multiplicity_archives | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I’m sure everyone has read someone’s post on this community or read a comment that made you stop and think, “I don’t believe you.” If you haven’t, either you don’t read the threads very closely or you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here, because there have been some very outrageous claims made here over the years. (But that’s an entirely different discussion.) I want to know what people think when they come across one of these statements that they just can’t believe.

Do you:

A) Think the person is lying.
B) Think the person is knowingly role playing
C) Think the person believes that they are multiple but is probably unintentionally role playing or some other form of imagination
D) Think the system is lying about the experiences
E) Think the system is knowingly or unintentionally role playing the experiences
F) Think the system is adhering to the community’s cultural norms/trying to fit in
G) Think the system probably honestly believes their claims even though another explanation seems more logical to you
H) Think the system probably started out making things up but has since convinced themselves that their claims are true
I) Worry that you might be making things up too or that someone else might think you are
J) Think something else entirely – please share

Also, do your thoughts change depending on why you can’t believe the statement? For example, is there a difference between someone claiming to do/be something that you think is impossible and someone contradicting themselves or claiming that something happened in real life that could not have happened?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Well... when you say you "don't believe in elves", what exactly does that mean?

I don't believe they ever existed. They're a myth that probably originated when members of a population encountered people with a different phenotype for the first time. The response has been seen more recently with tribes that thought they were meeting gods or demons when they encountered white people for the first time.

However, in this age of e-mail, it doesn't seem impossible or even improbable that a representative of an organization could receive and reply to a query over a weekend.

If you were talking about a supervisor or a higher up within your own organization, I would agree although I would probably doubt that they'd have much input into your livejournaling habits. Governing bodies are a lot more removed from the individual members of a profession. Even with e-mail, you do not have immediate access to ethics boards or directors. There are specific channels that you have to follow to receive an official position on a subject.

I'm not seeing the distinction between 'being delusional' and 'believing that something which physically can't happen does physically happen'.

Delusional implies a detachment from reality which isn't always the case in believing that something that can't physically happen does. I have read about a situation in which one member of a system got pregnant but another member didn't view the body as her body and insisted that she wasn't pregnant. This system believed that when the other member used the body she wasn't pregnant because they noticed spotting when she used the body and thought it was her getting her period. In that case, the system wasn't delusional for believing that the pregnancy changed depending on who was fronting; just stupid. If they still felt that way when they were eight months pregnant, then they'd be delusional.

If you were talking about a supervisor or a higher up within your own organization, I would agree although I would probably doubt that they'd have much input into your livejournaling habits. Governing bodies are a lot more removed from the individual members of a profession. Even with e-mail, you do not have immediate access to ethics boards or directors. There are specific channels that you have to follow to receive an official position on a subject.

If you're talking about the person I think you are, I doubt that she ever did any of that supposed checking. She's said some things in other communities since then that are even more unbelievable, as well as being full of contradictions, enough to convince me that she's not just deliberately making things up, but doing so with malicious intents.

"I don't believe they ever existed. They're a myth that probably originated when members of a population encountered people with a different phenotype for the first time. The response has been seen more recently with tribes that thought they were meeting gods or demons when they encountered white people for the first time"

Ummm... those "people of a different phenotype" were elves, or more precisely (in Denmark) the Alfar. Probably indigenous hunter-gatherers, like the faeries of the British isles; quite possibly with more Neanderthal genes than was common among the other populations. The fact that a bunch of tales were made up about them by later peoples doesn't indicate that they never existed.

With the pregnancy thing - I'm not convinced that my 'brother' Crist-Erui ever realized this body was pregnant, or that the baby came from this same body he lives in. He freaked out big-time the first time he felt her move, and wouldn't take form ('front') until after she was born. So maybe the same with the person you describe? Hard to say.

> I find it very annoying when individuals within a 'system' present themselves as speaking for everybody else in it

>use for avoiding taking responsibility for one's words.

