What is that?
Read on!
Read on!
THE INTRA-BODY NANO-NETWORK
Max Igan, TheCrowhouse
Nano-Sensor Modelling for Intra-Body Nano-Networks
- Journal:
- Wireless Personal Communications > Issue 4/2021
-
Visit TOUK main site
Showing posts with label extreme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extreme. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 October 2007
TELL YOUR STORY
If you've a story to get off your chest where you acted OUT-OF-CHARACTER write in. Make it clear if it is OK to publish here and elsewhere (see Contacting us)
You can comment on any post underneath it - Indicate if you don't want your comments to be published for people to read.
If you make an Anonymous post no-one including us will see your email address
If you make an Anonymous post no-one including us will see your email address
. . . . .
Appearing below with permission are excerpts from people who contacted us
. . . . .
. . . . .
Shipwreck theory of personality
If a ship gets into difficulty it could jettison some stock or heavy equipment and put people into lifeboats where their future takes a different mode and direction. These things and more have the aim of survival of important players and aspects.
Do we do this with our personalities too? It would make sense. I think all theories are worth consideration, but cannot see why people:a) get so wound up about them
b) try to make money out of them
c) seek fame through them
We're all in the same boat of life, whatever journey we have, and whether we think the same, use the same strategies as anyone/everyone when the boat sinks or personal narrative dashes to the rocks. Some theories can even be useful with a diametric approach.
If your ship (you) hits something and things get thrown overboard, come the dawn and calmer sea you could have lost or forgotten them. That's where the salvage operation of spirit or soul rescue could come in.
If a ship gets into difficulty it could jettison some stock or heavy equipment and put people into lifeboats where their future takes a different mode and direction. These things and more have the aim of survival of important players and aspects.
Do we do this with our personalities too? It would make sense. I think all theories are worth consideration, but cannot see why people:a) get so wound up about them
b) try to make money out of them
c) seek fame through them
We're all in the same boat of life, whatever journey we have, and whether we think the same, use the same strategies as anyone/everyone when the boat sinks or personal narrative dashes to the rocks. Some theories can even be useful with a diametric approach.
If your ship (you) hits something and things get thrown overboard, come the dawn and calmer sea you could have lost or forgotten them. That's where the salvage operation of spirit or soul rescue could come in.
Conglomerate or variant personality
Some of this mixture of 'people' or parts that comprise each one of us, may remain dormant as we remain largely unaware of some of their potentialities. Different circumstances may bring some to the fore, such as danger where we go into survival mode, or having to protect someone young or vulnerable. I don't think we can sit in judgment on ourselves or others, although we often do!
What I am suggesting is that, with some people more than others, the mix or the variation is greater and more significant. I am going to use a term more often used with groups, that of a group-mind or an egregore. But in this context I apply it to people, a person, a personal group-mind or egregore, with much more to it than we see on the surface, the tip of a personal iceberg. Extend the concept of one iceberg to the surrounding icebergs, or to a continent of ice, land or sea, and one can see how we could be affecting each other at some deep level via something more universal than ourselves or those close or similar in some way.
It is particularly with some of the people that Ann Rule and others describe who present such complex and divergent behaviours, that I seem to see this egregore quality, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and has such enormous effect on the environment.
Myths to live by
Ask someone their favourite book or film and you tend to get an answer with a theme behind it, some hero or heroine who fought the odds or the world to come up trumps, or remain detached from horrendous things and get along just fine.
I spent some time reading what psychological profilers said about people like serial killers and I don't recall the details. But there was a recurrent theme about incidents in their past leading up to where the killers continue till they are caught - as if nothing else will do as a suitable end-piece. Are they 'responsible' for how the killing or activity began, can they change without getting caught, can they change after getting caught?
I feel we should not generalise too much, because each person or 'soul' is different. I do believe some killers and violent criminals gain significant insight either by their own efforts or with appropriate help. It's as if they can see into their own and other people's souls.
I've never been happy with a theory that, because some people suffer bad experiences in their formative years and do not proceed to commit atrocities, everyone with bad experiences should be able to avoid committing atrocities. Actually I don't feel that option is open to all: it is more like something greater having such a huge impact they can't control it.
