Well, it varies according to the specific instance. Some people, I think are probably deliberately lying, and in a non-RPG community I don't see any difference between "lying" and "knowingly roleplaying". I don't see any way to determine the difference between belief and imagination (if such a difference even exists in any but an abstract semantic sense) and I don't see how the arbitrary standards of so-called "objective reality" can be applied to another person's subjective inner experience.
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. It's particularly dishonest (as well as rude) when people 'switch' in the middle of a dialogue without disclosing the fact that they've done so - if I'm talking to someone, I'm talking to that person, not to their assorted Kin. I tend to doubt the actual multiplicity of people who do that - I think it's mostly a passive-aggressive ruse for avoiding taking responsibility for one's words.
A whole lot of people, not just multiples, believe things I think are not logical. I used to argue with them about it, but I've mostly given that up, because there just isn't any point in it: irrational or unverifiable beliefs are generally impervious to logic. This is because people rely on such beliefs for their emotional security, and aren't about to give up that security just because it's illusory.
I don't understand how people can start out by knowingly making something up, then 'convince themselves' that it's true. I realize that people do this, but I don't *get* how it works - do they somehow block their memory of having made it up, or what? People who do this seem highly untrustworthy to me, because if they've blocked or changed their memory about one thing without knowing they've done it, who's to say they won't do the same about other things?
I don't worry that I'm 'making things up', but I do subject my beliefs to critical examination, i.e. "Why do I think this is true? How would I be able to tell if it's not?". There are a whole bunch of things for which I have no way of determining whether or not they're true, and even though I may act as if I think they're true out of custom or convenience, I don't forget the fact that I really don't know.
I assume that most people don't believe anything that conflicts with their established belief-systems, whether their belief-systems are rational or not. Therefore I assume that people who believe it's not possible for more than one person to share a single body will believe I'm lying and/or delusional if I tell them about my 'brothers'. The obvious solution is to just not tell them.
This is probably going to get me blasted, but under the heading of "think something else entirely", I think that children, people dependent on psychoactive drugs, and people with mental or emotional problems severe enough to require long-term professional care or State support aren't 'reliable reporters'. This doesn't mean I automatically disbelieve everything such people say about their experience, but it's certainly a factor I take into consideration.
I don't see the difference between "claiming something I think is impossible" and "claiming something that [I think] could not have happened in real life". I've personally experienced enough things that I didn't think possible until I experienced them to make me wary of anybody's opinions (including my own) about what is or is not possible.
However, just because something may be possible doesn't mean it's probable, and as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Since there's no way to prove anything online, I neither believe nor disbelieve most of what people say here.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 10:50 pm (UTC)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. It's particularly dishonest (as well as rude) when people 'switch' in the middle of a dialogue without disclosing the fact that they've done so - if I'm talking to someone, I'm talking to that person, not to their assorted Kin. I tend to doubt the actual multiplicity of people who do that - I think it's mostly a passive-aggressive ruse for avoiding taking responsibility for one's words.
A whole lot of people, not just multiples, believe things I think are not logical. I used to argue with them about it, but I've mostly given that up, because there just isn't any point in it: irrational or unverifiable beliefs are generally impervious to logic. This is because people rely on such beliefs for their emotional security, and aren't about to give up that security just because it's illusory.
I don't understand how people can start out by knowingly making something up, then 'convince themselves' that it's true. I realize that people do this, but I don't *get* how it works - do they somehow block their memory of having made it up, or what? People who do this seem highly untrustworthy to me, because if they've blocked or changed their memory about one thing without knowing they've done it, who's to say they won't do the same about other things?
I don't worry that I'm 'making things up', but I do subject my beliefs to critical examination, i.e. "Why do I think this is true? How would I be able to tell if it's not?". There are a whole bunch of things for which I have no way of determining whether or not they're true, and even though I may act as if I think they're true out of custom or convenience, I don't forget the fact that I really don't know.
I assume that most people don't believe anything that conflicts with their established belief-systems, whether their belief-systems are rational or not. Therefore I assume that people who believe it's not possible for more than one person to share a single body will believe I'm lying and/or delusional if I tell them about my 'brothers'. The obvious solution is to just not tell them.
This is probably going to get me blasted, but under the heading of "think something else entirely", I think that children, people dependent on psychoactive drugs, and people with mental or emotional problems severe enough to require long-term professional care or State support aren't 'reliable reporters'. This doesn't mean I automatically disbelieve everything such people say about their experience, but it's certainly a factor I take into consideration.
I don't see the difference between "claiming something I think is impossible" and "claiming something that [I think] could not have happened in real life". I've personally experienced enough things that I didn't think possible until I experienced them to make me wary of anybody's opinions (including my own) about what is or is not possible.
However, just because something may be possible doesn't mean it's probable, and as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Since there's no way to prove anything online, I neither believe nor disbelieve most of what people say here.