Stupidity and Intelligence

Today, I have been musing on what makes people act in a stupid manner.

I know what intelligent actions involve-prayer, reflection, rational discourse, using the gifts of the Holy Spirit given in confirmation, getting advice from a spiritual director, reading, studying the Faith, doing penance.

Intelligence involves the entire person being focused on using the gifts at hand to learn the Faith and use it daily.

We are all made in the image and likeness of God, and the intellectual gift of thinking and decision making using will power-the will being one way we are like God, the other being our freedom and the third, which is the likeness, is grace.

I have written much on grace, so follow the tags, but using one's intellectual capacity to the fullest potential defines being human.

So, what makes people stupid and what does it mean to be stupid?

Second definition first-stupidity is dullness of mind, ignorance, and even obtuse, or stubbornness.

What makes people freely chose to be dull, ignorant and stubborn is, simply, sin.

Stupidity grows out of many sins, in fact, and here is an incomplete list:

lust
sloth
greed
anger
pride
gluttony
envy.....

I hope you recognize these as the seven deadly sins.

Lust consumes the imagination with false idolatry, thus making people dull of mind. Intemperance of thought, such as curiosity, and the chasing of emotional religious experience, are rooted in lust.

Sloth stops growth, makes one give up on holiness and ignores the virtue of studiosity.

Greed consumes one with false gods of money, things, status, power, making one into a beast instead of a thinking human being.

Anger brings about unforgiveness, rash judgements, prejudices, and intemperance, allowing the mind to dwell upon real or imagined hurts.

Pride creates an entire false world by which a person judges everything but themselves. Pride also dulls the mind, the soul, one's conscience.

Gluttony absolutely makes one stupid, as intemperance in food and drink slow down the thought processes and make a person dwell on satisfaction and comfort rather than study or reflection. Those who spend too much time on eating and drinking have little time or inclination for study.

Envy stops mental acuity by causing a person to dwell upon what others have and what others do. Envy causes shallow thinking and gossip, leading a person away from reflection and prayer.

I add fear to this list, as fear deadens the intellect. Fear makes a person fall back into the morass of negative emotions, protection, paranoia and self-preservation, all which stop intellectual growth.

Sin causes stupidity. Not facing and eliminating one's predominant fault causes stupidity. Refusing to follow the wisdom of the ages of Church guidance regarding holiness causes stupidity.

Wanting one's own way over and over and over is just plain stupid.

I incorporate the ideas of an old post to reveal how one can break out of stupidity. Humility is the answer.



Sunday, 22 July 2012

Perfection Series: Our Predominant Fault Two

Posted by Supertradmum

Newark Cathedral in England has some amazing stained glass. The Seven Deadly Sins plus one, 

show that the Medievals were being taught what we moderns have forgotten--that sin binds us to 

Satan and death.

Garrigou-Lagrange states that "it is of primary importance that we recognize our predominant 

fault and have no illusions about it. This is is so much the more necessary as our adversary, the 

enemy of our soul, knows it quite well and makes use of it to stir up trouble in and about us. In the 

citadel of our interior life, which is defended by the different virtues, the predominant fault is the weak spot, undefended by the theological and moral virtues." 

On this picture above,  Envy and Pride are depicted. 

Most of the characters have chains.


Many times we forget who is out to claim us for hell.

Lust and Sloth (who has beads) point to the need for deep, persistent prayer, as do all the other Deadly Sins. Garrigou-Lagrange writes that we must ask God, seek Him, for enlightenment as to one's predominant fault. We must ask him to remove the fault, help us to cooperate with Him is purification. We must be serious about our personal daily examinations of conscience.

What is really tricky is that the fault may seem like a virtue.

He gives us these questions to ask ourselves: "Toward what do my most ordinary preoccupations 

tend, in the morning when I awake, or when I am alone? Where do my thoughts and desires go spontaneously?"

For the sake of our souls, we must be brutally honest with ourselves.

Here is a great question from the Dominican: "What is generally the cause or source of my sadness and joy? What is the general motive of my action, the ordinary origin of my sins...a succession of sins or a state of resistance to grace, notably when this resistance persists for several days and leads me to omit my exercises of piety?" On the right, we see Violence and Gluttony. I would think that Gluttony is one of the most prevalent of the Deadly Sins in the West. That Violence is obvious in certain countries indicates certain people have this fundamental, predominant sin.

If we deny something which someone else points out, it is probably our dominant fault fighting to 

remain hidden to our consciousness. We need grace. We need God.

Satan watches us. He hears us speak. He knows our predominant fault and uses temptations to lead 

us to yet another sin. And, here is the big point, quoting St. John 8:34, made by Garrigou-Lagrange.

"Whosoever committeth sin 

is the servant of sin."

Also, quoting Thomas Aquinas, 

the author states "Every man 

judges of what is good according to his good or evil interior dispositions."


The good priest gives us the example of how the predominant fault becomes our greatest virtue. He shows the text revealing the anger and vengeance of St. John, who later in life, wrote the most beautiful passages on love. 

The "son of anger" became the 

poet and apostle of love. Wrath and Avarice on the right from Newark show contorted souls. Notice 

again the chains.

We have much work to do. Let us pray for good spiritual directors, holy wives and husbands, excellent companions in monasteries and convents, and holy friends to point out our worst flaw and to work on 

the remedy.

For the sake of our souls...to be continued.

News from SPUC

News, Doctors' open letter against assisted suicide welcomed by SPUC Pro-Life

London, 24 August 2015: An open letter from almost 90 doctors against the Marris bill to legalise assisted suicide has been welcomed by SPUC Pro-Life www.spuc.org.uk a leading anti-euthanasia organisation.

