to tell you. Just be sure to ask the other person to define things they talk about during their explanation: stereotypes, faith, racism, belief, death, soul, contrails, aliens... whatever. They might have a different definition than the commonly accepted one and you will better be able to understand their why if you know how they define things. Also never say that something said is wrong. You cannot say that a feeling is wrong because it is a familiarity with the truth, not an understanding of it. It will also shut them down to further conversation. By keeping things open and comfortable, you can determine the reason why they think their feeling and familiarity on a topic is right.

2. Don't allow the person to change topics. People who base their facts on feelings have a lot to say about related topics too. Wait for an opportune time to interrupt them, paraphrase what they have said (to let them know you have been listening), and tell them that you do not understand how it answers the original topic. Its a lot better than telling them they are avoiding the topic. Perhaps they are but don't want you to know they cannot answer. At least if they are doing this often, you know they are starting to realize that what they thought was fact is actually a feeling, not an understanding.

These two simple things can get to the heart of matters that a person believes is true and get to the root of the problem; why are not thinking for themselves, why are they empathizing what others want them to feel, why are they locking down their mind. Few organized groups who only have basic familiarity on a subject ask people to think for themselves why something is the way it is and fewer still ask them to think on how to make it better. This is especially true of religions where divergence from the status quo is a higher form of heresy than their basic rules.

One of my basic rules for when someone tells me something odd is "Trust but verify". Ask them why they feel this way and don't let them stray from the original topic. Perhaps pull out your cell phones or go to the library. There is a big world of people who are smarter than me if I have a want for understanding and wisdom. If I do have an understanding of the topic, then I try to use the above two methods to bring the person I am talking with to the realization that they were working on familiarity of a topic and not an understanding of it. Helping a person achieve understanding from within is always better than dictating to them.

Oh, and happy Eostre.