Science > Philosophy > Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <=
| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"mimus" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2006 11:18:07 AM |
| Object: |
Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:44:30 -0700, last_post wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:01:16 -0600, "=> Vox Populi©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Over the past two decades, experts have seen a sixfold annual increase in the
number of people diagnosed with esophageal cancer.
Cancer in the upper esophagus (the tube that connects the mouth to the stomach),
is linked to alcohol and smoking. Richards admitted to heavy drinking and
smoking in her younger years, saying she "smoked like a chimney and drank like a
fish."
Drinking and smoking have not increased six times in twenty years.
| Please provide some proof of that - that is one
| negative that might be proved -or- disproved.
| Even so, there are other factors involved such as
| the 50± chemicals they put in the tobacco and the
| paper, some of which are mandated by law, and
| including one to which I am allergic.
Scientists need to
figure out what change occurred twenty years ago to cause the increase.
| Not really - people just need to stop smoking,
| as I did.
Pointing the
finger at drinking and smoking is a cop out.
| Not at all! There are a multitude of ways, besides
| esophageal cancer, that drinking and smoking
| can kill you. Joe Dimaggio smoked himself to death
| with emphysema; my father - heart attack with a
| cigarette in his mouth; King George VI, and my
| cousin Leo, by Berger's disease. You do not get to
| choose, - except the poison is the same.
| You are the cop out kid.
<mildly>
If drinking or smoking or drinking-and-smoking cause esophageal cancer,
shouldn't one hundred percent (or close) of those who do so get that?
What's the percentage, per drink or smoke or drink-and-smoke, or per
year, or per lifetime?
Or is that statistic (any of 'em) being conveniently ignored, as is common
with prohibitionists and other totalitarians pushing fake causal claims to
"justify" their violence?
--
The best piece of logic I ever heard, Mr Larynx; the very best,
I assure you.
< _Nightmare Abbey_
.
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi©" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
16 Sep 2006 11:54:25 AM |
|
|
"mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.16.16.18.01.611036@hotmail.com...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:44:30 -0700, last_post wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:01:16 -0600, "=> Vox Populi©" <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Over the past two decades, experts have seen a sixfold annual increase in
the
number of people diagnosed with esophageal cancer.
Cancer in the upper esophagus (the tube that connects the mouth to the
stomach),
is linked to alcohol and smoking. Richards admitted to heavy drinking and
smoking in her younger years, saying she "smoked like a chimney and drank
like a
fish."
Drinking and smoking have not increased six times in twenty years.
| Please provide some proof of that - that is one
| negative that might be proved -or- disproved.
| Even so, there are other factors involved such as
| the 50± chemicals they put in the tobacco and the
| paper, some of which are mandated by law, and
| including one to which I am allergic.
Scientists need to
figure out what change occurred twenty years ago to cause the increase.
| Not really - people just need to stop smoking,
| as I did.
Pointing the
finger at drinking and smoking is a cop out.
| Not at all! There are a multitude of ways, besides
| esophageal cancer, that drinking and smoking
| can kill you. Joe Dimaggio smoked himself to death
| with emphysema; my father - heart attack with a
| cigarette in his mouth; King George VI, and my
| cousin Leo, by Berger's disease. You do not get to
| choose, - except the poison is the same.
| You are the cop out kid.
<mildly>
If drinking or smoking or drinking-and-smoking cause esophageal cancer,
shouldn't one hundred percent (or close) of those who do so get that?
Who said it caused esophageal cancer, beside you tobacco-addicted imbeciles?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
16 Sep 2006 12:23:48 PM |
|
|
mimus wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
<mildly>
If drinking or smoking or drinking-and-smoking cause esophageal cancer,
shouldn't one hundred percent (or close) of those who do so get that?
What's the percentage, per drink or smoke or drink-and-smoke, or per
year, or per lifetime?
Or is that statistic (any of 'em) being conveniently ignored, as is common
with prohibitionists and other totalitarians pushing fake causal claims to
"justify" their violence?
"Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
consonance among beliefs." --Jones and Gerard
Cognitive dissonance is the state
of tension one feels after making
a decision, taking an action, or
being exposed to some information
that is (contrary) to a prior attitude
-(Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752).
The state of tension is
psychologically unpleasant,
so something must change to
reduce the dissonance --
usually the prior attitude.
http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/cogdis.htm
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/9710/cogdiss.htm
http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
Influential conflicts when making a decision;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.marketing.online.ebay/msg/5dba9fe5bc796c37
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette smoking
produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to
reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The
cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with the
cognition "I do not smoke."
But, for most people, it is not easy to give up smoking. Imagine Sally,
a young woman who tried to stop smoking but failed. What will she do to
reduce dissonance? In all probability, she will try to work on the
other cognition: "cigarette smoking produces cancer." Sally might
attempt to make light of evidence linking cigarette smoking to cancer.
