When first joining the COG, each member is either given, chooses, or "receives from God" their own "Bible name," although technically, it is not required to be a name strictly from the Bible. It was not unusual, in my time in the group, to meet people with such unlikely names as Hezekiah, Uriah, Sunshine, Charity, Dust, Miriam, etc. This new name was the only name the member was known by.
You can imagine the difficulty that people outside the group would have in trying to locate someone within the group. As well, people often changed their names, usually to accompany some sort of "spiritual breakthrough" in their battle against self and sin, which further complicated keeping track of others in the group. Furthermore, we were discouraged from keeping in contact with friends either within or without the group, as we were to put "our work for the lord" first above all other considerations. ("He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me," said Jesus in Matthew 10:37. Clearly friends fell quite low on the priority list.)
Once within the group, we were no longer bound by the constraints of social norms, but embraced the norms and morals of our new community. As I wrote already*, at first these seemed to be benign and conservative, but as time in the group continued, the mores were stretched beyond reason to encompass various unethical sexual and abusive behaviors.
Perhaps a bit of the anonymity members experienced with Bible names can be likened to the Ring of Gyges. Plato described this as a magical ring that could impart invisibility to its wearer. Would someone who could become invisible forego morality and use this power for selfish gain and commit crimes? If invisibility provided escape from social propriety, how would people behave?
As far as life in TFI/COG went, a lot depended on the individual. Some people went against the tide and retained more conventional morality - as much as would be allowed with its accompanying stigmatism of being an "old bottle" - one who was not "revolutionary" enough to accept the "new wine" and "freedoms" God had given to his chosen few. Others became unapologetic abusers of children and sexual profligates.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Disrespect for Science
In the cult, since "God's Word" was the ultimate authority, naturally it would follow that we pooh-poohed science - or rather, we used the literal writings of the Bible as the yardstick with which to measure anything scientific. If a scientific teaching squared with the Bible, then it was OK. "The world was created in 6 days because God said so," accordingly, there went evolution. With that the foundation of our beliefs, there was little room for rational thought.
Now we see a world where disregard for science has become somewhat of a popular trend. Scientific reporting in mainstream magazines, in the interest of "balanced reporting," often presents a scientific finding alongside one lone voice of dissent, giving each equal merit. The internet is filled with the opinions of "experts" who dispense their thoughts freely, and people accept them. Yet, charisma and confidence, as we know, do not correlate with competence.
Why this tendency? Why do people in general seem eager to jump on the bandwagon of anti-scientific beliefs? Why have even the opinions of celebrities become as accepted as that of scientists?
I wonder if perhaps it may have something to do with the way this generation has been raised. From my limited observations of parents in (particularly) the US, I noticed a distinct, and actually shocking, lack of respect for authority figures - teachers, coaches, even police - where parents would strongly contradict and argue with such people in front of their children. Of course, this attitude is consequently passed on to their children.
I can see how such a feeling of disrespect, and its resultant perception that one knows as much or more than an authority figure (let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger Effect), will translate into adulthood as a generally elevated sense of confidence and disregard for things outside of one's belief system.
One doesn't even need to be a cult member to have their brain addled by false beliefs and notions.
Now we see a world where disregard for science has become somewhat of a popular trend. Scientific reporting in mainstream magazines, in the interest of "balanced reporting," often presents a scientific finding alongside one lone voice of dissent, giving each equal merit. The internet is filled with the opinions of "experts" who dispense their thoughts freely, and people accept them. Yet, charisma and confidence, as we know, do not correlate with competence.
Why this tendency? Why do people in general seem eager to jump on the bandwagon of anti-scientific beliefs? Why have even the opinions of celebrities become as accepted as that of scientists?
I wonder if perhaps it may have something to do with the way this generation has been raised. From my limited observations of parents in (particularly) the US, I noticed a distinct, and actually shocking, lack of respect for authority figures - teachers, coaches, even police - where parents would strongly contradict and argue with such people in front of their children. Of course, this attitude is consequently passed on to their children.
I can see how such a feeling of disrespect, and its resultant perception that one knows as much or more than an authority figure (let's not forget the Dunning-Kruger Effect), will translate into adulthood as a generally elevated sense of confidence and disregard for things outside of one's belief system.
One doesn't even need to be a cult member to have their brain addled by false beliefs and notions.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Unknown Unknowns
Daniel Kahneman, among other things, pointed out that the mind naturally works by going on what it sees and knows. But "there are unknown unknowns," as Donald Rumsfeld so famously said, and these are the things that we need to seek out. Obviously, the tendency of the mind to just look at what it sees and knows and go no further is crucial to cult loyalty, and reaching past that tendency is the only way out.