The letter was published today by The Telegraph ("Pressure to end lives", 24 Aug 2015)

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC Pro-Life, commented: "The doctors oppose the bill out of concern for the vast majority of people who, despite their difficulties, do not want to end their lives prematurely.  This is a very important statement, and we encourage people to draw their MPs’ attention to it in the run-up to the 11 September debate on the Marris bill."

The doctors, who include GPs and palliative care specialists working with people near the end of life, recognise the challenges that this area of medicine involves.  They point, however, to the widespread problems that changing the law to accommodate the demands of 'right-to-die' advocates would bring.

Mr Tully continued: "We are also concerned that doctors who do not wish to help people commit suicide will have little scope to opt-out. The bill is based on Lord Falconer's bill of the same name, which includes wording based on the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. That clause has recently been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a very narrow exemption.  In the case of assisted suicide, a doctor may be required to sign the declaration required before a patient is given a lethal dose, whether or not the doctor has a profound moral objections to assisting in suicide."

For more detailed comments or an interview with Paul Tully, please contact Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's Media Manager, on:

• mobile 07939 177683
• direct dial landline 020 7820 3129
• email news@spuc.org.uk
• Twitter @spucprolife

To subscribe to SPUC's email information services, please visit www.spuc.org.uk/em-signup. The reliability of the news herein is dependent on that of the cited sources, which are paraphrased rather than quoted. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the society. © Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 2015

Working on new blog....

...be back tomorrow.

A war of civilization--yes, of course, Catholics know this....

http://www.france24.com/en/20150630-face-off-france-terrorism-valls-factory-attacks-yassin-salih-war-civilisation

and this is very cool

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/world/europe/france-train-attack-legion-of-honor.html?_r=0

And tourists and holidaymakers on Lesbos are helping the thousands of immigrants fleeing Syria daily.

God bless them. We here simply do not seem to care....

Blog News

Hopefully, by Wednesday at the latest, the new blog will be in place. After much discussion with my computer-blog adviser, I have decided to use the same name.

However, the format will be changed, as I noted, and the topic more narrow. The forum will start at the same time. Again, if you know any women who are married to Catholic priests, tell them about the new forum.

Watch this space in the next 24 hours for developments.

No surprises, except I thought it would happen in September

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/855d2014-4a30-11e5-b558-8a9722977189.html#axzz3jh03ktdg

Cult vs. Community

Many years ago, I was fortunate to be a member of a solid, lay community. For almost seven years, I got up and prayed with my companions, a house of fourteen in a community of two-thousand, worked at various jobs, and even worked full-time for a while for the community. I learned discipline, order, virtue training, and servanthood.

The community was outward looking, involved in many "ministries" which reached out to the very pagan community in which it was located. We had street ministry, coffee house ministry, youth and children catechesis, members working in parishes in RCIA and other ministries, and homosexual rescue ministry.

This community had one huge focus which brought us all together. We all loved Jesus Christ, and He was (and still is) the center of our lives.

Communities bring life to other people, evangelize, grow.

Cults are inward looking, centering on the members themselves, and become stagnant spiritually. Frequently, Catholic cults, and, yes, there are some, care more about the group than the people outside the group.

Yes, commitment was an important and necessary part of the community to which I belonged. We met daily in our small groups, weekly in groups of one-hundred, based on the Mosaic organization, and weekly in larger groupings, monthly with the entire community. One met with one's spiritual director once a week, or once every two weeks.

Ministries met to organize, plan, go out into the world to spread the love of Christ to all.

Cults just exist to feed themselves. And, cults usually believe things which are not Catholic, and even against Church teaching.

The sign that a person is in a cult rather than a community can be isolationism, or paranoia. Indeed, the cult defends its own position by turning the wagons inward, or by digging a moat and throwing alligators in the moat.

Not good.

Not healthy.

As people come together for protection and common support, one can follow two simple rules to "take the temperature" of the group and determine whether the group has fallen into the sickness of a cult, or is a healthy community.

Rule One, are the members orthodox and following the teachings of the Catholic Church, loyal to Rome and to the Magisterium?

Rule Two, are the members reaching out to others, spreading the Gospel, doing works of mercy both spiritual and material?

If one can answer "yes" to both questions, one has encountered a healthy community.

If one of the answers is "no", run the other way.

Years ago, I encountered a Catholic community which had one goal-to sustain itself and keep the community going. This community had become cultic, focusing inwardly on itself and its members and not reaching out. Not surprisingly, many of the members had deviated in their beliefs so that they no longer followed Church Teaching.

Cults can seem orthodox, until one speaks with members who begin to exhibit paranoia, exclusivity, pride. Orthodoxy means following the Church in teaching and in practice. Sadly, cults may be found at either extreme spectrum of schismatic ideas, both traditional and liberal.

A healthy community does not have members who are hiding from the world, but members who are trying to save souls.

Preaching the Gospel and saving souls is the call of every Catholic.

Christ gave us a command, not a suggestion when He said this:

Matthew 28:19 Douay-Rheims

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Each lay person is called to teach, to evangelize, to bring others to Christ. We are not called merely to protect ourselves from spiritual danger. 

A strong community does protect its members, but those members also must respond to the love of God for all people.

Learn the difference. To become a member of a cult will endanger your immortal soul.

Another sign of cultic behavior is liturgical rigorism. Those trads who do not believe the NO is valid have departed from Church teaching and have fallen into a cultic mindset. Rigorism is not the same as obedience to liturgical norms. Obedience to the Church's rules on liturgy, on ritual, is a virtue. Only attending a TLM on Sunday,and not attending Mass if only a NO is available is a mortal sin, and those who join together holding such a false idea have formed a cult.