For example, she might try to convince herself that the experimental
evidence is inconclusive. In addition, she might seek out intelligent
people who smoke and, by so doing, convince herself that if Debbie,
Nicole, and Larry smoke, it can't be all that dangerous. Sally might
switch to a filter-tipped brand and delude herself into believing that
the filter traps the cancer-producing materials. Finally, she might add
cognitions that are consonant with smoking in an attempt to make the
behavior less absurd in spite of its danger. Thus, Sally might enhance
the value placed on smoking; that is, she might come to believe smoking
is an important and highly enjoyable activity that is essential for
relaxation: "I may lead a shorter life, but it will be a more enjoyable
one." Similarly, she might try to make a virtue out of smoking by
developing a romantic, devil-may-care self-image, flouting danger by
smoking cigarettes. All such behavior reduces dissonance by reducing
the absurdity of the notion of going out of one's way to contract
cancer. Sally has justified her behavior by cognitively minimizing the
danger or by exaggerating the importance of the action. In effect, she
has succeeded either in constructing a new attitude or in changing an
existing attitude.
Indeed, shortly after the publicity surrounding the original surgeon
general's report in 1964, a survey was conducted to assess people's
reactions to the new evidence that smoking helps cause cancer.
Nonsmokers overwhelmingly believed the health report, only 10 percent
of those queried saying that the link between smoking and cancer had
not been proven to exist; these respondents had no motivation to
disbelieve the report. The smokers faced a more difficult quandary.
Smoking is a difficult habit to break; only 9 percent of the smokers
had been able to quit. To justify continuing the activity, smokers
tended to debunk the report. They were more likely to deny the
evidence: 40 percent of the heavy smokers said a link had not been
proven to exist. They were also more apt to employ rationalizations:
Over twice as many smokers as nonsmokers agreed that there are many
hazards in life and that both smokers and nonsmokers get cancer.
Smokers who are painfully aware of the health hazards associated with
smoking may reduce dissonance in yet another way-by minimizing the
extent of their habit. One study found that of 155 smokers who smoked
between one and two packs of cigarettes a day, 60 percent considered
themselves moderate smokers; the remaining 40 percent considered
themselves heavy smokers. How can we explain these different
self-perceptions? Not surprisingly, those who labeled themselves as
moderates were more aware of the pathological long-term effects of
smoking than were those who labeled themselves as heavy smokers. That
is, these particular smokers apparently reduced dissonance by
convincing themselves that smoking one or two packs a day isn't really
all that much. Moderate and heavy are, after all, subjective terms.
Imagine a teenage girl who has not yet begun to smoke. After reading
the surgeon general's report, is she apt to believe it? Like most of
the nonsmokers in the survey, she should. The evidence is objectively
sound, the source is expert and trustworthy, and there is no reason not
to believe the report. And this is the crux of the matter. Earlier in
this book, I made the point that people strive to be right, and that
values and beliefs become internalized when they appear to be correct.
It is this striving to be right that motivates people to pay close
attention to what other people are doing and to heed the advice of
expert, trustworthy communicators. This is extremely rational behavior.
There are forces, however, that can work against this rational
behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture people as
rational beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing beings.
According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we humans are
motivated not so much to be right as to believe-we are right (and wise,
and decent, and good).
Sometimes, our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we
are right work in the same direction. This is what is happening with
the young woman who doesn't smoke and therefore finds it easy to accept
the notion that smoking causes lung cancer. This would also be true for
a smoker who encounters the evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung
cancer and does succeed in giving up cigarettes. Occasionally, however,
the need to reduce dissonance (the need to convince oneself that one is
right or good) leads to behavior that is maladaptive and therefore
irrational. For example, many people have tried to quit smoking and
failed. What do these people do? It would be erroneous to assume that
they simply swallow hard and prepare to die. They don't. Instead, they
try to reduce their dissonance in a different way: namely, by
convincing themselves that smoking isn't as bad as they thought. Thus,
Rick Gibbons and his colleagues recently found that heavy smokers who
attended a smoking cessation clinic, quit smoking for a while and then
relapsed into heavy smoking again, subsequently succeeded in lowering
their perception of the dangers of smoking.
Why might this change of heart occur? If a person makes a serious
commitment to a course of action, such as quitting smoking, and then
fails to keep that commitment, his or her self-concept as a strong,
self-controlled individual is threatened. This, of course, arouses
dissonance. One way to reduce this dissonance and regain a healthy
sense of self-if not a healthy set of lungs-is to trivialize the
commitment by perceiving smoking as less dangerous. A more general
study that tracked the progress of 135 students who made New Year's
resolutions supports this observation. Individuals who broke their
resolutions-such as to quit smoking, lose weight, or exercise
more-initially felt bad about themselves for failing but, after a
short time, succeeded in downplaying the importance of the resolution.
Ironically, making light of a commitment they failed to keep serves to
restore their self-esteem but it also makes self-defeat a near
certainty in the future. In the short run, they are able to feel better
about themselves; in the long run, however, they have drastically
reduced the chances that they'll ever succeed in achieving their goals.
Is this the only way to reduce the dissonance associated with failing
to achieve a goal? No. An alternative response-and perhaps a less
maladaptive one-would be to lower one's expectations for success. For
example, a person who has been unable to give up smoking completely,
but who has cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked daily, could
interpret this outcome as a partial success rather than as a complete
failure. This course of action would soften the blow to his or her
self-esteem for having failed while still holding out the possibility
of achieving success in future efforts to quit smoking altogether.