We need our myths, fairy tales, heroes or whatever it is, so that we can latch our strange human brains onto them. We need a choice of role models to guide us through literally or mentally in our mind, some concept or construct which does the job for us, makes us more than we are as an individual acting alone.
Some of this mixture of 'people' or parts that comprise each one of us, may remain dormant as we remain largely unaware of some of their potentialities. Different circumstances may bring some to the fore, such as danger where we go into survival mode, or having to protect someone young or vulnerable. I don't think we can sit in judgment on ourselves or others, although we often do!
What I am suggesting is that, with some people more than others, the mix or the variation is greater and more significant. I am going to use a term more often used with groups, that of a group-mind or an egregore. But in this context I apply it to people, a person, a personal group-mind or egregore, with much more to it than we see on the surface, the tip of a personal iceberg. Extend the concept of one iceberg to the surrounding icebergs, or to a continent of ice, land or sea, and one can see how we could be affecting each other at some deep level via something more universal than ourselves or those close or similar in some way.
It is particularly with some of the people that Ann Rule and others describe who present such complex and divergent behaviours, that I seem to see this egregore quality, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and has such enormous effect on the environment.
Myths to live by
Ask someone their favourite book or film and you tend to get an answer with a theme behind it, some hero or heroine who fought the odds or the world to come up trumps, or remain detached from horrendous things and get along just fine.
I spent some time reading what psychological profilers said about people like serial killers and I don't recall the details. But there was a recurrent theme about incidents in their past leading up to where the killers continue till they are caught - as if nothing else will do as a suitable end-piece. Are they 'responsible' for how the killing or activity began, can they change without getting caught, can they change after getting caught?
I feel we should not generalise too much, because each person or 'soul' is different. I do believe some killers and violent criminals gain significant insight either by their own efforts or with appropriate help. It's as if they can see into their own and other people's souls.
I've never been happy with a theory that, because some people suffer bad experiences in their formative years and do not proceed to commit atrocities, everyone with bad experiences should be able to avoid committing atrocities. Actually I don't feel that option is open to all: it is more like something greater having such a huge impact they can't control it.
We need our myths, fairy tales, heroes or whatever it is, so that we can latch our strange human brains onto them. We need a choice of role models to guide us through literally or mentally in our mind, some concept or construct which does the job for us, makes us more than we are as an individual acting alone.
Taking the tour
Suppose that we are all a bit of a mixture, various strands each representing some continuum of personality or behaviour or whatever. We weave our way through with some consistency or maybe not much at all. As other people don't see all of it all of the time, they either don't notice something that jars or they are much puzzled by it. We may be too, because we don't have the full story either. What tends to happen is we rationalise to ourselves if we do something unusual, finding plausible explanations so there's not so much dissonance or discrepancy with what we like to think or have always thought.
So this 'tour of personality' reminds me of a man-of-war fish that looks like an anomaly that gathered various flotsam and jetsam along the way. Maybe some parts are actually bigger than us, or cumulatively they change us beyond recognition.
Some of the people I mentioned in the books by Ann Rule, who are capable of varied and extreme behaviour, seem able to deny to themselves some things they have done. They then convince a lot of other people that 'what they see is what they get', and the other parts of themselves simply cannot be there - so therefore they did not do this particular thing. It works remarkably well.
There's a phrase about people re-inventing themselves, giving themselves a psychological makeover, which has relevance here. We accept it up to a point in others, use it up to a point ourselves to make headway, dropping off modes of behaviour which don't work so well or get us into trouble, finding something that works better. All of that seems fine so long as we don't shove something deep down that seeks expression and may find subversive ways to do that.
Tour of personality
I began reading books by Ann Rule who was initially a court reporter in the United States sometimes working on murder cases. She became intrigued and researched deeply into the lives and characters of some people involved and came up with amazing information and insights. What seemed to emerge was a phenomenon I am calling 'tour of personality'.
Some of the people involved in scenarios she describes are complex and the situations are naturally so. But some people seem to ride the waves no matter what happens and however bleak their future looks for being accused and convicted. Some play the legal system and key players against each other to get off the hook or get decisions overturned.