Be careful, be honest, be open to others, be truly orthodox. love Christ above all, and be obedient.

Then, you will be in the loving arms of the Church and not in a cult.

See also

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2015/08/paranoia-vs-prep-and-ouroboros.html

A blog I follow....

http://ephesians511blog.com/2015/08/16/yoga-what-the-catechism-says/

A Re-Post from Another Blog: Rethinking The New Evangelization

Supertradmum on The Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma

    Sunday, 25 August 2013

Rethinking The New Evangelization

The call to new evangelization cannot be a static one. As Catholics, we have a duty to know our audience, 

our target groupings. And, I am convinced we are not addressing the youth of today in the mode which they need.

Too often, evangelization either is too banal, that is, watered down to the lowest common denominator; 

or it is an attempt to bring people out of serious sin by attacking the sins; or it is the speaking of Jesus as 

Saviour again outside of context of the larger perspective of what is means to be human and what it 

means to know a particular God.

I have been thinking about St. Augustine and his importance to our Catholic world today. He wrote in a similar 

time-the great destruction of a civilization which had endured for hundreds of years. He also bought a philosophical 

approach to all that chaos.

The Hebrews experienced much the same situation over and over and over. Either they were destroying old 

civilizations, or their own was being destroyed by whatever conqueror was the most powerful.

The reason for my ruminations is that we need, desperately, Catholic minds which can stop addressing the moral 

questions, stop addressing the ethical questions, and go back further to the basic questions of the existence of God 

and the nature of what it is to be human.

Now, obviously, we need the ethical discussion, so prominent among good Thomists, as Aquinas, like Aristotle, 

who dealt with vice, virtue, law and so on, but the world we are dealing with now is one of agnosticism and 

atheism. Those people deserve better discussions than what we have been able to give. Starting with morals 

is not the way to converse with atheists or agnostics, who lack a moral structure and may not even believe in one, 

except relativism. 

There are few great Catholic minds which can address the basic questions youth ask today. Here are a few of 

those questions. 

Is there a God?

What would be the meaning of being human?

What is the relationship between men and God?

Why are we here?

Do you ever doubt?

Why do you want to be a Catholic?

Augustine wrote his City of God in direct response to pagans, agnostics, and even atheists who were blaming 

Catholics for the fall of Rome. Hey, folks, this will happen again and I do not see the bright spark, a new Augustine, 

who can address the entire question of the nature of man, the City of God and the secular city in terms of basic 

principles. Phenomenology is too personalistic for this discussion. We need to revisit the Greeks, the Romans, 

all part of our heritage. We need to go back to the basics, or we shall continue to lose yet another generation.

Apologetics has been so slanted towards ethics, towards morality, that it has set aside the first principles. 

As humans and as Catholics, we must be able to discuss metaphysics at this level. Aristotle, Aquinas, 

the neo-Thomists, even educators, such as Montessori, all of whom are part of my mindset, my history, 

used the scientific method of rational discourse.

This is no longer accepted by many, and we cannot meet physicists, politicians, academics of any kind with 

language they no longer accept.

We must go back further. And, I do not mean Duns Scotus, who was more popular than Aquinas for a very long 

time. Nominalism is limited as well. We must go back and ask the basic questions of believing, of the 

supernatural, of God Himself. 

We must evangelize at this level, and not merely the moral or ethical one.

Those Millennials who ask the basic questions have no framework for morality because they have no philosophical 

framework. Benedict, the Pope Emeritus, was the man of the time, reminding us that Augustine was not only a 

theologian, but a philosopher. We need to look at him again in that light, and at those Doctors of the Church who 

helped the Church develop doctrine from the basic principles.

The reason we must think in different terms is that we are witnessing the chaos of the death of Western Civilization 

and to speak in any terms purely from moral or ethical viewpoints will not speak to the hearts of those completely 

at a loss, at sea in chaos.

That is what the Muslims do - speak only in ideological, so-called moral terms. This type of approach does not 

to the very essence of who a person is and who God is. Imposing law without the reasons for such begs the 

question of religion.

I read and hear too many high-ranking priests, bishops, theologians, especially moral theologians, who do not 

have the proper perspective of the problem of basic principles, because their own training was so limited. 

Try and find excellent philosophers in seminaries who are orthodox and can engage at this level of thinking.

When one answers the questions of who man is and Who God is, then the moral and ethical questions fall 

into place. 

I hope God raises up some great metaphysical minds in this era. I hope and pray that both clergy and laity can learn 

to evangelize from basic principles. 

When We Have Power

Lately, I have been struck by the number of Catholics, who like the fictitious action of the armadillo, curl-up into balls and refuse to deal with the evil around them.

We are heading for the greatest era of tribulation that Christians have ever seen. And, yet, we do not have to be passive against evil.

I simply do not understand passivity regarding evil.

The graces we receive in baptism are stronger than most evil people come against daily.

The trouble is that Catholics do not use the power which is given to them. Like a fairy who has a magic wand and puts it in a drawer, rather than using it, many, and perhaps, most Catholics, do not use the spiritual power given to them by God, in and through the sacraments of the Church.

Why?

I was discussing some evil in a neighborhood with a friend. A family who said the Auxilium Christianorum prayers daily as a family got rid of the evil within one month of beginning those prayers.

Why?

The father led his family into a spiritual battle with spiritual guns blazing. Satanic activities in a house, including witchcraft, ended when those people moved out one month after the Catholics began praying.