Let's stay with the topic of cigarette smoking for a moment and
consider an extreme example: Suppose you are one of the top executives
of a major cigarette company-and therefore in a situation of maximum
commitment to the idea of cigarette smoking. Your job consists of
producing, advertising, and selling cigarettes to millions of people.
If it is true that cigarette smoking causes cancer, then, in a sense,
you are partially responsible for the illness and death of a great many
people. This would produce a painful degree of dissonance: Your
cognition "I am a decent, kind human being" would be dissonant with
your cognition "I am contributing to the early death of a great many
people." In order to reduce this dissonance, you must try to convince
yourself that cigarette smoking is not harmful; this would involve a
refutation of the mountain of evidence suggesting a causal link between
cigarettes and cancer. Moreover, in order to convince yourself further
that you are a good, moral person, you might go so far as to
demonstrate how much you disbelieve the evidence by smoking a great
deal yourself. If your need is great enough, you might even succeed in
convincing yourself that cigarettes are good for people. Thus, in order
to see yourself as wise, good, and right, you take action that is
stupid and detrimental to your health.
This analysis is so fantastic that it's almost beyond belief-almost.
In 1994, under the chairmanship of Henry Waxman, the U.S. Congress
conducted hearings on the dangers of smoking. At these hearings, the
top executives of most of the major tobacco companies admitted they
were smokers and actually argued that cigarettes are no more harmful or
addictive than playing video games or eating Twinkies! In a subsequent
hearing, in 1997, James J. Morgan, president and chief executive
officer of the leading U.S. cigarette maker, said that cigarettes are
not pharmacologically addictive. "Look, I like gummy bears, and I eat
gummy bears. And I don't like it when I don't eat gummy bears," Morgan
said. "But I'm certainly not addicted to them." This kind of public
denial is nothing new, of course. Over a quarter of a century ago, the
following news item was released by the Washington Post's News Service:
Jack Landry pulls what must be his 30th Marlboro of the day out of one
of the two packs on his desk, lights a match to it and tells how he
doesn't believe all those reports about smoking and cancer and
emphysema. He has just begun to market yet another cigarette for Philip
Morris U.S.A. and is brimming over with satisfaction over its
prospects. But how does he square with his conscience the spending of
$10 million in these United States over the next year to lure people
into smoking his new brand? "It's not a matter of that," says Landry,
Philip Morris'vice president for marketing. "Nearly half the adults in
this country smoke. It's a basic commodity for them. I'm serving a
need. . . . There are studies by pretty eminent medical and scientific
authorities, one on a theory of stress, on how a heck of a lot of
people, if they didn't have cigarette smoking to relieve stress, would
be one hell of a lot worse off. And there are plenty of valid studies
that indicate cigarette smoking and all those diseases are not
related." His satisfaction, says Landry, comes from being very good at
his job in a very competitive business, and he will point out that
Philip Morris and its big-selling Marlboro has just passed American
Tobacco as the No. 2 cigarette seller in America (R. J. Reynolds is
still No. 1). Why a new cigarette now? Because it is there to be sold,
says Landry. And therein lies the inspiration of the marketing of a new
American cigarette, which Landry confidently predicts will have a 1
percent share of the American market within 12 months. That 1 percent
will equal about five billion cigarettes and a healthy profit for
Philip Morris U.S.A.
It is possible that James Morgan and Jack Landry are simply lying. But
it may be a bit more complicated than that; my guess is that, over the
years, they may have succeeded in deceiving themselves. Near the close
of Chapter 3,I discussed the fact that information campaigns are
relatively ineffective when they attempt to change deep-seated
attitudes. We can now see precisely why. If people are committed to an
attitude, the information the communicator presents arouses dissonance;
frequently, the best way to reduce the dissonance is to reject or
distort the evidence. The deeper a person's commitment to an attitude,
the greater his or her tendency to reject dissonant evidence. You may
recall that in Chapter 1,I described an incident in which, shortly
before their suicide, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult demanded
their money back because the telescope they had just purchased didn't
reveal the spaceship they believed was following in the wake of the
Hale-Bopp comet. Needless to say, there was no spaceship. But if you
are deeply committed to believing in the existence of a spaceship and
your telescope doesn't reveal it, then obviously there must be
something wrong with the telescope!
Juicy anecdotes are suggestive. But they do not constitute scientific
evidence and are, therefore, not convincing in themselves. Again,
taking the cigarette example, it is always possible that Mr. Morgan and
Mr. Landry know that cigarettes are harmful and are simply being
cynical. Likewise, it is possible that Landry always believed
cigarettes were good for people even before he began to peddle them.
Obviously, if either of these possibilities were true, his excitement
about the benefits of cigarette smoking could hardly be attributed to
dissonance. Much more convincing would be a demonstration of a clear
case of attitudinal distortion in a unique event. Such a demonstration
was provided back in the 1950s by (of all things) a football game in
the Ivy League. An important game between Princeton and Dartmouth, the
contest was billed as a grudge match, and this soon became evident on
the field: The game is remembered as the roughest and dirtiest in the
history of either school. On the Princeton team was an All-American
named ***** Kazmaier; as the game progressed, it became increasingly
clear that the Dartmouth players were out to get him. Whenever he
carried the ball, he was gang-tackled, piled on, and mauled. He was
finally forced to leave the game with a broken nose. Meanwhile, the
Princeton team was not exactly inactive: Soon after Kazmaier's injury,
a Dartmouth player was carried off the field with a broken leg. Several
fistfights broke out on the field in the course of the game, and many
injuries were suffered on both sides.
