Are sociopaths leading science?

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Tue May 05, 2015 2:49 am

Something I discovered something:

How to Spot a Sociopath
A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one's goals.

I don't want to offend people, but I can see some famous skeptics behave exactly this way. Additionally some scientists are pushing certain ideas in similar ways for profit or status. We are even seeing this kind of behavior as normal.

The behavior leads to personal attacks, lies and more. Any normal discussions are interrupted and observations are ridiculed.

Other people often copy this behavior, and even believe that it is normal. Often they behave like trolls. Most scientific discussions about new topics are terrible.

I think that sociopaths are pushing science in the direction that they want. Many scientists are not strong in social interactions, which makes it harder for them to spot and oppose this kind of people.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
Kuldebar
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:42 am
Location: Tacoma, Washington
Contact:

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Kuldebar » Tue May 05, 2015 9:20 am

The best number we got is that about 1-4% of the general population can be classified as "sociopathic". That's a fairly high percentage as these things go.

Obviously, it's always a dubious business to paint in broad strokes in regards to labeling our fellow human beings. Politics is awash in such practices, and it is often inflicted upon people like us EU-types as well or any others who don't ride the waves of institutionalized consensus.

Having said that, sociopaths certainly exist in our society and often are attracted to positions of authority and control; so I am sure that the scientific establishment has the normal amount of such personalities, no more than government, business or religious organizations tend to do. All it takes is one or a few in gatekeeper positions to gum up the works for the rest of us, that's a scary enough thought.


It's always good to point out and remember that science is a human endeavor and not immune to human failings and foibles. I think that far too often, people treat science like some sort of infallible divinity; and perhaps it would be, if humans did not have to play out their roles like those of a priesthood.


===================================================

:evil: :twisted: :?:
“If all you had ever felt toward another person were the cold wish to “win,” how would you understand the meaning of love, of friendship, of caring? You would not understand. You would simply go on dominating, and denying, and feeling superior. Perhaps you would experience a little emptiness sometimes, a remote sense of dissatisfaction, but that is all.”

“Maybe you cannot be the CEO of a multinational corporation, but you can frighten a few people, or cause them to scurry around like chickens, or steal from them, or—maybe best of all—create situations that cause them to feel bad about themselves. And this is power, especially when the people you manipulate are superior to you in some way. Most invigorating of all is to bring down people who are smarter or more accomplished than you, or perhaps classier, more attractive or popular or morally admirable. This is not only good fun; it is existential vengeance. And without a conscience, it is amazingly easy to do. You quietly lie to the boss or to the boss's boss, cry some crocodile tears, or sabotage a coworker's project, or gaslight a patient (or a child), bait people with promises, or provide a little misinformation that will never be traced back to you.”

“Or no—let us say you are not quite such a person. You are ambitious, yes, and in the name of success you are willing to do all manner of things that people with conscience would never consider, but you are not an intellectually gifted individual. Your intelligence is above average perhaps, and people think of you as smart, maybe even very smart. But you know in your heart of hearts that you do not have the cognitive wherewithal, or the creativity, to reach the careening heights of power you secretly dream about, and this makes you resentful of the world at large, and envious of the people around you. As this sort of person, you ensconce yourself in a niche, or maybe a series of niches, in which you can have some amount of control over small numbers of people. These situations satisfy a little of your desire for power, although you are chronically aggravated at not having more. It chafes to be so free of the ridiculous inner voice that inhibits others from achieving great power, without having enough talent to pursue the ultimate successes yourself. Sometimes you fall into sulky, rageful moods caused by a frustration that no one but you understands.”

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person. Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers. The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions.
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not the space between Heaven and Earth like a bellows? It is empty, but lacks nothing. The more it moves, the more comes out of it. -Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching
--------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Phorce
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce
Contact:

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Phorce » Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:59 am

Yes, but are you playing the blame game ?I've made that mistake myself. What we see in Science, esp. In the West, is emergent behaviour from serious problems with abuse and mistreatment - often at an early age - that leads to badly approached anger and rage, misunderstandings of which are sanctioned by society. Look at the big picture ! See

Anger, Rage and Relationship: An Empathic Approach to Anger Management [Kindle Edition], Sue Parker Hall
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !

User avatar
Melusine
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:18 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Melusine » Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:13 am

Zyxzevn wrote:I think that sociopaths are pushing science in the direction that they want. Many scientists are not strong in social interactions, which makes it harder for them to spot and oppose this kind of people.
Yes, agreed. Also, many scientists choose to follow the 'directions given' consciously because they know it is the surest way to status and recognition (or grants, or just getting paid every month?)

Sometimes I wonder how many scientists hold private beliefs/knowledge different from the ones they uphold/promote at work.

Other personality traits of sociopaths: they are oftentimes highly intelligent. Also can be very charming in their relationship with other people, even charismatic (that's one of the ways they manipulate others into doing their bidding.)

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:49 pm

While following the criticism on the EU, I came across many logical fallacies from mainstream "scientists".
Remarkably, there are a lot related to sociopathic behavior.

From wikipedia "logical fallacies"

Formal fallacies
none

Propositional fallacies
none

Quantification fallacies
None

Formal syllogistic fallacies
None

Informal fallacies
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
Sociopath: EU is dismissed as absurdity without proving its absurdity.
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
This is more a general problem. Many people can not imagine that redshift may not imply inflation.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[17][18] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
Scientists are programmed not to doubt relativity and big bang.
Why does it need repetition? Who keeps on pushing this?
Can we just not learn this by ourselves?
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
We can not see the start of the universe, we can not reach stars.
We do not understand quantum physics.
But scientists assume there is a big bang and even a multiverse.
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Sociopath: I need no evidence, you must bring proof.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Big bang-> background radiation-> gravity waves-> waves in background polazation -> big bang
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Mutliverse-> Bigbang -> Multiverse
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Common reaction to EU theories.
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
Big bang-> everything is possible.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Einstein rings
False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
Sociopath: Common responds.
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Relativity / Aether
Big bang / eternal universe
Somehow we are trained to think this way.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[37]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Gravity
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.

Comets
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Sociopath: Common behavior.

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Common due to misinformed scientists.
Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
Sociopath: Common behavior. Mainstream science is holier.

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Sociopath: "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Common due to misinformed scientists.
It is sociopathic to push the idea that alternatives need to be perfect.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.
Dark matter: Some invisible dark matter might exist. More force is needed in galaxies. So (invisible) dark matter exists.
Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition a.k.a. argumentum ad infinitum
relativity/ big bang / icy comets/ etc.
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
The Big Bang is a complex matter.
Partially sociopathic.
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
The Big Bang theory comes very close. Dark energy.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
The Multiverse theory uses this in a strange way.
The universe is totally in balance with their constants. This is inevitable because
the "multiverse" creates an infinite number of universes, of which some are balanced.
Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
There is "so much evidence" for the big bang.
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
There are many wonders in the universe. But there is no doubt about the redshift or cosmic background radiation.

Faulty generalizations
Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
Sociopath: No true scientist will doubt relativity or the big bang.
Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
Inflation / dark matter
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
Not really an "accurate" generalization:
Black hole theories are full with exceptions.
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
"This interesting observation needs more research."
"We learn more about the universe than ever before."

red herring fallacies
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.

Common by misinformed scientists.
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
(2nd time in list)
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Sites like "rationalwiki" are full with this garbage.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
Common for misinformed scientists.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people (scientists) believe it to be so.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.
Sociopath: Common behavior.
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Common for misinformed scientists, but the misrepresentation can be planted by sociopath.

------

Conclusion
Many arguments against the EU and other alternative theories come from people
behaving like sociopaths.

Additionally many scientists do not know to do normal logical reasoning anymore.
Normal logical reasoning means that you use evidence and find a common accepted conclusion.
It does not mean that you repeat what other scientists are saying.

Scientists constantly attack those that have "alternative" theories,
and firmly hold on to older theories.