We're not the only group who prefers to chat in the plural form. While we've seen that many groups have only one person at the fore at a time, we rarely front alone. Our 'we' is typically a consensus of those here interested in the conversation. When one of us does front alone they usually sign the post or mark a section of the post. Listing names among a system of three would likely be straightforward, but for a system of thirty two where typically a handful of people are present at any one time this rapidly becomes a royal pain in the arse. Gods alone know what it would be like for folks who ID as median.

All that said, saying afterward "that wasn't me, it was JoeBob" sounds like a dodge. If JoeBob never answers, it leaves people wondering if he's just a convienent "blame the dog" sort of thing.

love the native american argument :D

We have had instances in our group where certain group members were pregnant, but the body was not and they have felt strange using the body because it wasn't pregnant and they were.. but they haven't said that they were no longer pregnant when they were in the body just because the body wasn't pregnant..

yes, we have a few people in our group who do speak as "we" and meaning taking the best majority opinion on a subject and speaking for most of everyone as a whole.. it doesn't mean that we're all merged together and actually speaking as one person, it's sort of like having an ambassador who speaks for us.. that's alot easier than having everyone coming forward to type their opinion on something..

Ditto. And if a few of us are quite opposed to a point, we do say 'some of us' or the like in regards to an opinion.

-Morgan

I find it very annoying when individuals within a 'system' present themselves as speaking for everybody else in it, because I think that's dishonest - if they expect to be considered and treated as individuals, they need to act as individuals, which means speaking only for themselves.

For the record, we use we a lot, and do speak as a 'unit' on many occasions. this is mostly because we do often agree, and posting the same thing twice with different journal just seems mildly lame. I figure if we've reached a consensus or a statement is accurate for the system (or those who generally fall under 'we' as the system uses it) then there's no harm done at all.

Also, we of the drug use say thpppt ;) Not that we don't take our own various issues into consideration when we view our own opinions (because we do, especially Selene and her anxiety), we simply don't think it affects our beliefs etc that much.

Selene's actually having the opposite problem. Attempting various spiritual things and writing just about everything off with mundane explanations even if it might not be caused by something mundane. She needs lessons from these people in how to loosen up maybe :P

(though hearing some of those stories, maaaaybe not.)

Hrm. Mostly as above. a lot of people don't apply belief to facts (whether they use the phrase believe or not) simply because it seems a bit silly. "I believe in my coffee mug." Why? It's there.

I think the idea is that belief requires some sort of *faith*, and that fact supposedly doesn't.

that may not have been coherant but I tried.

Sure, you *do* believe in the postman. but one (sometimes) connotation of belief is that of faith/effort, not dissimilar to that you would place in God. Believing int he postman is not an active thing.

exactly.. it'd be near impossible for our entire group to be in complete agreement on everything! lol.. that'd be one of those hell freezing events, I think.. :)

by "too open minded", do you mean being "gullible"? because I'm not sure if being too open minded is completely a bad thing.. it sounds like a negative-positive wrapped up in one.. interesting.. :)

open-minded (to me) is something positive.. add the "too" in front of it and it turns into something negative; a kind of gullibility.. don't mind me, I like to think about things like that.. *grin*

Unless someone wants me to give them money, time, or try to represent me ("all multiples are/have X" where X is not "more than one person in a body") in some way, I don't usually feel the need to make a judgement call.

In the past at times I felt I was being required to believe something, but I've come to believe that was more me projecting my anxiety - a legitimate anxiety built up over a lifetime of being disbelieved about a whole host of things, for sure.

But not appropriate in that context.

I think it's sometimes helpful to point out internal contradictions like - "I am the all-powerful archangel, but I can't hold down a job" but really, it's not my place either to validate or invalidate anyone's claims. I may or may not want to get to know someone more but that's dependent on so many factors that believability seems like a minor player.