Some people are extremely complex and versatile, turning their hand or charm to a variety of situations and adapting along the way. Some are pillars of the community, much respected for their charity or humane work. One wonders how anyone could fit in a complex and turbulent private life, along with managing a family and home life, a business and public life. Then they face court or public scrutiny - and they keep on going. When the chips are down or there's no hope on the horizon, another rabbit comes blinking out of the hat and round it goes again with both supporters and detractors and the final 'truth' often hingeing on an apparently minor detail. So many variables come into play that some get away with it. Whether they can avoid sailing close to the wind for ever more is another theme.
Some job interviews
One of the first things that comes to my mind is going for a job interview, on reasonably best behaviour, showing willing to do the job and fit in. Get the job and it's too late! They realise you can't do the impossible or be totally sat upon; you realise they are nothing like they seemed.
One interviewer was affable and I was over the moon because I was redundant for the umpteenth time, not getting any younger. 'I bet you didn't think you'd walk straight into the job today' he said warmly. I don't think he ever spoke to me again even passing on the stairs. Another man seemed just the ticket and I was disappointed when the firm turned me down. A friend went there as a temp and said he was awful, he shouted and threw phones at people. I then went down the road to an innovative company working for a manager who did phone bit too. Within a week I applied for a transfer.
Several times I accepted a post, only to have nightmares the night before the start date and I'd phone them or the agency early on the day to say sorry but I wouldn't make it. Some people who hire and fire people or working in agencies know instinctively who will fit with whom or in what role. I know people with the gift of intuition, but it was not bestowed on me at birth so I learned the hard way, the long way round. Some of it may be to do with people's 'chosen camouflage' to coin a phrase from Transactional Analysis, that people may present themselves as opposite to how they really are.
Suppose that we are all a bit of a mixture, various strands each representing some continuum of personality or behaviour or whatever. We weave our way through with some consistency or maybe not much at all. As other people don't see all of it all of the time, they either don't notice something that jars or they are much puzzled by it. We may be too, because we don't have the full story either. What tends to happen is we rationalise to ourselves if we do something unusual, finding plausible explanations so there's not so much dissonance or discrepancy with what we like to think or have always thought.
So this 'tour of personality' reminds me of a man-of-war fish that looks like an anomaly that gathered various flotsam and jetsam along the way. Maybe some parts are actually bigger than us, or cumulatively they change us beyond recognition.
Some of the people I mentioned in the books by Ann Rule, who are capable of varied and extreme behaviour, seem able to deny to themselves some things they have done. They then convince a lot of other people that 'what they see is what they get', and the other parts of themselves simply cannot be there - so therefore they did not do this particular thing. It works remarkably well.
There's a phrase about people re-inventing themselves, giving themselves a psychological makeover, which has relevance here. We accept it up to a point in others, use it up to a point ourselves to make headway, dropping off modes of behaviour which don't work so well or get us into trouble, finding something that works better. All of that seems fine so long as we don't shove something deep down that seeks expression and may find subversive ways to do that.
Tour of personality
I began reading books by Ann Rule who was initially a court reporter in the United States sometimes working on murder cases. She became intrigued and researched deeply into the lives and characters of some people involved and came up with amazing information and insights. What seemed to emerge was a phenomenon I am calling 'tour of personality'.
Some of the people involved in scenarios she describes are complex and the situations are naturally so. But some people seem to ride the waves no matter what happens and however bleak their future looks for being accused and convicted. Some play the legal system and key players against each other to get off the hook or get decisions overturned.
Some people are extremely complex and versatile, turning their hand or charm to a variety of situations and adapting along the way. Some are pillars of the community, much respected for their charity or humane work. One wonders how anyone could fit in a complex and turbulent private life, along with managing a family and home life, a business and public life. Then they face court or public scrutiny - and they keep on going. When the chips are down or there's no hope on the horizon, another rabbit comes blinking out of the hat and round it goes again with both supporters and detractors and the final 'truth' often hingeing on an apparently minor detail. So many variables come into play that some get away with it. Whether they can avoid sailing close to the wind for ever more is another theme.
Some job interviews
One of the first things that comes to my mind is going for a job interview, on reasonably best behaviour, showing willing to do the job and fit in. Get the job and it's too late! They realise you can't do the impossible or be totally sat upon; you realise they are nothing like they seemed.