So, when people lament evil in their neighborhoods, like drug dealers, or gangs, why are they not getting together to pray against this?

Why no prayer groups?

Sloth, ennui, compromise, lack of faith?

We have great power as Catholics, Use it.

Stop complaining about evil and do something about it everywhere. Start with your families, your neighborhoods, your parishes.

God did not leave us orphans to be tossed about with a spiritual battle.

When we have power and do not use it, the results become our own fault. We have let evil have its day. We may lament and complain, but tolerance leads to more evil. Taking charge of one's own backyard in spiritual warfare is not only possible, but our responsibility, particularly that of men.

Christ said this:

Matthew 17:19-21 Douay-Rheims

19 Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.

20 But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

Of course, big spiritual problems, like poltergeist and possession, demand the action of an exorcist, but families, and especially groups of men, can take power over much more.

Try using the weapons God has given us all and see what happens.

Voice of Sanity Part IV

Part Two in Dr. Sanity's "strategies" is so good I decided to post this as well....you can look up Part One.

 APRIL 14, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part II : Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Ploys Used in Denial

This is the second of a three-part series on Strategies for dealing with denial. Part I -The Many Faces of Denial can be found here. Part III is here.

In this post I am going to discuss some of the techniques that those in denial use in order to maintain and facilitate their denial and to prevent any confrontation about it or their motivations. There are a number of logical fallacies and rhetorical ploys that frequently pop up when dealing with someone in denial. People in denial may believe they are engaging in substantive arguments and presenting their case, but when examined, the grounds they present are actually examples of pseudo-reasoning.

Although not precisely a fallacy or rhetorical ploy, physical coercion is another important technique that is used to defuse and/or disrupt rational argument or discussion. For the denier, coercion has the advantage of eliminating any possibiity they might have to confront their denial and what is driving it.

Understanding all of these techniques is essential for being able to deal with individuals in denial.

There is frequently a connection between the pseudo-reasoning technique employed to perpetuate denial, and the style of denial being used (as described in Part I). The list that follows is not exhaustive, and only includes some of what I consider the more important techniques being used. The table is only intended to be a preliminary guide. A brief discussion of each of the fallacies or rhetorical ploys referred to follows after table.



COMMON RHETORICAL PLOYS

From: Critical Thinking A Concise Guide (Bowell and Kemp):

Rhetoric is any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to beieve, desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action, but attempts ot motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used.

The difference between fallacies and rhetorical ploys is understood most eaily as a difference in the function of the language being employed....politicians, advertisers and newspaper columnists tend to be experts when it come to using rhetorical ploys. Rhetorical ploys typically make a more or less direct appeal to feeling and emotion rather than to reason, which is the domin of argument. Fallacies, on the other hand, are simply defective attempts at arguments....They may fool us into thinking they are not defective, but they are still presented as attempts at argument. Of course, manny writers and speakers will use a mixture of rhetorical ploys, fallacies, and genuine arguments when attempting to persuade us of the truth of their claim.

Let us first consider some of the most common rhetorical ploys in use:

-Appeals to FEELINGS : this type of ploy is very common and the user tries to appeal to specific feelings or desires. For example, you may be enticed to believe what is said because of the passion with which it is said (rather than analyzing the content); or because it stimulates compassion, pity, guilt, fear or any number of other feelings.

Eliciting fear is also known as using "scare tactics", and should be distinguished from genuine warnings for which there is a good reason to act and/or experience the emotion.

Additionally, when one appeals to feelings; emphasis may be placed on the novelty of the idea; or popularity ("everyone thinks this!") or the sexiness or cuteness etc.; all of which can easily distract from a rational analysis of the idea or product.

-Direct attack is simply the unapologetic assertion that something is true or not true without any evidence presented.

-Buzzwords are the use of emotion-laden terms that subtly influence the listener but which offer no information about the truth of what is being said.

-Scare quotes are used to mock the opposition (I use them myself at times!) by calling into question a particular concept (e.g., terrorism vs "terrorism").

-Smokescreen is diverting attention from the topic of discussion by introducing a new topic.

-Equivocation is deliberately making ambiguous statements in order to mislead.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

-Formal fallacies can be found in almost any text on logic and include affirming the consequent (i.e., if P then Q; Q; therefore P) or denying the antecedent (i.e., if P then Q; not-P; therefore not-Q). As a group they are invalid arguments because of formal mistakes in reasoning.

-Substantive fallacies are fallacies that rely on an implied but not expressed general premise, but which are false when scrutinized. They include:
Majority belief - concluding that because a majority believe something it must be true. This category includes the excessive reliance on polls to be the arbiter of what is true or false and how one should behave.
Common practice - concluding that because everyone does a certain thing, you should do it too.
Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself.
Appeal to an alleged authority - is problematic when the authority appealed to has no expertise in a particular field; or even if he does, there is no automatic guarantee that he is correct.
Perfectionist fallacy - where an idea or proposal is rejected because it cannot completely solve a particular problem.
Weak analogy -use of an unjustied or unsustainable analogy;
Causal fallacies are also very common and involve making assumptions that (1)because things are temporally related that there is a cause and effect (temporal fallacy); or (2) that because two things are correlated there is a causal relationship between them; (3) going from knowing a certain thing is true to believing that something else also must be true when there is no evidence to support the belief is called the Epistemic fallacy.