XD

I'm not sure 'gullible' is the same, not *quite* anyway, I think the two are subtley different. I think by "too open minded" I mean "too open to new ideas" (yes there is such a thing...), "too easily accepting of other beliefs" (again yes there is such a thing x_X) whereas gullible is more "Yes, I will give you candy and a magical slipper if you step into my car *evilgrin*"

in a non-RPG community I don't see any difference between "lying" and "knowingly roleplaying"

My guess at this (which might be wrong) was that "lying" means someone deliberately sitting down thinking "aha, I am totally a singlet but let's see what I can make up out of thin air to post to this community", whereas "knowingly roleplaying" means someone who is referring to a mental "game" they play in other areas of their life or perhaps even all the time, but still at heart know that it's a game and not their actual reality. Both are untruthful, but in different ways. er. just how I read it, anyway.

too open to new ideas.. yeah, that can be not such a good thing.. letting every new fad or idea in without any sort of personal filtering.. if that happens for too long, who are you anymore? if I did something like that (let every idea take root in me), and someone asked me my personal opinion on a subject, would I even have an opinion that was my own?

in a sense, there is a touch of gullibility involved in being too open-minded.. if there is blind acceptance, or no asking "why?".. "there are days when the sky is pink!" I take that idea and file it away, but don't ask the reason why.. if I did, I'd learn it's actually true in some places during sunrise or sunset.. (like my pink sky example? lol.. I liked your evil grin!)

but, yeah.. I think a person could end up losing themselves by accepting everything they hear.. taking bits and pieces of things that feel right and then tweaking them would work better.. though, it could also go with the underlying urge for some people to want to fit in and belong.. "if I don't have an inner world, does that mean I'm making everything up?" and then decide to create one in order to belong..

my personal wish for everyone is that they can be who they really are.. to be comfortable with themselves.. to not be afraid to say what their reality is like for them.. to share and learn from each other without worrying if someone is going to harass them on it.. but the online world is a brutal place and can make people internet-shy.. I suppose I have big dreams....

A, C, G, and H, depending on the situation. Of course for me, it's a matter of "do I need to tell this person they're saying something that sounds crazy to me?" Generally if it's a stranger or someone I'm not really aquainted with, I keep my feelings to myself. But if it's a friend, I'm likely to say something.

True. That's kind of a play on the absorption of new ideas.

In terms of this community the 'too open minded' thing I think mostly applies to "hi since you say it's real then ok! :D"

I mean, I'm all for accepting various viewpoints, but there's a stage where that gets too much. You can't just say "ok! :D" re: "Hello, I have a multiple system comprising purely of the cast from Hellsing and I drink real blood most weeknights."

Well, you could. That doesn't make it sensible XD

Thank you thank you ^__^ both of them were shamelessly yoinked from someone who shamelessly yoinked from someone who shamelessly yoinked. We couldn't help it - the kitty dancing video is our all time favorite. :)

We also tend to speak in plural form, primarily because we operate in groups and each group tends to have a general group similarity in perspectives upon issues and the world. There are a lot of us here and so there is always at least one more person that either believes or agrees with something one other person does/says or at least 'backs them up' in it. Although of course this ends up with various groups here having divergent opinions amongst one another and then at times, depending on what it is, a wide range of viewpoints and feelings within a group that normally is in agreement or normally share strong similarities.

We try to sign a group name or identifier, and when someone is fronting alone or it is strongly one-three involved in the conversation, they tend to identify themselves.

Julie
(Julies)

Yes... same here on 'some of us' and so forth. Also the near impossible for complete agreement on everything!

Oh and we LOVE your brilliant blue butterfly in your icon! The kids especially got excited at seeing it!

Julies

Kír and I can both always see and hear what's going on externally unless one of us makes a deliberate effort to withdraw and give the other some privacy. Presumably so can Crist-Erui, although it's hard to be sure because he doesn't say much. I don't know whether that's the same as what you mean by "co-fronting" or not, but all three of us are always here. As Kír says, "where would we go?"

I wasn't talking about co-fronting or whatever. I was talking about when one is having a civil conversation with one individual and another pops in to put her two cents in without saying "Yo, this is no longer your friend Mary; this is her sister Martha who can't stand you". That's entirely different from two people who share the same body speaking as 'we' because they agree on a topic.

*wry grin* So does my housemate, who's half Native - his comment was "It would have happened" (i.e. that people would deny there'd ever been any such thing as Indians.)

thanks! :) I got it at

_lisichka_icons.. there's some great icons there, like this one I'm using..

blue butterflies are one of my symbols.. :) *waves to the kids*

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 3 of 4