(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

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

J) It's not really my place to make a judgement about someone else, especially about something I can't prove.. if something doesn't feel right to me, I'll either ask questions or just not communicate about it.. who's to say anything about the group I'm in is true for anyone else but us, either? you know? to each their own..

[pengke.livejournal.com]

That would fall under: you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here.

[indigolands.livejournal.com]

I used to be more of a negative person, and thus likely to select something like C) or E), but now that I have more experience I'm a J) sort, if by J) I mean that I don't know everything and will never know everything and anything is possible. Also, it doesn't matter to me where you came from, you're still a person.

There, now, that was nicely incomprehensible.

[wylddelirium.livejournal.com]

I fall along several of these. Sometimes I think they're trying to be "special" or "unique", which would be A), B), C), or E).

Sometimes I get annoyed because I think it's an elaborate form of wish fulfillment.

And I definately struggle with I).

However, in the end, it's J). I have taken a strong stance that self identification is all that matters in a support group. If someone stands up and identifies as being the next incarnation of all four Beatles, I attempt to see things from that perpsective. If I can't, I don't comment and disengage from the post. It's that simple.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

being critical about others isn't always a good thing..

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

Mostly C, E, G.

I know a certain percentage of people are deliberately deceptive, but it isn't generally clear to me which specific people those are. In the interests of maintaining some semblance of faith in humanity, I usually believe that people honestly believe what they're claiming.

(The exceptions are the people who claim to run around killing each other all the time, where it reflects better on their character if they're completely making it up. Not that it matters because they could go to hell either way for all I care.)

(Also I should probably state that these opinions are mine alone and they aren't shared by Sophie.)

[kiya]

Frequently, I find that 'unbelievable' claims are easily parsable as "This is a metaphorical structure that works for this person/system". Whether or not I believe it to be literal or factual is not relevant, if I can work with what amounts to a personal mythology. (A lot of my own multiplicity is something that I parse as 'personal mythology that works for resolving situations, who cares whether it's factual?'.)

I've also come across people who come across to me strongly as trying to fit cultural norms. I find this moderately aggravating, but not something I worry about greatly.

In general, if I feel that I'm not getting an honest presentation, I don't engage. I have better things to do with my time than chase down suspicions of deception in people I don't actually have to deal with. ;)

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

I wasn't really sure what was meant by the statement: "you work very hard not to think critically about anything you read here".. at first I thought it was meant as an insult, but I don't think that was intended.. so..

[chaostiny.livejournal.com]

After having many experiences over the years and meeting many people who have had their own experiences, I prefer to follow the advice of a previous therapist of mine..."Suspend disbelief"
All I know for certain are those things which are real in my head, and some of those things may be unreal to others... so who am I to say what is real to someone else? We all have to deal with what is in our heads no matter what anyone else thinks...

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

Most of the time we're either not interested in whatever they're talking about, or we're just curious about what's going on in their head(s.) If it isn't relevant to why we interact with this group, why should we get stirred up about it?

Deciding whether JoeBob is an attentiondramawhore, simply delusional, or telling a truth isn't necessary for us. N/A. Unimportant.

If someone is convinced they're a reincarnation of Elvis, we're usually more interested in why they chose to talk about it to us.

We could choose to believe that all kinds of things outside our experience must be bullsh*t. And that it was our sworn duty as Reality Police to inform them of that. Sure would limit our interactions with a lot of interesting people though.

[shatterstorm.livejournal.com]

dang, now i needs me a "Reality Police" icon!

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

Depends on what they're claiming, how much they've set off my bullshit meter in the past, and stuff like that. Usually though B/E, C, G, and H. Put them all together and I guess you get J. :p

Mostly though we try to just do the same as wylddelirium said - try to accept their perspective, and it we can't, we mostly just ignore them.

We try not to judge in most cases since we know/fear that some could look at our system and think there are some things about us that are bogus too. *shrugs* Hell, there's people out there that think all multiples are bogus. So who knows.

[kasiawhisper.livejournal.com]

*much love to your icon!!*

*laughing!!*

I sing sexy things to myself while I'm dancing!! lol

[appadil.livejournal.com]

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.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

...I would utterly make such an icon for you if I had the Photoshop skills to do it to my satisfaction.

[little-heather.livejournal.com]

I agree with what chaostiny said above. Also, when I think something a person or system has said about themselves isnt possible, I usually try to remember that there are plenty of "singletons" out there who dont believe being multiple in any form or fashion is factual or possible so who am I to judge anyone else.

[vinik.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm gonna try to answer this very carefully so that it isn't misunderstood (however, I am aware that someone almost always misunderstands something in print :p):

Most of the time, I give people the benefit of the doubt. If they say something is true for them, then I usually leave it at that. We pretty much think in here that if a person believes they are experiencing something and it's not hurting anybody, then it doesn't matter whether it's imaginary or not because it is significant to their life no matter what it's origins. Everyone has their own life path and it's up to them to figure out what's what.

We do reserve judgment for those who are discovered to be using their circumstances (real, imagined, or fraudulent) to harm and manipulate others. The whole bit on 'life paths' still applies here, but it is very hard for us to understand at times why anyone would do such things and so we feel anger and resentment when it happens.

-Morgan

[pthalo]

it really depends on the situation. I guess a mixture of C and G. I do run across things that interfere with my suspension of disbelief but I often just don't respond to them. If it's done for attention seeking purposes, they don't need my attention. If I'm wrong and it's true for their system, I'm probably just doing more harm than good with my comments.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

...

If I want to claim that x is objectively true, I say "x" or "I think x" or "I believe x".

If I want to claim that x may or may not be objectively true, but that it is a useful metaphor for me or that I have an internal experience in which it seems that way to me, I say "x is a useful metaphor for me" or "I have an internal experience in which it seems x".

In my view, making the first sort of statement when you really mean the second is just dishonest.

[ridetothesea.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[ridetothesea.livejournal.com]

But there are many people who could say that "I believe x" and still have x not be objectively true. Most beliefs still have subjective connotations, which is what makes them beliefs and not facts. Which is one reason why it is difficult to talk about anything completely in terms of objective or subjective. I don't think it's possible.

Of course if you're talking about things like "I believe in gravity" and the like, things that can be backed up with facts, I'm just misreading what you wrote. Those things are purely objective, obviously.

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

"I believe x" means "to the best of my abilities, I determine that x is objectively true". I'm really not sure what else 'believe' could mean that is logically coherent. >.>

Some people are obviously meaning something that is not what I mean, but I don't know what it is or what to make of it.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

I didn't assert that assuming 'that it's real/true to them unless I have reason to think otherwise' requires a lack of critical thinking. You're critical thinking comes in when you see someone that you suspect is being dishonest. You're not just sitting there going "Lalala, everyone means exactly what they say all the time because thinking anything else would be judgemental."

And you are thinking in terms of someone claiming to be something verses someone experiencing themselves as being someting. When you think people are being dishonest, then you think they're claiming to be something they know they're not. Ordinarily, though you view people's statements as honest descriptions of their experiences whether those experiences are literally real or not. But that's starting to get into differences between when one person would think, "I don't believe you" and someone else wouldn't and I don't really want to go there because it only leads to drama.

It's not a matter of whether or not anyone thinks the person(s) should be told that you don't believe them or something should be done. That's an entirely different discussion that would also lead straight to drama.
I'm only interested in what people think when they do run into statements that, for whatever reason, they can't or don't believe. It's just interesting seeing people's different responses because we ourselves have different responses.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

There's also a difference between someone who says they're a dinosaur when they know full well that they're not a dinosaur verses someone who says they're a dinosaur, with or without the appropriate qualifiers, because they tend to think of themselves in terms of being a dinosaur or view their personal self-image as being that of a dinosaur, ect.

[fourninesix.livejournal.com]

Different combinations of these options, I guess.... but mostly A + B. It's a daily thing over here. I'm probably too critical, but oh well...