An answer to the following question in yes/no format. Were the responses to the questions consistent with the integrity of Barry Wright, as you perceive him?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Thanks for your reply. What? You were expecting more? No, that's it. Thanks for your reply. What were you hoping for? From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Humor and Self-Deception ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: "seerdope@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> ... "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not" (Yogi Berra) In theory, I love science and its methods, despite severe limits. Particularly neuroscience, broadly defined. However, in practice, I am quite leery of psychological studies using interviews with canned questions, particularly if "Yes/No" are the alternatives. Even 10 point scales can be silly responses to complex questions. "More than once it felt good when I heard on the news that someone had been killed” “I could never enjoy being cruel.” Just as a question, why can't someone who has No Problem answering these questions with a simple "Yes" or "No" interpret the inability to do so as self-deception. EM: Someone could - and by doing that they could be deceiving themselves, and also selling themselves and the rest of humanity short in some key way, perhaps? Not to harp on this, but I think this is an important point. And I think you are (possibly intentionally) missing that point. EM: That is my point - that those who can easily apply simple "yes/no" answers to questions such as these (I'm not saying these particular ones are good examples) may tend to think in black and white terms in life, a rigid kind of perspective, and don't seek to consider or explore the "it depends" scenarios that better represent reality and serve to better inform one of the complexity and depth of the "human condition." I find that deceptive because the truth is that morality can be subjective as you will note below. If you -- being completely honest -- can answer "Yes/True" to the first question, then *that is the answer*. If you -- again, being completely honest -- can answer "No/False" to the second question, then *that is the answer*. EM: Yes, assuming the rules of the test are these, and conforming, if these were your answers than they are your answers. The problem (IMO) lies with people who hedge their bets and say, "Well...this is a bad question, because although yes, more than one time I *have* felt good when I heard that someone died, I don't feel that way all the time. I'm "really" a good person." EM: You are the one here who is tying the "yes/no" option to a good/bad person conclusion. Also, the question was whether it felt good, more than once, to hear that someone had been *killed*. Or they would prefer to say, "This second question is bad, too, because although I cannot say that I have *never* enjoyed being cruel, I don't enjoy being cruel all the time. I'm "really" a good person." EM: The question is whether one *could enjoy being cruel* - not the assumption that they have already, whether they enjoyed it at the time or "all the time", or how that implicates one in being good or bad. All of this is self-deception. *The* answers to the questions ARE (respectively) "Yes" and "No." ANY hedging and excuses and "exceptions" a person feels they need to post after that are IMO exercises in self-deception, an attempt to convince themselves that they're good people anyway. EM: If I conform to the rules of said test and answer, without question I would answer OPPOSITE to what you answered - a definite "No" and "Yes!" You must be joking? I can honestly say, up to this point in my life, I don't think I have ever *felt good* to hear of someone being killed. Maybe I felt relieved (e.g., Bin Laden, sexual predator at large, etc.), but I can't drum up a feeling of *good* as in "pleasurable." And, I can also honestly say "I could never enjoy being cruel." That is a *YES*, right? Are you trying to "yank my chain" with your answers? Should I be assuming that you mistakenly reversed your answers? Should I be assuming that you have "lied?" Your answer above, Emily, sounds to me like an attempt to portray any person who feels no need to equivocate and lie -- to themselves and others -- and can answer these questions with a simple "Yes" and "No" as a Bad Person. Whereas the person who can't answer them without equivocating and making excuses for answering "Yes" and "No" can still claim to be a Good Person. It seems to me that the very *definition* of the latter behavior is self-deception. EM: What? See above. The article is about tying the ability to perceive humor to one's level of self-deception, not about determining whether they are good or bad. If you have taken pleasure in news of someone else's death -- EVER -- *that's who you are*. If you have enjoyed being cruel -- EVER -- *that's who you are*. How *often* you do these things is not the question; it's whether you can honestly admit to doing them when you find yourself doing them. Those who indulge in self-deception *can't* admit this. EM: You are pronouncing that if one disputes what you say in the above paragraph, they are indulging in self-deception? Are you insane? I have absolutely no idea how you managed to pull your opinion of Robin Carlsen into this discussion - completely irrelevant to the discussion. You've repeated your version of that story endless times and it's just that - a story interpreted incorrectly through your black/white filter proving my point that you are demonstrating that "your understanding of the complexity and depth of the human condition could be limited." :) FYI, it wasn't a few months ago, it's been a couple of years now, hasn't it? Re: your opinions...have you seen this? I'm guessing you have, but a reminder is always good. From 101 Zen Stories - Nyogen Senzaki - Ed. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could no longer restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!" Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