OTHER LOGICICAL FALLACIES AND DENIAL TECHNIQUES

The following techniques don't fit into the previous categories; or are a combination of one or more already mentioned. They include:

-Red Herrings are premises or ideas that are irrelevant to a particular conclusion but which are offered as evidence of the conclusion;

-Straw man is deliberately setting up a false target that is easier to defeat in argument;

-Begging the question is the situation where the truth of a conclusion is assumed by its premises;

-Selective use of evidence: in any analysis there is usually a large amount of evidence to consider; particularly when there is sufficient complexity involved, it is sometimes easy to pay attention only to evidence that supports the desired conclusions and not to evidence which contradicts it;

-Moving the goalposts is a common practice in denial and occurs when someone always demands more evidence than can currently be provided. If that evidence becomes available at a later date, the demand is then made for even more evidence ad infinitum;

-Argument by definition is changing the meaning of words or concepts so that they support your argument (e.g., "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."; and other distortions of language like using the opposite meaning of a word as in Orwell's Newspeak)

-Liar paradox is one of my personal favorites and is the use of paradoxical statements (e.g., "This statement is false" or "There is no objective truth") that are linguistically correct but internally inconsistent and cannot be demonstrated to be either true or false.

AGGRESSION AND PHYSICAL ATTACK

The most obvious technique in this category is the physical analog of the ad hominemattack. This clearly requires no thinking or logic manipulations at all. We see this in the physical attacks that are made by the left on whoever incurs their ire; or dares to spread ideas that deviate from their own script.

Isaac Asimov famously said that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." From a psychiatric perspective, I would amend the saying to: physical coercion is the last refuge of a person in denial. 

Coercion is the historically tried and true method by which most totalitarian regimes perpetuate themselves. They must control the flow of information; ruthlessly suppress any ideas that delegitimize their ideology; eliminate any persons threatening to expose their weaknesses; and even physically prevent their own people from being able to freely leave the country where they might pick up alien ideas. All of these measures ensure that psychological denial and the underlying motives of those in control are never questioned or challenged. A tyrant is, from this perspective, the ultimate person in denial.

There are many deluded people who claim that this situation already exists in the U.S. under the BusHitler. I'm sure you have noticed the frequent round-ups and imprisonment of all those Hollywood stars; and courageous antiwar protesters whose opinions are being ruthlessly suppressed by the Bush Administration.

Nevertheless, the real physical suppression and aggressive attacks that are occurring instead of rational debate are not coming from either the government or conservatives for the most part.

Some of the most recent examples can be seen here and here. The latter story about the attempt by law schools to ban US military recruiters is particularly amusing in light of the law school's belief that not only should they be able to effectively prevent the military from recruiting on campus, but they should also continue to receive money (and protection from the military, I assume) from the organization that runs the military (i.e., the US government).

Further, there are numerous physical attempts to shut people up that also use the rhetorical ploy of appeal to feelings--in particular, an appeal to cuteness--when protesters throw pies in the faces of speakers they don't agree with; or the mindless--and loud-- chanting of cute slogans to drown out speakers with whom protesters disagree.

Not only do these individuals and groups not bother to argue their side of an issue, but they can't even bear to listen to someone who might stimulate them to consider alternative ideas or confront their own denial.

Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities suggests to me some other ways that today's political left have developed to control the flow of information. He mentions Amazon, where you can track swarms of those on the left panning new conservative books they've obviously never bothered to read. Jeff suggests that this occurs, "As though the very existence of material that challenges their worldview is a threat that must be extinguished (rather than letting people make up their mind)."

Exactly. The last thing a person in denial wants is the free flow of information about a topic that threatens the perfection and contentment of his denial.

Wikipedia is another forum where people deep in denial have painstakingly tried to rewrite history so that it conforms with their ideology. If you read about the Aztecs, for instance, you'll find that their mass human sacrifice was really no different from European warmongering.

Democrats have also stated their intention, should they get the opportunity, to reinstate the 'Fairness Doctrine' aka govt regulation of private radio stations, which would have the effect of forcing conservative talk radio stations to jettison half their content in favor of Air America type shows, regardless of whether anyone wants to listen to them.

How many times have you heard those from the left side of the political spectrum state that the FCC should shut down FOX for its "lies". At college campuses all over the country, every time a campus newspaper runs an editorial that goes against the ideology, all the papers are stolen by the ideological minions of the left. Military recruiters are run off campus by the threat of violence (either to them or any who would like to listen to them).

I won't even go into the entire issue of leftist mainstream media bias, which has been taken up in many other venues.

The pattern remains the same. To physically prevent people access to alternate
worldviews or information instead of persuading them by rational argument of the truth of your own position.

None of these techniques (rhetorical ploys, logical fallacies, or physical control) are unique to one side of the political spectrum or the other certainly; but in today's political climate, most of the denial manifested--particularly since 9/11--is almost all on one side. Back in the 40's and 50's of the last century, the situation was reverse.

In Part III, I will discuss various strategies for dealing with your own psychological denial; as well as psychological denial in others. One commenter in the discussion thread for Part I said:

You have a solution? After only four years and seven months? But now we have to wait for it? Please hurry, early voting for the primaries starts tomorrow here in NC.

Well, I hate to disappoint. You can only lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him (or her) drink. That said, there are some useful strategies that may be helpful in dealing with the problem!

UPDATE: Anyone who would like to send a link to examples of any of the above techniques will have it listed here.
-SC&A found an example of coercion where a college librarian is being sued for sexual harassment because he recommend several conservative books to a freshman.
-LLB sent me this article about a display on abortion being destroyed.
-Junior says that with latest news today about the Iranian president saying that Israel will be annihilated, this blogger is more worried about what Bush will do. (Displacement)

UPDATE II: At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh writes this about the SC&A referred article:

It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them (apparently, according to the ADF's letter, with considerable support from their colleagues).

Yes, isn't it?