One interviewer was affable and I was over the moon because I was redundant for the umpteenth time, not getting any younger. 'I bet you didn't think you'd walk straight into the job today' he said warmly. I don't think he ever spoke to me again even passing on the stairs. Another man seemed just the ticket and I was disappointed when the firm turned me down. A friend went there as a temp and said he was awful, he shouted and threw phones at people. I then went down the road to an innovative company working for a manager who did phone bit too. Within a week I applied for a transfer.
Several times I accepted a post, only to have nightmares the night before the start date and I'd phone them or the agency early on the day to say sorry but I wouldn't make it. Some people who hire and fire people or working in agencies know instinctively who will fit with whom or in what role. I know people with the gift of intuition, but it was not bestowed on me at birth so I learned the hard way, the long way round. Some of it may be to do with people's 'chosen camouflage' to coin a phrase from Transactional Analysis, that people may present themselves as opposite to how they really are.
- - - - - - -
The following comes from 'Speak of the Devil's blog:
Trends & tendencies
The following comes from 'Speak of the Devil's blog:
Trends & tendencies
Continuing on the theme of thoughtforms, what-have-you or who-are-you's: I read something on Henry Makow's site - someone who'd been in a particular form of religious practice said they knew they were worshipping or energising an egregore rather than something 'higher'. Egregore is a kind of energy entity, the theory being that energy or strength can pass both ways. That could be a reason why sacrifice is sometimes part of the ritual or process.
A huge book by Michael Bertiaux on Gnostic Voodoo suggests people can assimilate what other groups have built up. Someone else wrote about utilising other people's work rather than start from scratch with your own energy creation.
Books on the scene
'The Black Alchemist' Andrew Collins
'Out of the Shadows' J J Coughlin
'Spiritual Warfare: the Politics of the Christian Right' Sara Diamond 'Magic, Witchcraft & the Otherworld' Susan Greenwood
'The Occult Tradition' David S Katz
'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' T M Luhrmann
'Witchcraft & Sorcery' ed Max Marwick
'The Dark Worship' Toyne Newton
'At the Heart of Darkness' John Parker
'The Dark Gods' A Roberts & G Gilbertson
'Witchcraft, Sorcery, Rumors & Gossip' P J Stewart & A Strathern
'The Philosophy of Magic' Versluis
'Out of the Shadows' J J Coughlin
'Spiritual Warfare: the Politics of the Christian Right' Sara Diamond 'Magic, Witchcraft & the Otherworld' Susan Greenwood
'The Occult Tradition' David S Katz
'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' T M Luhrmann
'Witchcraft & Sorcery' ed Max Marwick
'The Dark Worship' Toyne Newton
'At the Heart of Darkness' John Parker
'The Dark Gods' A Roberts & G Gilbertson
'Witchcraft, Sorcery, Rumors & Gossip' P J Stewart & A Strathern
'The Philosophy of Magic' Versluis
Hissing & splitting
More reading on witchcraft, paganism, satanism, countries, cultures, allegations, counter-allegations. People will never agree! Some people are vociferous in demonstrating something doesn't happen. How can you demonstrate something does not, nay cannot happen? From around 1988 some writers have beavered away on 'it' from various standpoints. If more people checked more themes, more could come out than mere 'hissing and splitting'.
There are books on dark magick, creating entities, servitors, thoughtforms. Whether you accept those beliefs & practices, some people go to great lengths over them, no matter what they claim to believe, practise or deny.
So it's not good to be splitting hairs. A 'reflection' or 'splitting' process refers to the stances people take in describing a situation as if there is a vital or virulent need to fixate on one side. Needs must as the devil drives?
Something wicked this way comes
In the late 80's/early 90's came the 'satanism scare'. I was not directly involved in social work at that time but people with training/ experience were needed to talk to children who were affected. Living in the middle of nowhere I knew little about this. What were people talking about? Why was it not heard of before? Or was it? Should I get involved?
People tend to get, or be put onto one side of any argument or the other. One either 'believes' or is a 'sceptic'. The label doesn't matter so long as one can be categorised, dismissed, denigrated. Sometimes a viable explanation can make two end-points not mutually exclusive. I've met aggro that my view is left-wing or right - concepts meaningless to me.
Is there some thesis or unwritten law that something must be valid or not valid - for everyone rather than for an individual or a situation?
