(no subject)

[pengke.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

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.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

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.

Well, you claim to genetically be elven but since I don't believe in elves I think that's impossible. Now, I don't think you're lying and I respect your belief even if I personally find it a bit nutty. So, it would be valid for me to say that I read your statements about being an elf and think, G) Think the system probably honestly believes their claims even though another explanation seems more logical to you. It would also be valid for me to say that I read your statements about being an elf and don't think anything about believing or disbelieving you because I'm reading it in terms of your subjective experiences and beliefs.

Not too long ago, a member of this community claimed something that could not have happened in real life. They claimed that they contacted the governing body of their professional organisation over a weekend to verify the ethical nature of their comments to this community. There is no possibility that this could have taken place because they wouldn't have been able to contact the organization at that time and the organization wouldn't have been able to respond that rapidly. Now, this one is a very clear case where the member had to either be lying or delusional. It's less clear when you run into a multiple that says that they're physically pregnant but when the guys use the body they're not pregnant anymore. Obviously, this can't physically happen but it's possible that the multiple in question might believe that it's true.

That's the difference between the two scenarios.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Well... when you say you "don't believe in elves", what exactly does that mean? Because I don't believe in storybook elves either, any more than I believe in King Arthur as he's depicted in storybooks. However, there's a good deal of evidence that the stories of King Arthur do have a real historical basis, and there's also plenty of evidence (http://www.shelltown.net/~dangweth/elfsaga.html) that the stories of elves have a real historical basis.

My ancestry is northern Danish; as you'll note from the reference cited, it's not at all uncommon among Scandinavians (even in this modern era) to believe in elves, and to believe that some people are descended from elves. I've got all of what are traditionally considered to be the classic signs of such descent, so... *shrugs*.

Whatever 'elven ancestry' may mean on a genetic level, it definitely doesn't mean I don't have to live in the same world as everybody else. I'm not going to live a thousand years, nor is any grey ship coming to take me into the West, nor do I get any kind of "racial superiority points" which entitle me to anything I haven't earned by my own efforts. That last assumption is the one that usually rankles people the most, but it's bogus - 'different' doesn't mean better or worse; it just means different.

I have to wonder, if the Native Americans had all been assimilated or killed off before the age of modern record-keeping, would there now be people saying "I don't believe in Indians, so I think it's impossible that anyone is genetically Indian"? It seems likely.

"G) Think the system probably honestly believes their claims"

Ummm... just as a point of accuracy, 'the system' in this particular case doesn't believe anything at all. I have my opinions on the whole "elf thing"; I've stated my reasons for holding them, and I've provided verifiable documentation to support those reasons. However, Kír does not share those opinions - he maintains that he has no opinion on this subject, no interest in it, and no intention of being drawn into discussions about it. If Crist-Erui has any opinion about it (which is possible but doesn't seem too probable) he hasn't ever expressed it. We are three individuals; we don't necessarily agree on any given topic any more than three individuals with separate bodies might.

"There is no possibility that this could have taken place because they wouldn't have been able to contact the organization at that time and the organization wouldn't have been able to respond that rapidly."

I must have missed this, and since I don't know the details, I'm not in a position to judge whether or not you're correct. 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.

"Now, this one is a very clear case where the member had to either be lying or delusional. It's less clear when you run into a multiple that says that they're physically pregnant but when the guys use the body they're not pregnant anymore. Obviously, this can't physically happen but it's possible that the multiple in question might believe that it's true."

I'm not seeing the distinction between 'being delusional' and 'believing that something which physically can't happen does physically happen'. Pregnancy isn't a matter of opinion or definition, nor is there any difficulty about verifying it - either there's a fetus inside the womb or there isn't, and if there is, it's still there just the same no matter who is using the body.

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

I am of ancient Irish decent, from Druidic Celts. We have our stories of elven creatures, leprechauns, fairies, dragons and much more. As an adult I have done a lot of reading to find the basis of these legends and tales and have found many of them based in science and truth. Some are not. But, I personally feel that if I want to believe in fairies and dragons and it makes me feel something other than the hell I normally feel, then right on! It makes me happy to find a naturally growing circle of wild flowers and recognize it in my world as a fairy ring:) I have met two others (bodies) that would probably share a genetic ancestry with you...
I really like what you said about the American Indians... that was a really good point!:)

[pengke.livejournal.com]

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.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

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.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"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.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

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..

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

love the native american argument :D

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*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.)

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

> 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.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

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..

[vinik.livejournal.com]

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

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

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.. :)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*grins* Kír and I disagree on way too many things for either of us to speak for the other, and neither of us can really speak for Crist-Erui because we don't generally know what he thinks about things. I suppose I could say "we like music", because we all do, but that's so general - there's some music that all three of us like, but there's a lot more that only one of us likes, or that two like but one doesn't like.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

"Kír and I disagree on way too many things for either of us to speak for the other"

exactly! that's why we have ambassadors of sorts to help with that.. lol.. if I tried to say something for someone else, I don't think I could say it the exact way they would themselves.. the ambassadors here are in a different kind of "position" than the rest of us, in relation to the group.. like they have the keys and can use them if they need to.. I'm not entirely sure how to explain it, but they are able to gather certain information quickly if it's needed.. Pepper could probably explain it better, since she's one.. but I do understand what you're saying.. :)

[jaga-system-.livejournal.com]

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)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"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."

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Or when JoeBob only ever appears when he's got something nasty to say, then vanishes before he can be called on it. It may be that that's the whole point of DID - to keep the 'nice' aspects of the self separate from the hostile ones - since according to the psychiatric view, people with DID aren't really multiple; they're one person who's separated into fragments in order to cope with 'unacceptable' bad feelings - I dunno. I don't subscribe to the 'psychiatric view' of multiplicity, but it could be correct about certain things.

In any case, I don't wish to associate with people who suddenly change without warning from someone who's my friend to someone who's not. If JoeBob hates me, JoeBob can just stay away from me, and if he won't, sorry, but my friendship with his 'brother' JohnBoy is probably going to end, because I see no point in letting myself be subjected to random abuse.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

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.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"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"

That's not what I meant. I meant when the people clearly don't agree.

Kír doesn't like all of my friends, and there are a few whom he really can't stand. However, they're my friends; either I disagree with him about their character-flaws, or agree but like them anyway, so he just ignores them. He would never do this, but suppose I was having a conversation with one of them and he came up to tell them what he thinks of them without saying it was him?

That would be both rude and dishonest, and the person would be justified in suspecting that it hadn't been "someone else"; that it was really me venting my spleen at them without taking responsibility for it. My saying "that wasn't me; it was my brother" after the fact probably wouldn't help.

"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."

If you take a mind-altering drug, your mind has been altered, whether you perceive the alteration or you don't. Someone who's so drunk he can barely walk may think he's fine to drive; someone who's stoned may think he's expressing profound philosophical insights and then realize the next day that what he wrote is a bunch of meaningless blither; someone on coke may think he's acting normally while the people around him uneasily watch him twitching and pacing. A lot of people on psychiatric drugs think they're 'better' because they're no longer feeling their distress, but to an outside observer they're just drugged. Denial is the major symptom of drug addiction, and it's just as true for those addicted to prescription drugs as for those addicted to recreational drugs.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

.... Or you know maybe we're right and the drug hasn't altered us that much (or our beliefs.)

After all it would be easy if all drugs worked, but some are acknowledged as simply not having much of an effect on people.

Forgive me but I don't *really* like the view that whether I take pills or not, my perception is so skewed that my views need to be examined very carefully. When I talk about politics, my opinions on a smoking ban, whether or not I liked a book, etc, I don't expect people to eye me up and down critically because I take medication for something. To an outside observer, *I* don't appear drugged. I appear perfectly normal. (Fuck I probably appear more drugged when I'm NOT on drugs)


S: For the record, Lu is being nice but I'll put bluntly that I do NOT like being compared to somebody high on cocaine. I think there is a MAJOR difference, even IF we go along with you and say "ok it's mind altering." I'm not entirely sure any of our doctors would agree that being on bloody Prozac or whatever is most popular these days makes you equivilant to somebody who's smoked a bong or downed 15 pints.

I normally appreciate you as one of the more rational people on this community. This however has lowered that opinion greatly. I'm sure you don't care. But I'd take a psychiatric evaluation over your frankly off the wall comparisons.

People are under the influence of mind altering drugs all the time, they're just produced by the body. Perhaps you'd like to compare them to people who are stoned as well.


L: So yeah you were right when you thought it might annoy people, and that is frankly *justified*. How you can compare somebody on mild/low doses of say, anti-depressants, so somebody who'se snorted cocaine.... I just don't get it. I really don't. As Terry Pratchett points out, what are emotions, feelings, if not just drugs produced by your body.

Don't get us wrong, we are aware of various things. If Selene is panicking then we know to calm down and regard what she thinks rationally. We know mild depression may at times colour what we think, and we adjust accordingly. And we know that if we take a strong tranqueliser, then that is not the best time to try and analyse our faith.

But being on asst drugs or being in long term mental health care does not mean that people should regard critically *everything* we say. If a depressed person says "nothing is going right :((" then sure, take that with a grain of salt. If a depressed person though gives their opinion on politics, or even on their faith, especially when they're not in one of their dips, I do *not* see what the problem is unless said problem lies with you.


Do feel free to write this down to us being in 'denial'. But like Isha said, we'll take the qualified medical practitioner's word on that one.

[luwana.livejournal.com]

That's not what I meant. I meant when the people clearly don't agree.

Ah, see you didn't say that at first ^^ Which is why several people picked up on it. We've been known to switch without saying, but usually only IRL where people can and do notice the change (and usually mostly with Chloe who is prone to not announcing, but speaks such poor english that she gets spotted anyway)/ Posts for us this is only a problem if Selene starts mouthing off in my ear and I look back and realise the end of the post has been a bit blendy, which I usually apologise for during the fact

[leucrocuta.livejournal.com]

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.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

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.