Our education system is based on pushing formulas in our heads,
but we do are not taught how to think about them, how to derive them,
why they are like that. How can we ever learn to grow, if we are only
trained to remember?

And who/what started the competition between scientists and scientific theories?
Reputation seems more important than ever.
Only sociopaths want to be "the best".
And sociopaths like to attack the reputation of other scientists/people.

Science is supposed to be cooperative process of all humans and all ideas.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

ZenMonkeyNZ
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by ZenMonkeyNZ » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:15 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:While following the criticism on the EU, I came across many logical fallacies from mainstream "scientists".
Yep. I am currently writing a treatise on the philosophy of science that begins with a section on critical thinking, and includes notes on intellectual traps such as fallacies. I see thinking about thinking as a prerequisite to studying science. As you say, our education system does not teach people how to think well, so before I even begin talking about the philosophy of science proper I am covering guidelines for good thinking practices.

As an aside, there are two schools of thought that I am aware of regarding sociopathy vs psychopathy. In one, both are defined by behavioural traits, but the other defines psychopathy as a lack of normal empathetic reactions in the brain, which although there may be some common behavioural traits, such traits are in no way necessary (i.e. psychopaths can mimic empathy, and in many cases actually be empathetic if the try to be – this is according to brain activity recordings when shown emotional stimuli). I prefer this second view. I think most politicians and business leaders who are two-faced and demonstrate a lack of real concern for the well-being of others are psychopathic or have psychopathic tendencies, rather than being sociopathic. I'm not sure how this fits with scientists attitudes, though.

User avatar
Phorce
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce
Contact:

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Phorce » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:53 am

Sounds good but there's a missing factor here.

"Society's attitude about child sexual abuse and exploitation can be summed up in one word: denial. Most people do not want to hear about it and would prefer to pretend that child sexual victimization just does not occur. Today, however, it is difficult to pretend that it does not happen. Stories and reports about child sexual victimization are daily occurrences."

“Investigator’s Guide to Allegations of “Ritual” Childhood Abuse“, 1992, Lanning, Kenneth V, FBI Special Agent, Behavoural Science Unit, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia - https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/ ... ?ID=136592

As I've found myself, when working with a psychologist on this issue, the implications of this don't tend to get figured into the big picture. Some problematic scientists may have been subjected to violent acts in childhood. If that happened at ages 6 or below there is a high chance that person can "split", dissociate and develop what used to be called MPD, or what are now called Dissociative Identities. Unless the victim becomes aware of this they could start exhibiting the "bizaare" behaviour like we see some from some scientists who reject hypothesis against all reason and common sense.

In my opinion this is an important factor to consider. Some scientists are not just being "arkward" but exhibit signs - for those in the know - of the results of severe childhood mistreatment. Such violation of childhood innocence can create necrophilia - as defined by M Scott Peck in "People of the Lie", or Eric Fromm in "The Heart if Man, Its Genius for Good and Evil". The victim takes out a "revenge on life" for the awful acts carried out against them in childhood. They can be overtly criminal, or more covert ... like the "strange" behaviour of some so called mainstream scientists in the face of controversial and often LIFE FILLED subjects like Electric Universe .... or .... Panspermia;

"If a jury comprised of 12 impartial men and women were presented with the full range of evidence on the existence of extraterrestrial life, and the cosmic origins of life, there is scarcely any doubt that the verdict will be positive. So overwhelming is the totality of the evidence we have discussed. Ingress of extraterrestrial life to the Earth would appear to have been established beyond a shadow of doubt. The fact that this conclusion is not widely known or publicised is in the authors’ view entirely a function of state control of scientific paradigms, of a kind reminiscent of the behaviour of totalitarian political regimes."

Page 5, Life as a Cosmic Phenomenon: The Socio-Economic Control of a Scientific Paradigm, Chandra Wickramasinghe and Gensuke Tokoro - http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals ... ?aid=27389

Totalitarian regimes commonly involve necrophilic psychology defined as being against or attacking life, the converse of the love of life; biophilia.