UPDATE III: Neo-neocon has a great post up on Critical Thinking. She agrees that it is...critical! Great minds think alike.

STM is posting these because of the upcoming Synod, wherein many are not thinking in terms of Christ's teaching or the long teaching of the Church. I taught Logic and Critical Thinking for years. Sadly, most Catholics cannot think, and do not think like Catholics.

Hope these posts jar some into reality.

The Voice of Sanity Part III

This article of Dr. Sanity is the last of three parts, and I highly suggest reading the first two parts. Part Two of her series on denial has a great chart.

In this Age of Narcissists, and now moving into a second level of that Age, I feel impelled to repeat her good stuff here.

APRIL 17, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part III

In this final essay, I will discuss strategies for dealing with denial in one's self and in others. I apologize in advance for the length; but bear with me because I think this is an important topic.

Part I is here. 
and Part II is here.

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

As an example, consider a person who develops a chronic cough. He might rationalize to themselves that his cough is because of a lack of humidity in the air; or because he has a slight infection; and most certainly is not a result of his smoking habits. He could go see a doctor, but doesn't, telling himself he is fine. As the cough gets worse, he become even more creative in his thinking about it (or not thinking about it) and is "too busy" to see a doctor; or tend to minimize the symptom even as it worsens.

This strategy of ignoring the problem goes on for some time--maybe months. The person may next fail to notice that he is losing weight and looking a bit drawn-out. The rationalizations now even include benign explanations for the specks of blood that can be seen in the cough. Finally, after much resistance, a loved one firmly intervenes--or the person faces the truth, confronts the issue-- and schedules an appointment. After a few tests, lung cancer is diagnosed. The prognosis is very poor because the cancer has already progessed to advanced stages during the months of denial.

Why would such a person deny the symptom to begin with? Because by denying the symptom, the person can pretend that everything is normal. Early on, when the symptom is new or minor, this possiblity may even be true. But as the evidence accumulates that something is very wrong; the person has now entered a phase of magical thinking and/or fantasy where he effortlessly pretends to himself that everything is as he wishes it to be. Eventually, the individual may become totally psychologically invested in believing that nothing is wrong ("lalalalala I can't heaaaar you"), and reacts (or overreacts) with anger and rage toward anyone who questions his view of things.

The entire act of denial was initiated to begin with by the psyche for a good psychological reason-- to temporarilly supress awareness that something was wrong--while the person struggled with the effort to face that possibility.

That awareness was so frightening, that a temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

Unfortunately, if the person really does have a cancerous process going on within them, it is completely unaffected by the psychological bargain made by the psyche. There are certain rules that govern the progression of cancers and they will be in force, whether or not the person is aware of them or not. Hence, the denier has made a short-term pact to feel better at the expense of his long-term health. In the case of this type of cancer, he has chosen to enjoy a period of relative complacency and blissful ignorance at the cost of catching the cancer earlier when it might be more treatable. In the long-run his unconscious choice is a very bad one.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, hysterical or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact. As discussed in Part II, there are countless strategies --rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies--that can be used to keep the truth at bay.

Identifying the underlying motivational factors are important to understand the phenomenon of denial; the reasons why denial is used; and the overally psychology of deniers--whether they are individuals, groups, or even entire nations. There are limitations to this kind of analysis, however; and it is that exposing a motivation or even a hidden agenda in denial is not the same thing as a rational argument or analysis of what the denier is saying or arguing.

In a therapeutic relationship (i.e. therapist /patient) theoretically, a person in denial and the therapist collaborate and work together to discover the underlying problem. Even when very motivated to change, it is often the case that the denier exhibits a great deal of resistance to the idea that he or she is in denial.

In real life (not a therapeutic or professional relationship) we all have to deal with people in denial, and getting a person to accept that he or she is in denial is even more problematic. Unless there is a serious crisis in the person's life, there is little or no incentive for a person to emerge from the comforting cocoon of denial and rationalization--particularly when the consequences of doing so are more threatening to the sense of self than remaining ignorant or oblivious to one's true motivations.

What the psychiatrist does when a patient uses any psychological defense to interfere with treatment is to interpret the defense.

In psychiatry, particularly in psychoanalysis, the psychological defenses --especially the immature ones such as denial and projection --often stand in the way of a person being able to understand the source of their dysfunction and to deal with reality. These unconscious mechanisms act to protect the individual from reality by distorting that reality.

That is why I sound like a broken record and talk about DENIAL, PROJECTION and PARANOIA (see here and here for example) over and over again. Each time I observe such defenses, I work to get those who are using them to be conscious of what they are doing. Only then can they change their behavior.

Ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Noone can make anyone face a terrible truth they wish to avoid. One of the purposes of this blog is to "shine a psychological spotlight" on the maladaptive responses to the realities of our world.

(My choice of photo-stm)

A crisis may stimulate self-analysis and make the person more open to reflection and insight; but waiting for a crisis to happen, especially when someone's denial threatens your own well-being, is frustrating and irritating, to say the least. Also, those who have to deal with people outside of a therapeutic alliance, have neither the patience or desire to wait for the hoped-for epiphany in the denier.

Sometimes a crisis occurs (e.g. the events of 9/11) that should shake everyone out of their complacency for all time--but sadly, even that horrible day was not enough to open the eyes of some.

We have discussed the many faces of denial; i.e., the different psychological mechanisms used to facilitate and maintain an avoidance of a painful truth or reality; and we have discussed some of the cognitive tricks that are used to pretend to the rest of the world that one's fantasy is reality. What are the consequences of denial--both the positive (and there must be positive ones) and the negative?