Changes afoot
There did seem an atmosphere of accepting other lifestyles and outlooks. In some parts of the world people ask 'Who is your God?' and the answer is no big deal. It'll either be the same or different. But books came along to change my sunny-side mental twist and I dug deeper.
Did magic work 'in olden times'? Did people 'not know any better'? Did they know better, abstaining from sticking spanners of disbelief in the works'?
Kick-off 1988
It started around 1988. When referring to any particular person, people or group, book or belief system, it is not meant to be detrimental or definitive.
There was renewed interest in the occult at the time and books were becoming available. The big Festivals of Mind-Body-Spirit were around mainly in London. It all seemed a step in the right direction, people free to look at what suited them and let others do the same. It didn't seem to work out like that - and this was 10 years before the Internet when we became used to people sounding off about everything to no-one & everyone.
- - - - - - -
Post received Anonymously
Some people form opinions or make careers in a way that suits them longterm - which isn't so easy in a changing world or when one changes in oneself. Getting fired from a job for 'not fitting in', I drifted into a museum I'd always walked past before, and happened across something that took me in a totally different direction. I couldn't have done it so well had I been trying to.
People tend to recognise a fellow traveller, a faller from the communal boat. The personnel manager for a large local company found my CV funny. 'When you see one like this' he said 'it means someone is searching for something that they're not going to find in a job'.
A summary of what followed is that strange things happen in mundane and unexpected places. I found that one's face can actually 'fit' sometimes with no rhyme or reason, even when inexperienced or making some huge mistake.
Luck? Swings and roundabouts? Or poetic justice, like when the aforementioned boss got fired himself soon after. But what did I ever do wrong!
The personnel bloke said I should look into astrology and graphology. Am not sure if he would get it in the neck these days for not being politically correct.
. . . . .
Profiling - the company we keep?
Although there does seem validity in personality profiling or evaluation for some people, some actions, some situations, or just sometimes - sociological or environmental factors may overtake the individual approach or need consideration as playing a potentially significant part.
That's a sweeping statement which I'll draw in a little by mentioning a book 'Profiling the Criminal Mind: Behavioral Science & Criminal Investigative Analysis' by Dr Robert J Girod Sr. It is an introductory book outlining main themes and theories about profiling and investigation of crime from the author's experience, also mentioning the work of many others with wide-ranging views, experience and expertise.
Several chapters mention the kind of situation that people are in, such as groups they belong to where the 'group cause' could be a motivating factor in criminal or other activity. Some of the subtitles from the CONTENTS list are:
Gang motivated murder
Criminal competition homicide
Group cause homicide:
Cult murder
Extremist murder
Group excitement murder
Peer/group pressure
Group retaliation
Child/adolescent pornography
Historical child/adolescent sex rings
Multidimensional sex rings
Group cause sexual assault
The Nature of Cults:
Attributes
Attitudes
Characteristics
What are Cults
The list continues and some aspects clearly may also come under individual behaviour.
Another useful book is 'Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool' by Ronald M. Holmes & Stephen T. Holmes. There are many more, some quite expensive and some intended more for academics or for those working in the field.
My point (lest you think I wander or wonder aimlessly) is I am strongly inclined to think that sadistic, violent or extreme behaviours are probably things that most people are capable of, especially when under extreme stress or in extreme circumstances. That includes the company we keep, or are somehow inveigled into keeping.
In other words I suggest almost a continuum of behaviour, the extremity of which is shocking but where other factors can sometimes render the shock factor insufficient to prevent our involvement, willing or unwilling, witting or unwitting.
Those extreme behaviours could therefore be like an extension of 'normal people's normal behaviour'.
That is some sobering thought. Maybe I got it all wrong ...