Sometime after the game, a couple of psychologists-Albert Hastorf of
Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton-visited both campuses and
showed films of the game to a number of students on each campus. The
students were instructed to be completely objective and, while watching
the film, to take notes of each infraction of the rules, how it
started, and who was responsible. As you might imagine, there was a
huge difference in the way this game was viewed by the students at each
university. There was a strong tendency for the students to see their
own fellow students as victims of illegal infractions rather than as
perpetrators of such acts of aggression. Moreover, this was no minor
distortion: It was found that Princeton students saw fully twice as
many violations on the part of the Dartmouth players as the Dartmouth
students saw. Again, people are not passive receptacles for the
deposition of information. The manner in which they view and interpret
information depends on how deeply they are committed to a particular
belief or course of action. Individuals will distort the objective
world in order to reduce their dissonance. The manner in which they
will distort and the intensity of their distortion are highly
predictable.
A few years later, Lenny Bruce, a perceptive comedian and social
commentator (who almost certainly never read about cognitive dissonance
theory), had the following insight into the 1960 presidential election
campaign between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy:
I would be with a bunch of Kennedy fans watching the debate and their
comment would be, "He's really slaughtering Nixon." Then we would all
go to another apartment, and the Nixon fans would say, "How do you like
the shellacking he gave Kennedy?" And then I realized that each group
loved their candidate so that a guy would have to be this blatant-he
would have to look into the camera and say: "I am a thief, a crook, do
you hear me, I am the worst choice you could ever make for the
Presidency!" And even then his following would say, "Now there's an
honest man for you. It takes a big guy to admit that. There's the kind
of guy we need for President."
People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their deeply
held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news was
literally to kill the messenger. A modern-day figurative version of
killing the messenger is to blame the media for the presentation of
material that produces the pain of dissonance. For example, when Ronald
Reagan was running for president in 1980, Time published an analysis of
his campaign. Subsequent angry letters to the editor vividly
illustrated the widely divergent responses of his supporters, on the
one hand, and his detractors, on the other. Consider the following two
letters:
Lawrence Barrett's pre-election piece on Candidate Ronald Reagan
[October 20] was a slick hatchet job, and you know it. You ought to be
ashamed of yourselves for printing it disguised as an objective look at
the man.
Your story on "The Real Ronald Reagan" did it. Why didn't you just
editorially endorse him? Barrett glosses over Reagan's fatal flaws so
handily that the "real" Ronald Reagan came across as the answer to all
our problems.
Needless to say, the diversity of perception reflected in these letters
is not unique to the 1980 campaign. It happens every 4 years. During
the next presidential election, check out the letters to the editor of
your favorite news magazine following a piece on one of the leading
candidates, and you will find a similar array of divergent perceptions.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
http://images.google.com/images?q=hunchback
--
The best piece of logic I ever heard, Mr Larynx; the very best,
I assure you.
< _Nightmare Abbey_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
16 Sep 2006 07:17:59 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158427428.194858.219750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
mimus wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
<mildly>
If drinking or smoking or drinking-and-smoking cause esophageal cancer,
shouldn't one hundred percent (or close) of those who do so get that?
What's the percentage, per drink or smoke or drink-and-smoke, or per
year, or per lifetime?
Or is that statistic (any of 'em) being conveniently ignored, as is
common
with prohibitionists and other totalitarians pushing fake causal claims
to
"justify" their violence?
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
http://images.google.com/images?q=hunchback
--
The best piece of logic I ever heard, Mr Larynx; the very best,
I assure you.
< _Nightmare Abbey_
A "must read" article for anyone who finds themselves entering the "martyr
syndrome".
Cognitive dissonance will always result when someone's deep seated beliefs
are challenged. The truth hurts!
Understandable when you acknowledge how much influence such beliefs have had
on individuals , and how much time and effort they have invested in such
beliefs.
I remember talking to a highly qualified medical practitioner many years
ago. A brilliant man with a great "bedside" manner. The subject was
acupuncture, before it was 'accepted' in Australia. I was telling him of the
experiences I had, and wondered why he became so evasive.
I realised that this guy had dedicated his life to a system that didn't have
room for what appeared to be "hocus pocus". How could a little Chinese man
with a pair of needles, achieve as good, and often better results than a
person with a great brain, and top drawer education and training?
Often the more "intelligent" the person, the more likely he will be
conservative in his views.
A good example happened here recently when I challenged someone to visit the
university of Munich site and look at the results of a statistical study
based on numerological profiles.
Of course he never looked (so he said), and debunked according to his
beliefs.
To any "spiritual warrior".......
Have the greatest of respect for a persons belief system, because if you
inadvertently "invade their space" you will be understandably attacked.
Think of belief systems as life jackets in a stormy sea, the wearers of
which dont yet swim too well.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
16 Sep 2006 08:46:45 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
Cognitive dissonance will always result when someone's deep seated beliefs
are challenged. The truth hurts!