To quote Kahneman, "A mind that follows WYSIATI [what you see is all there is] will achieve high confidence much too easily by ignoring what it does not know. We focus on what we know and neglect what we do not know, which makes us overly confident in our beliefs."
Outside information "is routinely discarded when it is incompatible with one's personal impressions... In the competition with the inside view, the outside view doesn't stand a chance."
"It is therefore not surprising that many of us are prone to have high confidence in unfounded intuitions."
Thus, as a secluded and information-starved cult member, whose only source of outside news was weeks-old compiled and edited news articles supplied for our supposed convenience by cult leadership, I had no concept of the vast amounts of knowledge that did not come from the cult source. Of course, I talked with outsiders, but everything went through the filter of what I already "knew" to be true, i.e., my firmly held beliefs.
Thankfully, we now have the internet with its anarchy of knowledge and pseudo-knowledge to allow us to search out other sides to issues. IMHO, the internet was the undoing of the COG/TFI.
To quote Kahneman, "A mind that follows WYSIATI [what you see is all there is] will achieve high confidence much too easily by ignoring what it does not know. We focus on what we know and neglect what we do not know, which makes us overly confident in our beliefs."
Outside information "is routinely discarded when it is incompatible with one's personal impressions... In the competition with the inside view, the outside view doesn't stand a chance."
"It is therefore not surprising that many of us are prone to have high confidence in unfounded intuitions."
Thus, as a secluded and information-starved cult member, whose only source of outside news was weeks-old compiled and edited news articles supplied for our supposed convenience by cult leadership, I had no concept of the vast amounts of knowledge that did not come from the cult source. Of course, I talked with outsiders, but everything went through the filter of what I already "knew" to be true, i.e., my firmly held beliefs.
Thankfully, we now have the internet with its anarchy of knowledge and pseudo-knowledge to allow us to search out other sides to issues. IMHO, the internet was the undoing of the COG/TFI.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Redeveloping Intuition
One of the most influential social scientists of the 20th century, Herbert Simon, made an in depth study of intuition. He breaks it down as follows: "The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition."
Think of a chess master glancing at a chessboard in play and intuiting what the next play should be - information input and immediate response. This reaction has come from years of practice and pattern-recognition. My own intuition of how to behave in water comes from years spent in pools as a child; certain actions just come naturally. Likewise, the years spent memorizing and reading the publications of TFI, and being immersed in that society and mindset, have not been without their effect.
Someone's whose "gut reaction" tells them to make a certain decision is relying on what quickly comes to his mind. He doesn't consciously understand why he feels the decision is "right," but surely something in his subconscious is affecting his feelings.
More close to home, my certainty that the decision to join and remain in the COG was uncontested. Obviously, such intuitions should be questioned.
Of course, for physical tasks, such as sports, chess, etc., there is not necessarily a danger, and much to be gained, from following intuition. That's what practice is all about and what intuition is for - quick and correct reactions. If a tennis player had to consciously think about how to go about hitting the ball coming at him, he would never hit it. He has to rely on his intuitive senses.
On the other hand, for important decision-making, personal interactions with others, etc., there is great potential danger in relying on immediate emotional responses and initial "intuitive" reactions. I see now that it is crucial to think more deeply on such matters and consciously put aside my initial "gut feelings."
Knowing when using intuition is needed and when it is best to stop an think things through is one of the challenges of life. The instinct to impart more value and truth to things that readily come to mind is just one perilous and important human weakness to be aware of. I hope, that as my years out of the cult grow, I am building a new framework for my intuition of knowledge, mental patterns, and experiences.
"People's confidence in a belief [can be traced] to two related impressions: cognitive ease and coherence... but ease and coherence do not guarantee that a belief held with confidence is true." Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Think of a chess master glancing at a chessboard in play and intuiting what the next play should be - information input and immediate response. This reaction has come from years of practice and pattern-recognition. My own intuition of how to behave in water comes from years spent in pools as a child; certain actions just come naturally. Likewise, the years spent memorizing and reading the publications of TFI, and being immersed in that society and mindset, have not been without their effect.
Someone's whose "gut reaction" tells them to make a certain decision is relying on what quickly comes to his mind. He doesn't consciously understand why he feels the decision is "right," but surely something in his subconscious is affecting his feelings.
More close to home, my certainty that the decision to join and remain in the COG was uncontested. Obviously, such intuitions should be questioned.
