Committee report: Put the Money Where Your Eyes Are

Ah, I have missed you, dear treatise. Wicked circumstances have, much to my dismay, conspired and kept me away from the Internets lately. I must confess that I have anxiously yearned - as I know you have - for my return to these sacred halls. Now, let there be words!

Please allow me to share with you my findings regarding the financial matters first mentioned in a P.S. to On creativity and writing and then further elaborated in Deception and accountability.

As the head of the committee recently appointed by Mr. Libel I plunged myself fearlessly into the depths of the abyss to humbly bring you back these grim news. Lies, deception, decadence and moral decay were the least of my problems in my struggle against those who so secretly and cowardly dare oppose the club.
     If you find it dubious that I am leading this committee despite
the fact that I am so closely related to the project in question I implore you to reconsider. We all know that I am a man of extraordinary moral standards and that I will never yield to temptation.

It is with great sorrow that I report that 366 € is missing from the club's representation fund. Where this money went is still unknown, but, honored members of the club and various assorted readers, I have identified the perpetrator! It was none other than my personal secretary. Believe me when I say that no one was more surprised than me. To think that someone who has spent so much time in my presence, absorbing my wisdom on a daily basis, could do something like this! Mr. Libel, ladies and gentlemen, it is with hundred percent accuracy that I reveal this. I would never wrongfully accuse someone of a crime so henious as this without overwhelming evidence. For investigation reasons I will omit these, though. When the matter is setlled they will be available for the general public in their entirety.

I am currently in pursuit [1] of my secretary, hoping to catch her and produce a confession of the connections she so obviously has with them. This is such a laughable display of hubris by them! This time they are in it over their heads.

[1] Please direct any information regarding her whereabouts to jpreed[at]linuxmail.org. Tips that lead to an arrest will be duly rewarded.

On True Believers and self-delusion

What makes some people believe in the truth of supernatural and psychic phenomena, even when the alleged medium self has admitted that the events were fraudulently staged?
In face of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence (as viewed by an outside observer) to the contrary, why do some cling on to these beliefs?
The term true-believer syndrome was first used by former psychic M. Lamar Keene in his 1987 book The Psychic Mafia (published by Prometheus Books). True Believer as a term predates the book. The concept embodies the two questions opening this post.
Although not a generally accepted psychiatric term (as it clearly lacks a strong body of knowledge), it describes an apparent breakdown of reason and surrender to an effort to minimise cognitive dissonance through post hoc rationalisations.

An article on true-believer syndrome in The Skeptic's Dictionary [1] makes clear:
The idea of true-believer syndrome does not shed light on as to why people hold on to erroneous beliefs "Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error".

It is therefore questionable whether one can use this term other than to name people True Believers, one in my opinion apt word of abuse for those who believe for belief's sake.
One can safely say that in many cases the comfort that is followed by the will to believe is much more appealing than the distress of having to revise a clearly mistaken notion. The post hoc rationalisations that are taking place include the assurance that even if a person has confessed to fraud, the ability demonstrated still might be genuine. That is, a person could have psychic powers without consciously knowing about them, as was claimed by the true believers of James Randi's infamous Carlos Hoax [2].

The perhaps most distressing example of true believers is when they flock around a charismatic guru, effectively partaking in a cult. As is the case in cults, many spoons of dogma is willfully forced down the believers' throats in accepting the infallibility of the guru.
When a cult follower is subsequently "deprogrammed" and realises the utter foolishness in which they have engaged, a slow reconstruction of memory is not unknown to occur. Being asked about life as a cult member, the reformed one often demonises the leader, explains the unbearable living conditions, and expresses fear to be the main reason for staying in the group.
I believe that in many cases the new "me" in light of current understanding interprets the past in a new way. If the circumstances were that terrible, I find it hard to think why anyone would stay even a minute longer than they felt they had to. Rather than fear, the feeling of belonging to something special might lead some to stay in a group that their visceral intuitions know to be unhealthy, the social nature of human animals being that ingrained.

None of this explains why people like to be deluded, by themselves of by others, but ultimately themselves. Wishful thinking does in my opinion explain a lot, but not everything. There is a sea of cognitive biases, or mistakes of reason, a few of which are elegantly addressed in Thomas Gilovich's insightful book How We Know What Isn't So. The study of cognitive biases, and cognitive science in general, is fairly new and I find it incredibly interesting.