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL

Positive consequences of denial include:

• In the short-term, psychological denial can help a person maintain their sanity--which would be threatened by awareness of a painful truth or reality
• In the short-term, denial can help a person function day to day
• In the short-term, denial can prevent a person from having to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or behavior and help them maintain their worldview from unacceptable reality

In the short-term, defenses--even denial-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. While they may strike observers as downright peculiar, in the short-term, they may be adaptative. Denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict so that it becomes manageable.

Some negative consequences of denial include:

• In the longer-term, denial requires continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time.

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

In order to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality or truth, there several basic approaches.

GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER!
First, when confronting denial in others, your own house must be in order. In other words, if you are to have any hope of convincing someone else that they have a problem, you must be able to honestly and objectively assess any personal issues you yourself are carrying around that could cause you to distort reality.

In psychiatry, we call this process insight and self-awareness.

What do you look for?
• Hidden motives for your own behavior or beliefs
• Hidden agendas or ideologies that underlie your own thinking; or any thing in your own life that might facilitate distortion of reality or truth.
• Know yourself! Everyone has vulnerabilities, sensitivities, biases etc. These are not contraindicators for confronting denial in others--you don't have to be perfect; just honest with yourself.

Considering all the different vulnerabilities, sensitivities, and biases all human beings have, it actually requires a considerable effort of will to remain in touch with reality.; as well as a continual and conscious effort at a committment to truth. This is fundamental to personal honesty and integrity. Obviously this is not easy, and we are all prone to those self-deceptions that spare us from unpleasant truths about ourselves.

One of my frequent commenters, "Oh Bloody Hell" left a quote from Isaac Asimov on the Part II thread which is particularly relevant here:

"What I'm doing, really, is to look at things as they are. It's what you must do. Forget your ideals, your theories, your notions as to what people OUGHT to do. Consider what they ARE doing. Once a person is oriented to face facts rather than delusions, problems tend to disappear. At the very least, they fall into their true perspective and become soluble."

So many people look at the world through glasses that filter unacceptable thoughts, feelings and reality; and hence they are only able to see what they want to see, instead of what is (and no, that does not depend on the meaning of the word "is").

Again, this does not require perfection--you don't even have to have "pure" motives--just conscious ones that help you to understand why you think and/or feel a certain way. Then you will be open to recognizing the truth and what is. Then you will have a choice in your actions.

If you are lucky, your scrutinized motives, beliefs, wishes, and desires will not seriously conflict with reality. But, if they do, then you must face the music.

Reality is completely indifferent to your feelings, wishes, or your unresolved issues.

DEALING WITH OTHERS IN DENIAL
Once you have applied some self-awareness and know your own limitations--or, as the philosoher Eastwood has said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."-- then you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the task that lies ahead for someone who is chronically in denial about reality.

The second step in the process is to accept the fact that there are positive rewards for the person in denial (at least in the short-term), and that the psychological defense that you would like them to abandon is actually a creative strategy designed to help them keep their sanity and their sense of self and worldview intact.

You have two choices at this point. You can engage the denier in rational argument in the hopes of breaking through their denial; or you can work around them and let them suffer the consequences of their denial. The second strategy may be the best in some cases, but is obviously more difficult if your own fate is tied to theirs. Let's discuss engagement first.

Just because you wish to engage the denier in argument does not mean that you have to allow them to abuse you or threaten you (this has been an issue several times on this blog--while I want to engage people, I don't have to put up with their abuse). That means that the first principle of engagement is

• Limit Setting - you must make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that what you are seeking is a rational discussion of issues; not a name-calling session where the person who screams the loudest or speaks with the most swear words considers himself the "winner".
Once the limits are set; be prepared for the person in denial to ignore them.

If you still want to engage, then the second principle is:

• Redirection - where you point out what the rules are again and only respond to the rational argument thatmight be buried in all the emotion. Gently (or at least as respectfully as you can--remember, it is your choice to engage them) point out to the person that they are avoiding the point by using such and such a rhetorical ploy or logical fallacy, etc. You can then challenge them to use a rational argument or present their premises and any evidence to support them. This is as close as you might get to "interpreting the defense". Either they will come back more appropriately and logically, or they'll ignore you; or they'll simply abandon the argument. Limit set and redirect as often as necessary.

If you can get the person back on the topic, and expressing his perspective honestly:

• Give constructive feedback (but not in a condescending tone). You can say something like, "that's a good point; let me see if I can counter it."

• Be ready then, to present your own rational perspective, with whatever evidence or facts you have available that might help them begin to question their own irrational beliefs; or even their own honesty.

• Be ready to point out the specific errors in logic; or fallacies and/or rhetorical ploys in their own arguments. Call them on it and ask for objective evidence from that that you would consider. Make sure you know what these fallacies and ploys are!

• Be willing to acknowledge when they have a point..

• Try as much as possible to engage them with what really exists--not what either of you would like to exist.

• Ask them for specific suggestions on how to deal with the problems you can both agree on. Be ready to give your own specific suggestions.

• When applicable, don't solve their problems for them; or shelter, protect or help them avoid the consequences of their denial --unless those consequences also impact you. If that is the case, understand that by letting them off the hook, you have encouraged them to think that their worldview is correct and yours is not.

• Have some standby information to direct them to that they can read on their own time that may help them to face the problem.

• Don't give into the temptation to call them names or to do unto them what they might be doing unto you…unless, of course, you are human; then in that case once in a while it might help your own mental health.

As you can see from the above list, it is quite difficult and time-consuming; as well as frustrating and endlessly repetitive to engage a person in denial.