But then I came across John Sweeney's book 'Purple Homicide: Fear and loathing on Knutsford Heath' where in the Epilogue he outlines some theories of cult behaviour and extremes such as suicide by members of a group or cult:
Page 260:
"Ashley Grossman is Professor of Neuro-endocrinology at Bart's Hospital in London. He saw a comparison between those who build and reinforce a system of lies and mass suicide cults. 'All of us from time to time tell lies. If the lie is outside the structure, then we can handle that. But if we construct a house around that lie, with eaves and guttering and drainpipes, then we are in trouble. There is a psychological theory that is called cognitive dissonance, which implies that everything must be reasonably congruent. So there comes a certain stage where you start living in that house because there isn't too much else outside. Then even the most reasonably balanced person will find it quite difficult to distinguish between truth and non-truth. They do literally live that lie and it becomes part of their self-structure. It will be hard then to say that someone is deliberately lying because, by that stage, the lie becomes self-reinforcing. The power of the lie is enhanced if there is a folie a deux, if two people are in on the lie together. At its most extreme, the lie can lead to a mass suicide, like the Heaven's Gate suicides..... Within the structure it was congruent, it made sense, they understood it, everybody said the same thing. It was the rest of the world that was living the lie.' "
. . . . .Does that explain why some couples or families have an elaborate system of reinforcing each other's statements and beliefs, in the face of just about everything going on around them? I've often wondered when keeping my ears open on trains & buses. No doubt I am no different when push comes to shove.
Returning to a book mentioned in another article here, 'More Scams from the Great Beyond: How to make even more money off of creationism, evolution, environmentalism, fringe politics, weird science, the occult and other strange beliefs' Peter Huston:
He comments on various hoaxers or what some people call 'true believers' and comes up with some interesting ideas about dynamics. In particular he writes of rather earnest campaigners that there can be in some fields - any field really. Maybe a lot of us are basically rebels seeking a cause or something 'meaningful' to work on with other people.
In Chapter 4 on the subject of 'Environmentalism' Huston takes the mick out of the seriousness with which some people take the issues, and I'm not saying that should be an object of fun. But there's many a true word spoken in jest, as the saying goes, and he illustrates it with this on p.86 under a title of 'Canvassing' he writes:
'Choose one particular issue and declare it your cause of the day... Next get a group of well-meaning, idealistic people together... one way is to run a newspaper classified ad... 'Save the Environment' etc... The key elements are an appeal to idealism, greed, and people with lack of experience.
'Collect these well-meaning, idealistic people. Keep them in one place together for a period of time. This serves several psychological purposes. First they will enjoy one another's company and form a group of some sort. Second they will reinforce each other's willingness to do the humiliating and morally questionable work that comes later.'
. . . . .
I was fortunate to attend a talk by an author on cults, hypnosis, brainwashing and so on, who was not afraid to mince words, many of which were above my head. But something stuck in my mind and was worth the visit. He used the term 'deployable agents' to describe what some people turn, or get turned, into. In his context of cults and influence (My note: I feel it could be a group or workplace situation) he suggested that the 'deal is done' when the individual can be relied on to act on the cult philosophy without now being watched or told what to do.
Some companies openly use the words 'company indoctrination' and there's an increasing trend towards teamwork, building a group-mind, de-individualising the individual, 'you can't do enough for a good firm', 'we need 100 per cent of you' and so on. Hang on, if they get 100 percent, what's left for the individual? We are naturally affected by people we are in contact with, and perhaps the influence is benign or most of it disappears over a period of time.
Perhaps it sometimes works in favour of individuals, a group-mind or team-spirit which can be nourishing too and which they can draw from. Some suggest that we need to mix with a variety of other people to stay sane and healthy. However I guess one man's meat is another's poison so one can't generalise.
So long as no-one is manipulating a group for their own purposes, perhaps there is no need to worry too much, and there could actually be benefits to others involved. I think unease about cults in general comes in when, to the person outside looking in, there seems an agenda which only a few at the top layer know of or can do anything about, and is detrimental to the members.
Somewhere I read that people like Charles Manson were like an orchestrator or conductor of the personalities of people in his group, so that they were effectively acting out the roles of his subpersonalities or dissociations like in a DID system.
Dr William Sargant wrote on the phenomenon of conversion to religion or way of thought, and suggested it occurred a lot easier if there was high excitation of an area in the brain. In a TV interview some years ago he joked that he would not wish to attend a particular ritual or event as he 'did not want to get converted'.
Does this have relevance for large crowds, rallies, congregations, pop concerts, or even some individual or small-group practices like meditation or ritual? Can we change our own psychological reality? Can reality really get changed, or does how we perceive things change? Can someone else change us against our inclination? How would they benefit? Would we! If about half of us have a 'religious gene' and half not, where does that leave half of us? any of us? all of us? 'in real terms'?
