J)Assume that it's real/true to them unless I have reason to think otherwise. (And I disagree with your assertion that such a point of view MUST be based on lack of critical thinking- it's just not necessarily your accustomed form of critical thinking. Though if I'm correct in surmising that you're a universalist, there's probably little I can do to convince you that phenomeonlogist rationalism count as rational.)
First off- because I'm a phenomenologist, I don't read any of the ideas put forth by people here in terms of 'claiming to do/be something', but rather in terms of 'experiences themselves as doing/being something'. There's no question to me of whether or not what they're talking about is 'real'- if they're being honest, if it's experienced as real, it's 'real' in all the ways that actually matter to my interaction with them.
As far as I'm concerned C, E, G, H, and J are essentially the same thing- "unintentionally roleplaying", "believes their claims", and "has convinced themselves" are all forms of "experiences this as true". I'm not interested in 'is objectively true' at all- I'm not particularly certain that such a thing is possible. All reality is experienced through perception, so the only realities that really exist are experienced realities. My experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is unbearably loud' is no more or less real than a synaesthete's experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is blue' or your experience of being many. Just because it's outside of the realm of anything which I could sensibly imagine experiencing doesn't make it impossible to experience. To some people, your experiences are likely just as unbelievable.
Certainly there may be cases of A, B, D, and F running around here, but how are we to discern them without turning things into a witch hunt and hurting people who don't deserve to be persecuted like that? Is their presence causing you or anyone else harm in any sort of way? If they're being disruptive or abusive or trollish, they should certainly be banned, but the same is true of anyone legitimately multiple who engages in the same behaviors. In any case, there's not usually any real way for me to discern the pretenders from the oddballs over the internet, so the best option is just to give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, all that I have to go by is the experiences they present to me, and their truth or lack of truth has no effect on me either way, so their claims are all that's relevant in my interaction.
If someone is contradicting themself, or is pretending very obviously, or is someone who I recognize from elsewhere as a troll, I'll certainly doubt them -though I don't really feel it's my place to call them on it in most cases, as I'm something of an outsider here. You might have reasons for this which I don't know, but I would experience this repeated concern with people's believability a waste of time and emotional energy. Mostly I just treat them the way I do any of the other people here who I've decided aren't worth talking to, and I ignore them.
no subject
First off- because I'm a phenomenologist, I don't read any of the ideas put forth by people here in terms of 'claiming to do/be something', but rather in terms of 'experiences themselves as doing/being something'. There's no question to me of whether or not what they're talking about is 'real'- if they're being honest, if it's experienced as real, it's 'real' in all the ways that actually matter to my interaction with them.
As far as I'm concerned C, E, G, H, and J are essentially the same thing- "unintentionally roleplaying", "believes their claims", and "has convinced themselves" are all forms of "experiences this as true". I'm not interested in 'is objectively true' at all- I'm not particularly certain that such a thing is possible. All reality is experienced through perception, so the only realities that really exist are experienced realities. My experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is unbearably loud' is no more or less real than a synaesthete's experience of 'the sound of that car driving by outside is blue' or your experience of being many. Just because it's outside of the realm of anything which I could sensibly imagine experiencing doesn't make it impossible to experience. To some people, your experiences are likely just as unbelievable.
Certainly there may be cases of A, B, D, and F running around here, but how are we to discern them without turning things into a witch hunt and hurting people who don't deserve to be persecuted like that? Is their presence causing you or anyone else harm in any sort of way? If they're being disruptive or abusive or trollish, they should certainly be banned, but the same is true of anyone legitimately multiple who engages in the same behaviors. In any case, there's not usually any real way for me to discern the pretenders from the oddballs over the internet, so the best option is just to give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, all that I have to go by is the experiences they present to me, and their truth or lack of truth has no effect on me either way, so their claims are all that's relevant in my interaction.
If someone is contradicting themself, or is pretending very obviously, or is someone who I recognize from elsewhere as a troll, I'll certainly doubt them -though I don't really feel it's my place to call them on it in most cases, as I'm something of an outsider here. You might have reasons for this which I don't know, but I would experience this repeated concern with people's believability a waste of time and emotional energy. Mostly I just treat them the way I do any of the other people here who I've decided aren't worth talking to, and I ignore them.