Now aint that the truth, I've been kill-filed at least 3 times that I
know of, through nothing other than their self-inflicted brain hidings,
you're one of the few who cant take it on the chin Brian.
How could a little Chinese man
with a pair of needles, achieve as good, and often better results than a
person with a great brain, and top drawer education and training?
Oh come on Brian the acupuncturist in reality is the mechanic of the
human body who snips the wires to the warning lights, pain, and then
claims he's fixed the problem. There's as many uncured victims of
accupuncture as there are of shonky (NZ & Australian slang for
dishonesty) *warning light* wire snipping mechanics.
Often the more "intelligent" the person, the more likely he will be
conservative in his views.
Intelligence is not a measure of morality.
A good example happened here recently when I challenged someone to visit the
university of Munich site and look at the results of a statistical study
based on numerological profiles.
Thats not a good example at all Brian, numbers cant do anything, they
are like seconds and ounces, concepts of man used in the case of
numbers, as measurements of units.
1 + 1 = 2 means nothing in reality unless there is something in reality
is subscribed with number i.e. 1 what + 1 what = 2 what.
Have the greatest of respect for a persons belief system, because if you
inadvertently "invade their space" you will be understandably attacked.
Think of belief systems as life jackets in a stormy sea, the wearers of
which dont yet swim too well.
Belief requires at least some *sensory and non-contradicting evidence*,
as against faith which requires no sensory evidence AND in faith,
blatant contradictions are not even considered for a moment, it
therefore makes at least some sense to at least talk to those who use
belief rather than faith as a step to their knowledge.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
17 Sep 2006 02:05:46 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1158457605.397600.182150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
Cognitive dissonance will always result when someone's deep seated
beliefs
are challenged. The truth hurts!
Now aint that the truth, I've been kill-filed at least 3 times that I
know of, through nothing other than their self-inflicted brain hidings,
you're one of the few who cant take it on the chin Brian.
How could a little Chinese man
with a pair of needles, achieve as good, and often better results than a
person with a great brain, and top drawer education and training?
Oh come on Brian the acupuncturist in reality is the mechanic of the
human body who snips the wires to the warning lights, pain, and then
claims he's fixed the problem.
There are no "wires" that science has discovered (being the meridians that
appear on the ancient charts).
What you have described is the equivalent of the western system providing
symptom blanketing medications.
Over the years I have sent many people to both 'streams'. The ones that
overcome their symptoms are those who are interested in helping themselves.
I was already an accomplished and dedicated athlete who couldnt shake hay
fever (pollen sensitivity) untill I went to visit the first medical
accupunctorist in Aus.I was cured in one visit and had remarkable
experiences during the treatment.
There's as many uncured victims of
accupuncture as there are of shonky (NZ & Australian slang for
dishonesty) *warning light* wire snipping mechanics.
Not to mention those who are dependent on their western medications. Mature
onset diabetics are good examples, as are asthmatics. Both curable with the
willing and disciplined participation of the "victim".
Often the more "intelligent" the person, the more likely he will be
conservative in his views.
Intelligence is not a measure of morality.
...and morality is not a measure of wisdom, but an important step.
A good example happened here recently when I challenged someone to visit
the
university of Munich site and look at the results of a statistical study
based on numerological profiles.
Thats not a good example at all Brian, numbers cant do anything, they
are like seconds and ounces, concepts of man used in the case of
numbers, as measurements of units.
Tell that to a brain specialist who watches what happens when frequencies
changeduring a scan.
Of course the number is symbolic, just as written music is to the music. Go
to the site and try to explain their findings. I am nobody's fool, and after
twenyty years I still get astounded at the accuracy of the "symbols"....
1 + 1 = 2 means nothing in reality unless there is something in reality
is subscribed with number i.e. 1 what + 1 what = 2 what.
Thats why I refer to it as the math of the human spirit, but how do you
interpret that for someone who doesnt even acknowledge the spirit. Same as
trying to explain written music to a deaf person. He will see patterns, but
would say "of what:"?
Have the greatest of respect for a persons belief system, because if you
inadvertently "invade their space" you will be understandably attacked.
Think of belief systems as life jackets in a stormy sea, the wearers of
which dont yet swim too well.
Belief requires at least some *sensory and non-contradicting evidence*,
LikeSanta, Jesus, and a thousand other examples?
as against faith which requires no sensory evidence AND in faith,
blatant contradictions are not even considered for a moment, it
therefore makes at least some sense to at least talk to those who use
belief rather than faith as a step to their knowledge.
What I describe as beliefs, need faith to maintain their value. All part of
"group think".
As people start to "know" both other aspects diminish and take their
rightfull place in the multi persona.
BOfL
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
17 Sep 2006 05:55:04 AM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
Thats not a good example at all Brian, numbers cant do anything, they
are like seconds and ounces, concepts of man used in the case of
numbers, as measurements of units.
Tell that to a brain specialist who watches what happens when frequencies
changeduring a scan.
So what? if anything that supports what I said. Your claim was
suggesting that studying numbers was something that means something in
reality it doesn't, its just silly nonsense, as silly as studying
ounces.