Of course, for physical tasks, such as sports, chess, etc., there is not necessarily a danger, and much to be gained, from following intuition. That's what practice is all about and what intuition is for - quick and correct reactions. If a tennis player had to consciously think about how to go about hitting the ball coming at him, he would never hit it. He has to rely on his intuitive senses.
On the other hand, for important decision-making, personal interactions with others, etc., there is great potential danger in relying on immediate emotional responses and initial "intuitive" reactions. I see now that it is crucial to think more deeply on such matters and consciously put aside my initial "gut feelings."
Knowing when using intuition is needed and when it is best to stop an think things through is one of the challenges of life. The instinct to impart more value and truth to things that readily come to mind is just one perilous and important human weakness to be aware of. I hope, that as my years out of the cult grow, I am building a new framework for my intuition of knowledge, mental patterns, and experiences.
"People's confidence in a belief [can be traced] to two related impressions: cognitive ease and coherence... but ease and coherence do not guarantee that a belief held with confidence is true." Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Trust, and the Lack Thereof
As I'm sure you would agree, trust is a crucial factor for a healthy relationship, as people's memories, by nature, in time become confabulated fiction. Without trust, we readily believe emotionally-laden negative things about events that occurred in the past.
It is self-evident that memory is colored by emotion. When a memory involves another person, which so many do, how we "remember" things depends a lot on how we feel about the person involved. If the relationship with that person was one of love and trust, then the memory is more benign or neutral. If, for some reason, we feel animosity towards that person, the natural fictionalization of memory becomes more dark or accusatory.
"You didn't let me do ...., " reports the disgruntled teenager. "You made me do ....," says the bitter ex-spouse. We can easily, and unknowingly, give up the responsibility of our own poor decisions because of the warping effect of emotion.
Where love is thin, memories are negative. Where love is strong, there is forgiveness and understanding.
It is self-evident that memory is colored by emotion. When a memory involves another person, which so many do, how we "remember" things depends a lot on how we feel about the person involved. If the relationship with that person was one of love and trust, then the memory is more benign or neutral. If, for some reason, we feel animosity towards that person, the natural fictionalization of memory becomes more dark or accusatory.
"You didn't let me do ...., " reports the disgruntled teenager. "You made me do ....," says the bitter ex-spouse. We can easily, and unknowingly, give up the responsibility of our own poor decisions because of the warping effect of emotion.
Where love is thin, memories are negative. Where love is strong, there is forgiveness and understanding.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Loneliness Legacy
Having spent many wasted years in the unreal bubble of life in TFI and then emerging into the real world, it can be difficult to relate to people who have not experienced it. Generally, friendships are build on commonalities, shared interests and backgrounds, and maybe more importantly, similar ways of thinking and mindsets.
Coming from an insular cult background, it can be a challenge to form deep friendships with those for whom that reality is foreign, or perhaps, virtually unimaginable.
This is not unlike the experience of "Third Culture Kids," referring to those people (not just children) who have spent much time in a culture outside of their national culture. As TFI has its own culture, customs, and esoteric language, upon leaving, one is placed in the position where they must suddenly learn - or catch up with - the culture of their citizenship, years behind others their age.
As an aside, this is particularly egregious for those whose citizenship is, for example, Japanese or Chinese and were born in the cult and brought up primarily in an English environment. To be thrust into mainstream society in a country where you are not fluent in the language of your birth is the epitome of lack of foresight of the parents, bordering on cruelty. I cannot imagine how hard it would be.
Thus, the sad fate left to many ex-cultists is a life of relative loneliness, and/or a tendency to seek the company of other ex-members. Others have left one cult for another, be it MLMs with their alluring promise of "get-rich-quick" (particularly alluring for aging ex-members who have no savings and have made no provision for retirement), conspiracy theory groups, or political fringe groups. Sadly, many have chosen to take their own lives, while others have fallen into addictions and alcoholism.
"Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It's how we get our satisfaction. If we can't connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find -- the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe."* Or, I might add, the warm embrace of a cult.
Coming from an insular cult background, it can be a challenge to form deep friendships with those for whom that reality is foreign, or perhaps, virtually unimaginable.
This is not unlike the experience of "Third Culture Kids," referring to those people (not just children) who have spent much time in a culture outside of their national culture. As TFI has its own culture, customs, and esoteric language, upon leaving, one is placed in the position where they must suddenly learn - or catch up with - the culture of their citizenship, years behind others their age.
