Cont’d.

Inducing guilt feelings- In order to justify compliance. We are all made to feel guilt for destroying the planet and destroying the legacy of our grandchildren.

Crisis Creation - Employing tactics to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt, the created and overstated impending doom.

All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Provide simplistic solutions produced or "approved" by “our” supporting opinions. (Links).

Attacking Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged and blind acceptance demanded.

Totalism - "Us against them", strengthens groupthink identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label such as “deniers”.

Blind acceptance - The orthodoxy is accepted and rejection of logic is driven through complex lectures on incomprehensible doctrines.
There is only a single orthodoxy, so here is yet another “scientific” report supported by a “PowerPoint” graphic of the “Hockey Stick” from a “reputable” source.

Creating a false sense of righteousness - By pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other perspectives. Opposers are “Flat Earthers”, “Deniers”, have no intelligence and are mentally ill.

Remapping reality - single orthodoxy, simplistic solutions, the orthodoxy is right so opposition must be evil and exclude external reality.

Poirot, these techniques have become increasingly common on OLO. They have not been learnt, they have been adopted from the ideology. They are all attributes of belief systems and as such, no alternative is viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

IMHO, it is the widespread adoption of such tactics that is destroying meaningful debate here on OLO and in wider society. Which is precisely why they were developed in the first place, to defend the belief system against external reality.

When you ask << Why am I wrong to do that (through a link) - and why is it right for him? >>.

The answer is because Don offered three reasoned and considered articles based upon research from three separate authors. You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined above.

You are killing the debate you don’t even want others to have.

Hi Spindoc,

Yes, your point about Motive Questioning:

I've been working for some time on old documents relating to Aboriginal policy and practice here in South Australia, and put it on a web-site. I found, for example, that the Aborigines Department in the nineteenth century (in fact, up to the 1930s), had only one employee: the Protector. He sent out stores of all sorts to around sixty depots, at any one time. One person, sixty depots.

Yet the current paradigm requires a belief that "Aboriginal people were herded onto Missions."

On Missions, staff numbers were rarely more than three or four - the teacher, the farm overseer, the missionary-superintendent-storekeeper-medical officer. Not much time for 'herding'. And no Mission ever had a 'people-proof fence' that I know of.

I was speaking to a friend, who used to lecture in Aboriginal history here, and mentioned this. She was quite shocked and asked, "But why ? Why would they have so many ration depots ?" Then she suggested the unthinkable - "Are you saying that the policy at the time was [horrors!] humanitarian ?" I hadn't thought of it like that but said, "Well yes, probably." She said "I don't want to hear any more !" and turned away. One less friend.

But her gist, I think, was that if one cannot find a motive, an acceptable motive, then something didn't actually happen. And since one cannot entertain the notion that whites then could be humanitarian, then none of it happened like that.

When some information is traumatic, I guess we all switch on our "Motive Questioning" in order to preserve our current views. I recall when I was doing some research into incomes in an Aboriginal community thirty years ago, and found that the median income there was equal to the Australian median, I was so traumatised that I threw in my study and applied for a Taxi Licence. I didn't want to know. I contemplated suicide. Where to turn ? How to fit this information into my paradigm ? But reality rules.

[TBC]

[continued]

Things happen that we can't explain and which conflict fundamentally with our existing say of thinking and traumatise us. We try to rationalise them out of existence. But they happen regardless. But surely the rule should be that if one's 'theory' conflicts with reality, reality has to prevail, you have to develop a new 'theory', or paradigm.

Or maybe I've read, or mis-read, too much Karl Popper :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Point taken Graham and appropriate apologies tendered.
Sorry Don.
Rhrosty.

Hi Jo,

A great example and it correlates well with one of the examples I offered. Your point about ones own “theory” or perception about how things “may be” is entirely valid, it’s also sad that your reality in this case proved to be so powerful, traumatic and potentially destructive. Glad to hear that you punched through regardless.

Imagine however, if your “theory” had been based upon a very public declaration of your ideology? Imagine how impossible it would have been to even consider allowing reality in, especially if everyone else knew you had nailed your colors to the mast. That public declaration makes it almost impossible to work your way through it.

This is the power of self indoctrination, this is why it is almost impossible for some to rationalize without facing what they perceive to be self inflicted humiliation. They do not see recognizing a different reality as a heroic and courageous act of liberation. Rather they are inclined to anger, sniping, personal attacks, provocation, vilification and trivialization.

This is I think, one of the main reasons for such diverse, well developed and ideologically “shared” defense mechanisms. They have become second nature, generally work quite well in avoiding reality and easy to throw into a debate like hand grenades to ward off the daemons.

Unfortunately for many, the tactics are increasingly well understood and they often result in them “pulling the pin, then throwing the pin”.

Reality rules OK? But only if one is prepared to consider it eh

spindoc,

"The answer is because Don offered three reasoned and considered articles based upon research from three separate authors. You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined above."

Ahem....AGW is an extremely complex subject. We have 350 words for each post in articles and a limit of four posts per day on this forum.

I'm not a climate scientist (and nor is Don Aitkin - or most of the people who comment here)

Don posted a series of "one page" articles as salvos against the then upcoming IPCC report, promoting the views of a few scientists who disagree with the consenus.

I offered various "reasoned and considered articles based upon research" to counter the three "salvos", each from prominent trained experts in the field.

And you criticise me for somehow killing the debate?

Are you suggesting that all OLO is good for is the untrained inexpert blather of the regulars who contribute to comments?

Because that appears to be what you are suggesting.

Don Aitkin relied upon the views of the scientists he chose to demonstrate a view. He didn't write a detailed analysis of AGW himself to make his point.

Why is it wrong for me to do the same?