Thats why I refer to it as the math of the human spirit,
As in 1 human spirit PLUS 1 human spirit = 2 human spirits?
Belief requires at least some *sensory and non-contradicting evidence*,
LikeSanta, Jesus, and a thousand other examples?
There's no Santa Brian, its a cruel trick someone's playing on you to
get you to behave, are you naughty throughout the year?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
17 Sep 2006 02:25:54 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158427428.194858.219750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
mimus wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
A "must read" article for anyone who finds themselves entering the "martyr
syndrome".
Full article refered to about conflicting ideas and arousal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/msg/f98b5b24b9cd9284?hl=en&
Cognitive dissonance will always result when someone's deep seated beliefs
are challenged. The truth hurts!
Dissonance happens at all levels, from the deep seated an important
issue to the mundane and booring everyday though processes. Conflict
between thoughts is what is noticable while we are sensitized and not
noticing of the usual and regular things we encounter. We notice the
things that change and ignore the regular. Perhaps a survival strategy
and instinct we and animals reason under.
In physiology, tolerance occurs when an organism builds up a resistance
to the effects of a substance after repeated exposure. This can occur
with environmental substances such as salt or pesticides. It is also
commonly encountered in pharmacology (see drug tolerance), when a
subject's reaction to a drug (such as a painkiller or intoxicant)
decreases so that larger doses are required to achieve the same effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiological_tolerance
Understandable when you acknowledge how much influence such beliefs have had
on individuals , and how much time and effort they have invested in such
beliefs.
But carrying on from the different and the normal and what gets
noticed, how we react when we notice the difference between belief and
event can be important to. And habitual, and of habitual automatic
force in knee jerk reactionism. We must take responsibility for how we
react to any situation, it is our choice how to react.
Cognitive therapy or cognitive behavior therapy is a kind of
psychotherapy used to treat depression, anxiety disorders, phobias, and
other forms of mental disorder.
It involves recognizing unhelpful
patterns of thinking and reacting,
then modifying or replacing these
with more realistic or helpful ones.
Its practitioners hold that typically clinical depression is associated
with (although not necessarily caused by) negatively biased thinking
and irrational thoughts.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is based on the idea that
how we think (cognition),
how we feel (emotion),
and how we act (behaviour)
all interact together.
Specifically, our thoughts determine our feelings and our behaviour.
Therefore negative thoughts can cause us distress and result in
problems.
One example could be;
someone who, after making a
mistake, thinks "I'm useless
and can't do anything right."
This impacts negatively on their
mood and makes them feel depressed;
then they worsen the problem by
reacting to avoid activities.
As a result they reduce their chance
of successful experience, which
reinforces their original thought
of being "useless".
In therapy the latter example could be identified as a self-fulfilling
prophecy or "problem cycle", and the efforts of the therapist and
client would be to work together to change this. This is done by
addressing the way the client thinks in response to similar situations
and by helping them think more flexibly, along with reducing their
avoidance of activities. If as a result they escape the negative
thought pattern, they will already feel less depressed. They may
hopefully also then become more active, succeed more, and further
reduce their depression.
With thoughts stipulated as being the cause of emotions rather than
vice-versa, cognitive therapists reverse the causal order more
generally used by psychotherapists. Therefore the therapy is to
identify those irrational or maladaptive thoughts that lead to negative
emotion and identify what it is about them that is irrational or just
not helpful; this is done in an effort to reject the distorted thoughts
and replace them with more realistic alternative thoughts.
Cognitive therapy is not
an overnight process.
Even after a patient has learned
to recognise when and where his
thought processes are going awry,
it can take months of concerted
effort to replace an irrational
thought with a more reasonable
one.
With patience and a good therapist, however, cognitive therapy can be a
valuable tool in recovery.
The four column technique;
A major technique in cognitive therapy is the four column technique. It
consists of a four step process. The first three steps analyze the
process by which a person has become depressed or distressed.
The first column records
the objective situation.
In the second column, the
client writes down the negative
thoughts which occurred to them.
The third column is for the negative
feelings and dysfunctional behaviors
which ensued.
The negative thoughts of the second column are seen as a connecting
bridge between the situation and the distressing feelings.
The fourth column is used
for challenging the negative
thoughts on the basis of
evidence from the
client's experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_therapy
A common 'everyday example' of alternative thoughts or beliefs about
the same experience and their resulting emotions might be the case of
an individual being turned down for a job. She might believe that she
was passed over for the job because she was fundamentally incompetent.
In that case, she might well become depressed, and she might be less
likely to apply for similar jobs in the future. If, on the other hand,
she believed that she was passed over because the field of candidates
was exceptionally strong, she might feel disappointed but not
depressed, and the experience probably wouldn't dissuade her from
applying for other similar jobs.
Cognitive therapy suggests that psychological distress is caused by
distorted thoughts about stimuli giving rise to distressed emotions.