Sometimes you may think you have put an issue to rest and successfully argued your point; only to discover that later the denier will bring up exactly the same slogans or mantras that you had previously and painstakingly countered!

That is why the level of denial is important to ascertain. Some people simply need to be nudged or reminded of certain facts--e.g., seeing a movie like United 93, which can bring back the reality of the events of 9/11 which may have slipped from conscious awareness simply from the everyday vissictitudes of living one's own life.

At the other end of the spectrum are those people, groups, and nations committed to the denial of reality the way others are committed to truth. Their entire sense of identity is dependent on a certain view of the world and they would rather die than relinquish that view.

If you want to continue with the challenge of engaging someone in denial, you must recognize that moments of epiphany and breakthroughs in insight are few and far between. In therapy, you can wait for months and even years for people to confront their own denial and understand the motivations that underlie their own unhappiness--but that is in therapy, where they presumably come to see you to get well and/or happier.

Unless the person you want to engage is a loved one, engaging a person in denial can be a thankless task. As I said in Part II, "You can lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him/her drink think."

As I said earlier, ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Neo-neoconhas written about her own journey in her excellent series, "A Mind is a Difficult Thing To Change" which I highly recommend (click on the link and go down her right sidebar to access those posts).

Finally, what do you do if you conclude that you must find a way to ignore or work-around people in denial because you are at risk due to their behavior?

Let me return to my own major motivation for blogging: my observations of the psychological denial --particularly after 9/11--and increasingly psychopathological responses of the left (including many in the Democratic Party) to the war on terror. My hope when I started blogging was that I could offer a unique perspective on the problem and by "shining a psychological spotlight" on the dysfunctional behavior, I could help those with an open mind to to come to grips with the critical issues of our time--Radical Islam and the threat to western civilization.

I remain hopeful that there are many people out who can be motivated to do exactly that. I don't expect them to all think exactly the same as I do about the current situation in the world; nor do I expect them to agree with me on what to do. Surely, reasonable people can differ on these points and amicably work together to come up with optimal solutions.

But what I do expect is some fundamental agreement on what the reality is.

The left's current concensus view on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror and Freedom is flatly wrong and cannot be justified by the facts that are out there. Their rhetoric is designed to obfuscate and deny objective reality --which they don't even believe in to begin with (or, they believe in it until it become threatening then they seek refuge behind postmodern political rhetoric). The motivation for their continual Bush/Republican bashing is simple: Bush is the current symbol of their demise--the fly in their utopian ointment; the light shining in their darkness; or, to be more precise, the symbol of the end of their ideology.

How do I know this? Since Bush's election at the millennium, things have been going very badly for the left. As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their worldview; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to supress all dissenting opinions.

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course). Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy.

They pretend their actions are motivated from love and peace and patriotism; but this is only how they rationalize it to themselves. Their self-deception and denial is simply stunning in its sweeping grandiosity and self-righteousness betrayal of the good.

Gerard Vanderleun has a post up about the eerie appropriateness of the recently discovered "Judas gospel". The money quote:

Treason, done with the kiss of "my personal freedom," proves that you do not really hate your country, you love it. You are, in the final analysis, your country's best friend. In these "new" old tales about Jesus we read that Judas betrayed the Son of God because Jesus told him to do it. Really? Or did his betrayal come, not from any request that may or may not have been made, but from humanity's persistant lust to sin freely and without even the thin penalty of remorse? Was this final treason done because this sin had been secretly blessed by God, or for the sheer dark thrill of asserting the self at the expense of life in the light?

"I betrayed my friend, because he gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for him."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."

Black is white. Hate is Love. Slavery is Freedom. Treason is Loyalty. That last phrase fits right in to the secular catechism, doesn't it? All it needs to become holy writ is an avatar, a solid historical personage with the power to turn darkness into light, lies into truth, and betrayal into something that was, in the final analysis, "all good."

Saint Judas, step right up to the Gates, ring that bell, and don your halo -- you the man.

Careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it. My patients tend to get well for the most part. I am not always correct and I have a great tolerance for ambiguity and doubt. I can be convinced that I am incorrect because I accept my own humanity and its limitations. But if you want to convince me, you will have to give me some compelling argument that is rational and which conforms to what I observe in the real world. Calling me names and threatening me (try reading my email for a week) just will not do it; and, quite frankly, only confirms my premises.

If you can look in the mirror and truly know yourself, including all those hidden motives and agendas and unresolved issues in life which we all must grapple with; you can gain some control over your own life; make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, people may still make the wrong choices, or screw up in dealing with the problems even when they are aware of their own unconscious conflicts. Human beings are not perfect.

But when denial distorts or obscures reality, we are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems. Our energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as we get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time.

As long as the left continues to live in the world of denial and play their rhetorical games and use their non-logic to justify the unjustifiable; to tolerate the intolerable; and support the unsupportable; then I will continue to blog and expose their motives and hidden agendas; and do everything I can to prevent them from regaining political power.

This means that no matter how badly I think of the current crop of Republicans--and I do think very badly of them--when the alternative is the Party of Denial, better known as the Democrats and the loud lunatic fringe that they cater to; then the Republicans are going to get my vote every time. Where once I had the luxury of voting for third party candidates (e.g. libertarian), the stakes are far too crucial now to waste my votes.

There is hope, however that the cocoon of denial may finally be breaking up. Those who are still rational on the left have come together around the "Euston Manifesto," which is a manifesto that, among other things says it stands for democracy; for human rights; and for freedom. It refuses to apologize for tyranny; and rejects the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that has become the hallmark of leftist politics. One can only ask, what took so long ?

At any rate, the Euston Manifesto may represent the left's first small steps back toward the real world.