The author may have a point about state control, but the other issue here is as usual probably difficult for many to figure in. Child abuse makes people uncomfortable, but the seriousness of it, and in serious numbers, when figured into this issue could go some way to explaining the behaviour of some "pig headed" scientists.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:04 pm

Phorce wrote:... The victim takes out a "revenge on life" for the awful acts carried out against them in childhood. They can be overtly criminal, or more covert ... like the "strange" behaviour of some so called mainstream scientists in the face of controversial and often LIFE FILLED subjects like Electric Universe .... or .... Panspermia;
Yes, it is interesting that these people usually attack the theories that promote LIFE instead of those that promote DEATH and DESTRUCTION.

This trend is visible almost everywhere:
Black holes: very destructive.
Big bang: a destructive happening, that coincidentally created this world and life.
Evolution: kill others to survive and evolve.
Brain research: no free will.
Medicine: eradicate all diseases, use poison until patient dies.
Politics: money above cooperation.


Yet they are very against research that suggests some kind of life-force or
even a electromagnetic force that creates.

This does indeed indicate that these people are traumatized and taking "revenge on life".

As I see it, these people have severe traumas in their consciousness. They have probably
developed a separate personality (persona). And as long they attack anything related
to this consciousness, or the reality of the trauma or this persona,
they can pretend there is no trauma.

I have only met a few obsessed skeptics.
One said: "As long the other does not smile, i feel good."
Or: "I have to stop people from thinking different."

I hope we will soon have treatments for these poor people.
I suggest hug-therapy. :lol:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Cubit32
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:40 pm

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Cubit32 » Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:03 am

If you will entertain me for a minute, lets assume reincarnation as true and that fallen angels exist and are born like us as babies that grow up, live and die but have the consciousness to want to destroy the human race in body and soul. It is not necessary for one of these to consciously know that its consciousness is to rebel against God, by instinct the rebellious fallen soul will resonate with souls like its own and adhere to its a fallen philosophy which is opposed specifically to the highest representation of God on earth; truth loving, people loving, honest to God salt of the earth people who consciously or unconsciously love verything that is good and right in the world who ultimately (whether they consciously know it or not) love what is godly; namely truth, compassion and upright living. Good people can be of any race and any creed, because it is the spiritual heart that ultimately determines who you are.

The action of fallen ones is to destroy the children of God by attacking them where it hurts, by destroying their hope, self-confidence, compassion and spiritual knowledge. The most important to surpress good people is to keep good people ignorant of their souls and hearts because these are the wellspring that truly inspire and invigorate. When we do something that we know grieves our heart and soul, we lose a part of ourselves. And when we do something for the betterment of our or someone elses soul, we become greater beings filled with light. The science of the heart and soul are the highest science in te whole world, because these are the wellspring of life.

The saints of old (from most ancient religions) teach us to be virtuous, to have hope, compassion, devotion, courage, faith, stength, perseverance, vision, patience, wisdom, self control, temperance and discipline.

On the other hand the fallen ones teach us that we are selfish, that the entire creation will end in total death, that virtue is an outdated concept and hypocrtical and stupid because they say it is still based on selfishness. We don't have a soul and that the heart is no more than a childish euphemism scientifically. As such there is no need for compassion, instead we can have enlightened selfishness. And we can have humility in "knowing" that we are nought but bags of chemicals and the offspring of primordial slime which evolved without purpose or any deep meaning, of that knowledge in turn we can be proud.

I don't think it is necessary to think that anti-scientists were traumatized in this lifetime but
I suppose a discussion of reincarnation is beyond the scope of this topic.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by nick c » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:42 am

To all concerned, please read:
Forum Rules and Guidelines
The discussion of political and religious matters is to be discouraged, except when clearly relevant to the discussion in progress.

philalethes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by philalethes » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:32 am

Part of the spirit the EU brings is to think outside of the box, and allow for speculation. Often the biggest block is ideas of what is "relevant" being imposed by authority figures.