Will there always be some split in belief or perception which divides us humans into camps, as if somehow we have to seek differentiation? Maybe this is where the 'hissing & splitting' comes in. If someone goes in for meditation, or has a feverish illness and senses things differently, do they actually become different? If tragedy knocks harshly on your door, are you necessarily the same person afterwards? I feel we can get changed by things, sometimes so that there is no 'going back' completely. The speaker on cults and 'deployable agents' mentioned above, suggested a need to accept that people may not be able to go right back as they were before joining.
Before closing, a note about a public lecture that was held at the London School of Economics on 'Why is it Always 'Us' and 'Them': on the natural history of thinking through groups' by Professor Lawrence Hirschfeld. I couldn't make it to the lecture so looked his name up and with luck and a fair wind this Link will take you to some information on his work. The LSE holds free public lectures in term-time, see www.lse.ac.uk/events
Over to you - What do you think?
That's a sweeping statement which I'll draw in a little by mentioning a book 'Profiling the Criminal Mind: Behavioral Science & Criminal Investigative Analysis' by Dr Robert J Girod Sr. It is an introductory book outlining main themes and theories about profiling and investigation of crime from the author's experience, also mentioning the work of many others with wide-ranging views, experience and expertise.
Several chapters mention the kind of situation that people are in, such as groups they belong to where the 'group cause' could be a motivating factor in criminal or other activity. Some of the subtitles from the CONTENTS list are:
Gang motivated murder
Criminal competition homicide
Group cause homicide:
Cult murder
Extremist murder
Group excitement murder
Peer/group pressure
Group retaliation
Child/adolescent pornography
Historical child/adolescent sex rings
Multidimensional sex rings
Group cause sexual assault
The Nature of Cults:
Attributes
Attitudes
Characteristics
What are Cults
The list continues and some aspects clearly may also come under individual behaviour.
Another useful book is 'Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool' by Ronald M. Holmes & Stephen T. Holmes. There are many more, some quite expensive and some intended more for academics or for those working in the field.
My point (lest you think I wander or wonder aimlessly) is I am strongly inclined to think that sadistic, violent or extreme behaviours are probably things that most people are capable of, especially when under extreme stress or in extreme circumstances. That includes the company we keep, or are somehow inveigled into keeping.
In other words I suggest almost a continuum of behaviour, the extremity of which is shocking but where other factors can sometimes render the shock factor insufficient to prevent our involvement, willing or unwilling, witting or unwitting.
Those extreme behaviours could therefore be like an extension of 'normal people's normal behaviour'.
That is some sobering thought. Maybe I got it all wrong ...
But then I came across John Sweeney's book 'Purple Homicide: Fear and loathing on Knutsford Heath' where in the Epilogue he outlines some theories of cult behaviour and extremes such as suicide by members of a group or cult:
Page 260:
"Ashley Grossman is Professor of Neuro-endocrinology at Bart's Hospital in London. He saw a comparison between those who build and reinforce a system of lies and mass suicide cults. 'All of us from time to time tell lies. If the lie is outside the structure, then we can handle that. But if we construct a house around that lie, with eaves and guttering and drainpipes, then we are in trouble. There is a psychological theory that is called cognitive dissonance, which implies that everything must be reasonably congruent. So there comes a certain stage where you start living in that house because there isn't too much else outside. Then even the most reasonably balanced person will find it quite difficult to distinguish between truth and non-truth. They do literally live that lie and it becomes part of their self-structure. It will be hard then to say that someone is deliberately lying because, by that stage, the lie becomes self-reinforcing. The power of the lie is enhanced if there is a folie a deux, if two people are in on the lie together. At its most extreme, the lie can lead to a mass suicide, like the Heaven's Gate suicides..... Within the structure it was congruent, it made sense, they understood it, everybody said the same thing. It was the rest of the world that was living the lie.' "
. . . . .Does that explain why some couples or families have an elaborate system of reinforcing each other's statements and beliefs, in the face of just about everything going on around them? I've often wondered when keeping my ears open on trains & buses. No doubt I am no different when push comes to shove.