The theory is particularly well developed (and empirically supported)
in the case of depression, where clients frequently experience unduly
negative thoughts which arise automatically even in response to stimuli
which might otherwise be experienced as positive. For instance, a
depressed client hearing "please stop talking in class" might think
"everything I do is wrong; there is no point in even trying". The same
client might hear "you've received top marks on your essay" and think
"that was a fluke; I won't ever get a mark like that again", or he
might hear "you've really improved over the last term" and think "I was
really abysmal at the start of term". Any of these thoughts could lead
to feelings of hopelessness or reduced self esteem, maintaining or
worsening the individual's depression.
http://counsellingresource.com/types/cognitive-therapy/index.html
Cognitive distortions are logical, but they are not rational. They can
create real difficulty with your thinking. See if you are doing any of
the ten common distortions that people use. Rate yourself from one to
ten with one being low and ten being high. Ask yourself if you can stop
using the distortions and think in a different way.
ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING: You see
things in black-and-white categories.
If your performance falls short of
perfect, you see your self as a
total failure.
OVERGENERALIZATION: You see a single
negative event as a never-ending
pattern of defeat.
MENTAL FILTER: You pick out a single
negative detail and dwell on it exclusively
so that your vision of all reality becomes
darkened, like the drop of ink that
discolors the entire beaker of water.
DISQUALIFYING THE POSITIVE: You reject
positive experiences by insisting they
"don't count" for some reason or other.
In this way you can maintain a negative
belief that is contradicted by your
everyday experiences.
JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS: You make a negative
interpretation even though there are no
definite facts that convincingly
support your conclusion.
MIND READING: You arbitrarily conclude
that someone is reacting negatively to
you, and you don't bother to
check this out
THE FORTUNETELLER ERROR: you can anticipate
that things will turn out badly, and you
feel convinced that your prediction is
an already-established fact.
MAGNIFICATION (CATASTROPHIZING) OR
MINIMIZATION: You exaggerate the importance
of things (such as your goof-up or someone
else's achievement), or you inappropriately
shrink things until they appear tiny (your
own desirable qualities or other fellow's
imperfections). This is also called
the binocular trick."
EMOTIONAL REASONING: You assume that your
negative emotions necessarily reflect the
way things really are: "I feel it, therefore
it must be true."
SHOULD STATEMENTS: You try to motivate
yourself with should and shouldn't, as
if you had to be whipped and punished
before you could be expected to do anything.
"Musts" and "oughts" are also offenders.
The emotional consequences are guilt. When
you direct should statements toward others,
you feel anger, frustration, and resentment.
LABELING AND MISLABELING: This is an extreme
form of overgeneralization. Instead of
describing your error, you attach a
negative label to yourself. "I'm a loser."
When someone else's behavior rubs you the
wrong way, you attach a negative label to
him" "He's a ***** louse." Mislabeling
involves describing an event with
language that is highly colored
and emotionally loaded.
PERSONALIZATION: You see your self as the
cause of some negative external event,
which in fact you were not
primarily responsible for.
http://tinyurl.com/68sm
I remember talking to a highly qualified medical practitioner many years
ago. A brilliant man with a great "bedside" manner. The subject was
acupuncture, before it was 'accepted' in Australia. I was telling him of the
experiences I had, and wondered why he became so evasive.
I realised that this guy had dedicated his life to a system that didn't have
room for what appeared to be "hocus pocus". How could a little Chinese man
with a pair of needles, achieve as good, and often better results than a
person with a great brain, and top drawer education and training?
Often the more "intelligent" the person, the more likely he will be
conservative in his views.
Actually I have heard that the more intelligen the more open to untried
methods of thinking and this is a great profit to health in old age;
resisting thinking in old ways when unnecessary.
A good example happened here recently when I challenged someone to visit the
university of Munich site and look at the results of a statistical study
based on numerological profiles.
Of course he never looked (so he said), and debunked according to his
beliefs.
To any "spiritual warrior".......
Have the greatest of respect for a persons belief system, because if you
inadvertently "invade their space" you will be understandably attacked.
Think of belief systems as life jackets in a stormy sea, the wearers of
which dont yet swim too well.
Well, we may talk about the proper degree of "validation" and the
appearance of attack but surely we need -some- degree of it or we
probably wouldn't have a good conversation or even thought process.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
19 Sep 2006 03:31:06 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158521154.240705.62830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158427428.194858.219750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Actually I have heard that the more intelligen the more open to untried
methods of thinking and this is a great profit to health in old age;
resisting thinking in old ways when unnecessary.
A good example happened here recently when I challenged someone to visit
the
university of Munich site and look at the results of a statistical study
based on numerological profiles.
Of course he never looked (so he said), and debunked according to his
beliefs.
To any "spiritual warrior".......
Have the greatest of respect for a persons belief system, because if you
inadvertently "invade their space" you will be understandably attacked.
Think of belief systems as life jackets in a stormy sea, the wearers of
which dont yet swim too well.
Well, we may talk about the proper degree of "validation" and the
appearance of attack but surely we need -some- degree of it or we
probably wouldn't have a good conversation or even thought process.
Welcome to planet Earth :-)))
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
17 Sep 2006 11:36:09 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2006 10:23:48 -0700, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette smoking
produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to
reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The
cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with the
cognition "I do not smoke."
Antismokers experience the same cognitive dissonance. When confronted with the discrepency
between their exaggerated claims and reality, they either deny reality, deny they ever
made the claims, or (illogically) say there is no conflict. We see all three in
alt.smokers every week.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
19 Sep 2006 03:36:47 AM |
|
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.nospam@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:c18sg2pv6hf8erj4g7qrbmrjsgaoqccvsr@4ax.com...
On 16 Sep 2006 10:23:48 -0700, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette smoking
produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to
reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The
cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with the
cognition "I do not smoke."
Antismokers experience the same cognitive dissonance. When confronted with
the discrepency
between their exaggerated claims and reality, they either deny reality,
deny they ever
made the claims, or (illogically) say there is no conflict. We see all
three in
alt.smokers every week.
A "universal" obstacle to self realisation. All addictions can be seen as
abrogating self resonsibility to external substances. The cure comes with
this recognition, otherwise it just changes direction. This is where
"spontanious remission" comes from.
A recognition of where the power really exists.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
19 Sep 2006 12:18:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:36:47 GMT, "Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Robert Wagner" <robert.nospam@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:c18sg2pv6hf8erj4g7qrbmrjsgaoqccvsr@4ax.com...
On 16 Sep 2006 10:23:48 -0700, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette smoking
produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to
reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The
cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with the
cognition "I do not smoke."
Antismokers experience the same cognitive dissonance. When confronted with
the discrepency
between their exaggerated claims and reality, they either deny reality,
deny they ever
made the claims, or (illogically) say there is no conflict. We see all
three in
alt.smokers every week.
A "universal" obstacle to self realisation. All addictions can be seen as
abrogating self resonsibility to external substances. The cure comes with
this recognition, otherwise it just changes direction. This is where
"spontanious remission" comes from.
A recognition of where the power really exists.
The worst annulment of self responsibility is found in the True Believer, whose attachment
is not to a substance but rather an idea.
It is not useful to distinguish between external and internal substances. The addictive
affect is always produced by an internally produced chemical, usually dopamine. For
example, opiates such as heroin do not provide pleasure directly; they do it by
stimulating the body to make more dopamine available. The addiction is to dopamine, not
the stimulant per se. If another dopamine agonist were substituted for heroin, the addict
would be just as fulfilled. That's what you mean by "changes direction". The substitute
stimulant could as well be internally produced, such as endorphin (endogenous morphine).
The former junkie could get the same affect by becoming a sex addict or extreme runner.
That's what I mean by "not useful to distinguish".
True Belief is cognitive dissonance because it causes discord between two competing ideas.
Cognitive is a misnomer when applied to chemical addictions, which are the conflict
between a feeling and an idea. The addict's mid-brain, the seat of emotion, is saying
'this feels good' while her cerebrum, the seat of cognition, is saying 'this is bad for
me.' Dealing with such conflicts is the stuff of psychology and the solution requires
more depth of understanding than slapping the label 'cognitive dissonance' on it.
I see it as a communication failure caused by language. Emotions have no language skill.
They cannot SAY 'this feels good.' The feelings they express are cast into words by the
cognitive brain acting as their agent. This is done for the convenience of the cognitive
brain, so it can symbolically manipulate the grammar and then evaluate the feeling,
expressed as an idea (which it isn't), against other ideas. A good analogy is the
representative form of government, in which our desires are voiced and championed by a
proxy whose job is to phrase our desires in a language understandable to the other
representatives. After a decision is made, our representative is supposed to translate it
back into terms we can understand so we can abide the decision, even when unfavorable.
That last step is where mental and political systems often fail. The underlings, whether
emotions or citizens, are not convinced they should go along with the program for the
common good. They subvert the order either by fighting for overthrow, by sabotaging it
when they think higher-ups are not watching or by substituting something similar to what
they want, thereby following the letter of the law while violating its intent.
The solution lies in better translation -- not just into simpler words but into terms
meaningful to the underlings. The translation may require using a completely different
paradigm. For example, instead of telling farmers near the sea to plant trees on ridges to
keep salt spray from their fields, tell them the gods love trees on ridge lines. Tell a
kid to be good to please Santa. Make an addict keep a journal of bad FEELINGS caused by
the drug. Get them to do the right thing for the 'wrong' reason. You know it's the wrong
reason; they think it's a meaningful reason. Teaching people to do that is what
psychologists are supposed to do. It's also what religious and spiritual leaders do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mimus" |
|
| Title: Re: => Ignorant Smoker Ann Richards DEAD from Esophageal Cancer <= |
23 Sep 2006 04:18:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:36:09 -0500, Robert Wagner wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006 10:23:48 -0700, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette smoking
produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this person to
reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking. The
cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with the
cognition "I do not smoke."
Antismokers experience the same cognitive dissonance. When confronted with the discrepency
between their exaggerated claims and reality, they either deny reality, deny they ever
made the claims, or (illogically) say there is no conflict. We see all three in
alt.smokers every week.
Did you notice how my point on causation was not met other than by
psychobabble about "cognitive dissonance", which is, I take it, the newest
form of psychological/ psychoanalytical/ psychiatric denigration, in the
grand tradition of "resistance" and "denial"?
Classic.
(Remember: The Psychoanalyst/ Psychologist/ Psychiatrist/ Psychobabbler Is
Always Right.)
--
Hoc est ratio?
< Lucilius
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