As an aside, this is particularly egregious for those whose citizenship is, for example, Japanese or Chinese and were born in the cult and brought up primarily in an English environment. To be thrust into mainstream society in a country where you are not fluent in the language of your birth is the epitome of lack of foresight of the parents, bordering on cruelty. I cannot imagine how hard it would be.
Thus, the sad fate left to many ex-cultists is a life of relative loneliness, and/or a tendency to seek the company of other ex-members. Others have left one cult for another, be it MLMs with their alluring promise of "get-rich-quick" (particularly alluring for aging ex-members who have no savings and have made no provision for retirement), conspiracy theory groups, or political fringe groups. Sadly, many have chosen to take their own lives, while others have fallen into addictions and alcoholism.
"Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It's how we get our satisfaction. If we can't connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find -- the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe."* Or, I might add, the warm embrace of a cult.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Self-denial
Another theme of life in the COG/TFI is "denying yourself." I so desired to be accepted and well-thought of by the others in the group that I started this practice upon joining. Well, of course, that was one of the requirements for being a member - give up all you have, so this characteristic wasn't unique to me.
I gave everything I had, including my meager savings, to the group, where the "colony" (group home) leader clearly had no appreciation for the value of what I gave, although he took the nicest things for himself.
I gave everything I had, including my meager savings, to the group, where the "colony" (group home) leader clearly had no appreciation for the value of what I gave, although he took the nicest things for himself.
To illustrate this, I will list a few examples. He took apart my lamp/clock/radio so that he could "make it quiet" as it made an ever-so-slight whirring sound as the digital numbers changed. (He destroyed it.) My hand-woven tapestry wall-hanging was used as a mat in the basement (distribution literature) printing room floor. While being used by others - all things became communal property, naturally - my beautiful classical guitar was irreparably cracked in half due to too tightly wound strings and being set up outside against a folding chair where it fell. I'm sure other members have similar stories they could relate.
My mother would kindly take me out shopping for clothes when I was first in the group - no doubt with ulterior motives of trying to understand her wayward daughter - and upon returning to the COG home, the first thing I did was give them all away. (Obviously, I was not considering my mother's feelings at all. Too late to apologize now. She died in 1977.)
This ended up being my MO. Don't think about yourself or your own needs. Give to others. I can't help but think that this was a method I used to try to please others, craving appreciation and acceptance. As time went on, it became my natural reflex.
I unwittingly went without, "preferring others" and often this seemed to go so far as "casting my pearls before swine" (like in the case of my initial joining). This carried on through the years and is further exemplified by the time my young son won a bottle of beautiful Tiffany perfume in a lottery. I thought it would be nice to give it to our visa sponsor here as a token of our appreciation. Her reaction? "Oh, you don't like it so you gave it to me, eh?" On the contrary, I loved it, and that's why I gave it to her. I guess that concept didn't compute - how could it without the indoctrination I had had?
As you can imagine, my wardrobe was a mishmash of ill-fitting, second-hand clothes for all my years in the group - with not a thought given to the effect my appearance would have on others. After all, my eyes were on my so-called "work for the lord" and not on material things.
I spent too many years naively "denying myself and taking up my cross daily," and I doubt it won me any karmic brownie points for unselfishness.
My mother would kindly take me out shopping for clothes when I was first in the group - no doubt with ulterior motives of trying to understand her wayward daughter - and upon returning to the COG home, the first thing I did was give them all away. (Obviously, I was not considering my mother's feelings at all. Too late to apologize now. She died in 1977.)
This ended up being my MO. Don't think about yourself or your own needs. Give to others. I can't help but think that this was a method I used to try to please others, craving appreciation and acceptance. As time went on, it became my natural reflex.
I unwittingly went without, "preferring others" and often this seemed to go so far as "casting my pearls before swine" (like in the case of my initial joining). This carried on through the years and is further exemplified by the time my young son won a bottle of beautiful Tiffany perfume in a lottery. I thought it would be nice to give it to our visa sponsor here as a token of our appreciation. Her reaction? "Oh, you don't like it so you gave it to me, eh?" On the contrary, I loved it, and that's why I gave it to her. I guess that concept didn't compute - how could it without the indoctrination I had had?
As you can imagine, my wardrobe was a mishmash of ill-fitting, second-hand clothes for all my years in the group - with not a thought given to the effect my appearance would have on others. After all, my eyes were on my so-called "work for the lord" and not on material things.
I spent too many years naively "denying myself and taking up my cross daily," and I doubt it won me any karmic brownie points for unselfishness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)