I find the speculation about fallen angels and reincarnation relevant. Philosophers (the old name for scientist) have always looked into why people are the way they are, good, bad, indifferent, open to new ideas, reactionary, etc.
The final chapter in Plato's Republic (a treatise on what is Justice, how to think right, how one would understand how people tick to make laws for a civil society) ends on a final chapter, the Myth of Er, an out of body experience of Er who observed the afterworld when souls come to the staging area before taking a new incarnation and persona.

If indeed such factors let us contemplate a longer view of the causality that brings people to their current dispositions, in addition to whatever happened to us as babies (or in the womb, see Grof), then these factors must not be left out of the discussion.

If reincarnation has some basis in fact, then it is not "religion." Biologist Rupert Sheldrake introduced the theory of morphic fields and resonance as a "mnemonic substrate" that carries ideas or psychic seeds from generation to generation (in addition to epigenetic biological carriers). If we can't speculate on reincarnation as a factor in why some grinchs are so resistant to paradigm change, then the EU community has already created its own monitors of what is "right" and "allowable" thought.

I've spent a fair amount of time investigating "past life" trauma, and seen release from psychological blocks from regression techniques. We can't be sure if this person actually lived a previous life, or tuned into some glitch in the group memory field, but the release is real and lasting. So for now we can go with whatever symbology the client's subconscious came up with. There are studies where children's memories of a previous life were checked out and they found the places and people described. So it may be true for some. Keep an open EU style inquisitive mind and let's be open to deeper hidden formative forces as causative possibility. ;)

philalethes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by philalethes » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:46 am

One of the most interesting aspects of the EU and Saturn Sun and following catastrophes has been, for me, about the collective trauma mankind went through. Velikovsky as a psychiatrist also honed in on this. Just as abusive dysfunctional families can damage the kids, leading to defensive stratagems, even to sociopathic behaviors born of fear about survival, so too are we now stuck with religions and economic theories based on scarcity models, putative Sky God Fathers, fires of Hell and apocalyptic visions (future projection of the past trauma, of a God who hates and punishes us). We have old line financial elite families and secret society traditions that operate from fear and thus they scheme to control everyone else.

Imho, one of the most important factors keep mainstreamers from daring to consider the EU is the cataclysm angle; it stirs up deep foreboding dread in their deep psyche, and undercurrent latent in the collective morphic psyche. Dave Talbott knows this; that's why he starts off every episode of Discourses on an Alien Sky by saying "..to experience this won't hurt you and there is nothing to fear."

Until this hidden irrational fear is lifted people and 'scientists' may well resist learning more because the EU story takes them away from their safe clockwork universe... or if there were catastrophes, they were millions of years ago.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:46 am

Pathocracy
This topic is important for the reform of Science. An eastern European psychologist studied psychopathic behavior among politicians in eastern Europe before the USSR collapsed. He and colleagues found that about 6% of any population tends to be psychopaths, those who have no significant conscience, meaning not caring about others, and 12% of a population tend to be sociopaths, those who largely suppress conscience, such as under the influence of psychopaths. Both types are attracted to and often attain positions of power and they are good at recognizing each other and conspiring for their own benefit. I have discussed this at length at http://forum.freestateproject.org/index ... ic=18297.0.

Scientific Method
I discussed in this TB post, http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16278, suggestions for improving the Scientific Method to help get pathocracy, i.e. rule by psychopaths, out of science.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Are sociopaths leading science?

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:59 pm

Play Around
I invite anyone to play what I think is a better game than what I tried previously. I call this game SUPERVIEW. All you do is state a little-known fact and a reference. Play the game starting at this post in my CNPS thread: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 04#p113004.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Improve Science Discussion

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:00 am

SCI FACTS GAME
Sci Facts game is planned for tonight at 9 pm ET, 6 pm Pacific.
Location is a chatroom at http://chatzy.com/45699794196406.
Rules:
Briefly state any specific, lesser-known scientific fact.
The fact may relate to this thread topic or any other science topic.
State one fact per post.
Make as many posts as you like.
Next day, judges will decide which fact seems most important and deserves the most publicity.
The decision will be posted at the chatroom and in the thread at:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16278

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests