Eugine_Nier comments on Notes on Brainwashing & 'Cults' - Less Wrong

35 Post author: gwern 13 September 2013 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (101)

CC Licenced

Tags: psychology

Comments (101)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2013 03:29:46PM 6 points [-]

Emotional abuse is a sufficiently well defined thing. It is an undesirable thing.

So could you provide a definition. The article you linked to begins by saying:

As of 1996, There were "no consensus views about the definition of emotional abuse."

And then proceeds to list three categories that are sufficiently vague to include a lot of legitimate behavior.

Enduring emotional abuse rather than severing ties with the abuser because sometimes cultists sever ties while using that phrase is idiotic.

You don't seem to be getting the concept of "outside view". Think about it this way: as the example of cults shows, humans have a bias that makes them interpret Bob attempting to persuade Alice away from one's meme set as emotional abuse. Consider the possibility that you're also suffering from this bias.

Comment author: wedrifid comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 September 2013 07:10:38AM * 0 points [-]

For now I will say this is an example of emotional abuse which would in most situations call for the severing of ties.

I agree gaslighting is bad. Ironically, most of the examples that come to mind (and the only example of attempted gaslighting happening to some I know) involve attempting to plant false memories that someone else was emotionally (and possibly also physically) abusing them.

Don't be absurd. Conversation over. Be advised that future comments of your on any of the subjects of emotional abuse, cults or creepiness will be voted on without reply unless I perceive them to be a danger to others. The reasoning you are using is both non-sequitur and toxic. I don't have the patience for it.

What I suspect is happening is you perceive evil "emotional abuse" as having occured and your reaction is "how dare eugine urge restraint."

I care about gaslighting, various forms of emotional blackmail and verbal abuse. Again, the fact that the phrase "emotional abuse" can be misused by someone in a cult does not make refusal to respond to actual emotional abuse appropriate or sane.

Yes, but is "actual emotional abuse" (to the extent it's an objective concept) occurring. In particular do you have any evidence that gaslighting (the only specific example you gave) occurred in any of the examples under discussion. Setrainly none of the things diego mentioned even suggest gaslighting was occurring.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 September 2013 08:24:50AM * 1 point [-]

What I suspect is happening is you perceive evil "emotional abuse" as having occured and your reaction is "how dare eugine urge restraint."

This is false. I object to the reasoning used in this conversation for the previously expressed reasons. I consider it disingenuous, with the inevitable caveat that I cannot reliably distinguish between disengenuity and sincere inability to think in a manner which I consider coherent. That is all.

For better or worse I viscerally experience more disgust when observing clever use of non-sequitur retorts than I experience at descriptions of the hypothetical abusive behaviours. Bullshit is my enemy. "Emotional abuse" is a mere abstract evil.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 September 2013 07:31:31AM -1 points [-]

Your first response to my comment was not to declare it "bullshit" but to declare it "evil". Furthermore, all your reasons boil down to "How dare you invoke the outside view when we all know Evil Things(tm) are happening". And you don't bother to engage with any of the arguments I provided.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 September 2013 11:23:19AM * -2 points [-]

Your first response to my comment was not to declare it "bullshit" but to declare it "evil".

This accusation seems to be actively relying on the assumption that readers will not check the context to verify accuracy. The first two sentences in the reply in question seem to be quite clearly declaring 'bullshit'. In particular note the phrases "distortion of reasoning", "so obviously bad and yet remains common" and "all too seldom refuted". I quite frequently reference on bullshit when describing that pattern of behaviour but it doesn't seem necessary to explicitly use the word 'bullshit' every single time. In fact I try to make myself use natural language descriptions like this rather than using bullshit every time because that habit would just get weird.

Furthermore, all your reasons boil down to "How dare you invoke the outside view when we all know Evil Things(tm) are happening".

This is false. Eugine_Nier has presented approximately the same straw man previously and it was false then too. I conclude that he has little interest in making his accusations match reality.

And you don't bother to engage with any of the arguments I provided.

I did engage, and that was a mistake. Like other users have mentioned in the past I now must concur that Eugine_Nier is systematically incapable of engaging in good-faith conversation. I will henceforth refrain from communicating with Eugine_Nier except when I deem it necessary to lend support to another user I perceive to be mistreated (via straw man barrages and the like). Apart from such cases I will limit myself to downvoting as appropriate then ignoring.

Eugine_Nier comments on Notes on Brainwashing & 'Cults' - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (101)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (101)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login