Returning to a book mentioned in another article here, 'More Scams from the Great Beyond: How to make even more money off of creationism, evolution, environmentalism, fringe politics, weird science, the occult and other strange beliefs' Peter Huston:
He comments on various hoaxers or what some people call 'true believers' and comes up with some interesting ideas about dynamics. In particular he writes of rather earnest campaigners that there can be in some fields - any field really. Maybe a lot of us are basically rebels seeking a cause or something 'meaningful' to work on with other people.
In Chapter 4 on the subject of 'Environmentalism' Huston takes the mick out of the seriousness with which some people take the issues, and I'm not saying that should be an object of fun. But there's many a true word spoken in jest, as the saying goes, and he illustrates it with this on p.86 under a title of 'Canvassing' he writes:
'Choose one particular issue and declare it your cause of the day... Next get a group of well-meaning, idealistic people together... one way is to run a newspaper classified ad... 'Save the Environment' etc... The key elements are an appeal to idealism, greed, and people with lack of experience.
'Collect these well-meaning, idealistic people. Keep them in one place together for a period of time. This serves several psychological purposes. First they will enjoy one another's company and form a group of some sort. Second they will reinforce each other's willingness to do the humiliating and morally questionable work that comes later.'
. . . . .
I was fortunate to attend a talk by an author on cults, hypnosis, brainwashing and so on, who was not afraid to mince words, many of which were above my head. But something stuck in my mind and was worth the visit. He used the term 'deployable agents' to describe what some people turn, or get turned, into. In his context of cults and influence (My note: I feel it could be a group or workplace situation) he suggested that the 'deal is done' when the individual can be relied on to act on the cult philosophy without now being watched or told what to do.
Some companies openly use the words 'company indoctrination' and there's an increasing trend towards teamwork, building a group-mind, de-individualising the individual, 'you can't do enough for a good firm', 'we need 100 per cent of you' and so on. Hang on, if they get 100 percent, what's left for the individual? We are naturally affected by people we are in contact with, and perhaps the influence is benign or most of it disappears over a period of time.
Perhaps it sometimes works in favour of individuals, a group-mind or team-spirit which can be nourishing too and which they can draw from. Some suggest that we need to mix with a variety of other people to stay sane and healthy. However I guess one man's meat is another's poison so one can't generalise.
So long as no-one is manipulating a group for their own purposes, perhaps there is no need to worry too much, and there could actually be benefits to others involved. I think unease about cults in general comes in when, to the person outside looking in, there seems an agenda which only a few at the top layer know of or can do anything about, and is detrimental to the members.
Somewhere I read that people like Charles Manson were like an orchestrator or conductor of the personalities of people in his group, so that they were effectively acting out the roles of his subpersonalities or dissociations like in a DID system.
More videos in this series at www.youtube.com/user/scillaholmes
Dr William Sargant wrote on the phenomenon of conversion to religion or way of thought, and suggested it occurred a lot easier if there was high excitation of an area in the brain. In a TV interview some years ago he joked that he would not wish to attend a particular ritual or event as he 'did not want to get converted'.
Does this have relevance for large crowds, rallies, congregations, pop concerts, or even some individual or small-group practices like meditation or ritual? Can we change our own psychological reality? Can reality really get changed, or does how we perceive things change? Can someone else change us against our inclination? How would they benefit? Would we! If about half of us have a 'religious gene' and half not, where does that leave half of us? any of us? all of us? 'in real terms'?
Will there always be some split in belief or perception which divides us humans into camps, as if somehow we have to seek differentiation? Maybe this is where the 'hissing & splitting' comes in. If someone goes in for meditation, or has a feverish illness and senses things differently, do they actually become different? If tragedy knocks harshly on your door, are you necessarily the same person afterwards? I feel we can get changed by things, sometimes so that there is no 'going back' completely. The speaker on cults and 'deployable agents' mentioned above, suggested a need to accept that people may not be able to go right back as they were before joining.
Before closing, a note about a public lecture that was held at the London School of Economics on 'Why is it Always 'Us' and 'Them': on the natural history of thinking through groups' by Professor Lawrence Hirschfeld. I couldn't make it to the lecture so looked his name up and with luck and a fair wind this Link will take you to some information on his work. The LSE holds free public lectures in term-time, see www.lse.ac.uk/events
Over to you - What do you think?
. . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)