Carl-Richard

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

That's what I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipulation_(psychology) Jirh's aim is to make me stop being mean. Inliytened's aim is to make me shut up and stop myself from getting banned. Both said the same thing, both want the discussion to go in a certain direction, what they said makes sense. It's sleazy because it's a kind of love bombing tactic which feels weird when you couple it with whatever else is happening. "But I didn't explicitly have that in mind while saying it!" But it facilitates your aim, doesn't it? Manipulation does not have to be conscious. Especially if you're a socio-logist-, a soci-al worker- a so-prano singer- a - never mind.

There will come a day where I will treat the candidates for category #2 of my ignore list the same as the candidates for category #1: sudden, complete, silence, no explanation, nothing. One day.

Such a sleazy manipulation tactic. Also ironically what the other dude I ignore-listed used to do.

That's what you care about.

Lmao. My ticked-off-ness is directly proportional to what is happening in the thread, such as has happened in a prior thread where I also put a person on the ignore list for the exact same type of reason, and that time, I also called the person a sociopath and whined about them contradicting themselves and engaging in a petty, irrelevant way. If you see me name-calling and being "ticked-off", it's to protect my soul, against soulless, self-contradictory, non-integrous trolls.

Maybe follow the discussion before you judge who is an adult and who is a child.

You're the one who brought up an academic analogy you absolute dofus. No consistency to find anywhere in what you're saying. Completely lost in sociopathic crybabying.

If a colleague asks me for a scientific reference for a project ("evidence") and then doesn't look at it and then pretends like they didn't actually want a scientific reference, I don't know who deserves to get fired. Last irrelevant "point" I will engage with.

Wow you just discovered how a conversation works, going from point to point. But you "forgot" that a conversation is often two-way. You asked for scientific evidence, I gave you it. All this bullshit just to not admit that you can't answer to the scientific evidence that you asked for. Consistent bullshit > honest engagement => psychopathy. Our engagement is over until you answer to the evidence you yourself asked for (is it satisfactory evidence? Is it not? Why?).

If your statements about what convinces you about the reality of a phenomena ("science will convince me") are dependent on local events in a discussion and not your values, you either have dementia, schizophrenia, or you're only concerned about winning in a local part of a discussion and not honestly evaluating what is true and thus a psychopath. Put more simply: how is it possible to "forget" that something extremely general like "science" would convince you that psychic phenomena are real?

There are two ways you end up on my ignore list: 1. your posts are literally schizophrenic, 2. you engage in a discussion in what seems to be good faith but then you withdraw when it gets hard, start contradicting yourself and start talking about utterly irrelevant shit, turning whatever is left of the discussion into a shitfest. Only two people have managed to actually fill criteria #2. And there is a word that describes their behavior with DSM-5 precision.

I don't know, man, what do you call a person who contradicts themselves, lies and plays psychological games instead of just engaging with the subject matter?

*Psycho expecting me to care about some posturing/shaming/psycho-tactic of them withdrawing their flailing 'approval' which changes whenever it suits them in the conversation instead of actually engaging.* You psychopaths are all the same. So concerned about dishing out petty shit, but not actually engaging. If you want my approval, actually engage. Until then, ignore list.

Anyways, ignoring all of the retarded vacuous non-argumentation about nothing at all that the other person on the ignore list also engages for some reason that we could only infer: so what do you think about Dr. Cardeña's American Psychologist review, particularly the 108 studies on the Ganzfeld effect?

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

Explain what the fuck was "bad faith" with anything I've said.

Lack of argument detracts. Lack of consistency with prior statements detracts. Literally lying detracts. Such as:

Sometimes communication also depends on the person creating the signals. What even is this. You don't have to be logically consistent or consistent with what you said earlier either, you know, having just a modicum of integrity. Shady behavior gets called out. Makes a scene about leaving. Suddenly the discussion is about you. What a surprise. You came here to have a discussion and now you're leaving. That's the frame people in this thread will agree on. Your pity frame is likely soelly your own, just like your common sense frame.

You're lying. This is like uncanny, you're using the same language as the person on the ignore list. "Emotionally reactive". And of course without providing an argument. Let me also show you what "emotionally reactive" looks like: It's all projection with you guys. You're not bored, you're bored engaging using arguments and "common sense". Evident by your continued engagement following the exact trajectory I've described, "pretending to exit and poisoning the well". This is exactly the same psycho tactics that I put on my ignore list. Let it be clear yet again that the person above is now "leaving" the discussion after I provided the exact kind of evidence he was asking for and without responding to anything about that evidence.

@Jirh And if you think it was odd that I stopped responding to a specific selection of your posts at one point, I had written an elaborate answer to it and it got deleted so I "lost interest" for a while. And the further delay is because I have what you can call a life at this point in time.

You sound like the only other person on my ignore list. After a long discussion on a topic you purport to have spent a lot of time thinking about in your freetime: "I don't actually care". And only conveniently after dropping a 20+ study meta-analysis and a huge thousand-study review, the types of evidence you were desperately begging for. It was just oddly out of touch with the discussion the way you started to talk about "the general view" in that situation, that was all. A bit like when you defined "common sense" as "rationality". What, you expect me to give something I don't have? Same psycho argumentation as the person on the ignore list. Could've smelled it from a mile away. Almost like I'm a psychic. When losing the argument, do the ad hominem, pretend to exit the discussion and poison the well. Perfect exit tactic. Make no opportunity for a well-thought through discussion. And of course, deny that what you are doing is actually what you are doing. The "cult" was a Discord group where people chatted. You're in a cult right now. I was entirely skeptical of the group, just like this one. The reason I called it a cult was because I could see the odd beliefs and the effect they had on me despite my skepticism. And while in the group, I was entirely skeptical of psychic phenomena; now I'm less skeptical. Somehow I wasn't bought into "special knowledge" views then. Perhaps your desperate ad hominem is just that; a desperate, lousy, pathetic ad hominem. Or perhaps I am a starry eyed fanatic. Still, doesn't fare well for you not being able to argue against a purportedly irrational, drooling, pre-rational, lack of common sense fanatic. You should be wiping the floor with every single statement I say. Or maybe "you can't argue with an idiot". Then I say: argue with Dr. Cardeña, Kastrup, Sheldrake. All Dr's btw. Argue against someone with the scientific rigor you so praise.

I can turn into an alien but can't read your thoughts. We're just experiencing the "the critics won't even look at the evidence" meme in a culture where this supposedly does not happen. Kuhn's observations still apply. Paradigms survive sociologically way past their scientific expiry date. "Science progresses one funeral at a time" — Max Planck.