Where do we go from here? It is clear that people tend to be more willing to believe in something that they wish to be true. On what evidence, when blind faith won't do, does one ground the assertion that a certain belief is true? This is where the confirmation bias [3] comes into play - one tends to seek out evidence that support a preconceived belief, and disregard or rationalise any piece of evidence that negates it. If you, for example, are awfully certain that your wife is cheating on you, you probably will find evidence, short of catching her red-handed, that reinforces said suspicion. It's also not unheard of that undue distrust can incite the dreaded infidelity. I think Mr. Reed previously concluded that we believe what we wish to be true or what we fear to be true, so is true in this case.

The strength of the illusion is perhaps if not the main, most likely one of the key factors. Let's face it: Reality is a bitch, and we seldom get what we want. That's a good starting point. Nevertheless we struggle, the beautiful fight that is our daily lives, and sometimes, sometimes, we get what we want. Few things come easily, but when we ultimately get them, it makes it all worthwhile. That's why I think that it's an awful waste of time in holding erroneous beliefs, since they cannot possibly bear as much fruit as a properly informed views have the potential to - you have simply chosen the wrong path.
Humans were not designed to seek out truth, we have merely out of necessity evolved a need to find and explain patterns in our world, the understanding of which helped us survive. If those patterns and the conclusions that we derive from them are false, they can thankfully, when having an open mind, be corrected. The ability that through abstractions know the world and the way it operates is a source of joy for many, including me. That's why I find it pivotal to always be open to new ideas, and when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt, adopt them. That is why self-delusion is a sad practise.

[1] The Skeptic's Dictionary entry on true-believer syndrome
[2] Ibid. "Carlos hoax"
[3] Ibid. "Confirmation bias"

Deception and accountability

As I mentioned in a postscript to my last post, my contact inside The Club's finance department has informed me of possible dubious transactions from club bank accounts to an as of yet undisclosed offshore recipient. This development is highly alarming, since the club has strict rules governing the use of its funds for representation and 'other' means.

Because of the graveness of this incident I have, on the club's behalf, assembled a committee to investigate the possibility of fraud and/or indeliberate wrongdoing from our representatives' side. Heading the committee will be the highly esteemed Mr. Reed, of treatise fame.
I am fully confident in the ability of those involved to resolve this disturbing matter in a swift and ruthless way, delivering what we all want - someone to assume full responsibility and subsequently submit for retraining to the club's internal behavioural modification system (i.e. electroconvulsive shock therapy and feature-length propaganda films).

For reasons hopefully understandable by all, my moral indignation knows no limit. Not only do these heinous acts undermine the moral values and general soundness that is the hallmark of this club, they also create a formidable opportunity for our more verbal antagonists to attack us, and rightly so. This display of self-righteousness and cowardice is worthy of every notch of disdain and condemnation. The words betray me, I am so aghast.
It is therefore I implore you, unknown assailant: Strap on a fucking pair of balls and take it like a man, you gutless scum.

Don't you realise that this is exactly what they want? Those who are opposing the enlightenment of the many, those who are trying to erode and hinder critical thinking, those who take every chance they get to discredit us. I who thought one of the primary purposes of this club was to act as a counterforce to them. I cannot comprehend your thoughtless betrayal. Why did you do it? Why?
The committee will see to it that you get what is coming to you. That is my only comfort in this darkest of hours.

On creativity and writing

When jotting down a post just like this one many problems may arise.
One of these problems is the focus demanding and time-consuming act of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps in trying to enter some sort of creative writing mode. Some of the writers that I know of (Hi, Mr. Reed) circumvent this by furiously grabbing the pen whenever being struck by the eluding and cruel mistress that inspiration turns out to be.
The issue here is: she's scarcely there when I need her. In most cases she's merely lingering out of concern for the treatise. Since writing is not as natural of an act as falling asleep, personal experience has shown that in order to lift off, one is best off by forcefully initiating the desired behaviour. The rest will automatically follow.
You might view this as having one hand to hold a knife to the throat, with the other hand ferociously whacking away at the keyboard just as if one saw rabbit heads popping up from underneath the keys. It's a game.

We have no time to play games, right? This is serious stuff. The second issue when authoring a piece of the treatise, or these revelations if you may, is this: The entire argument can be presented in just a few sentences. Period.
Adversaries, should they exist, could make the case that the passages following solely consists of different shapes of verbal self-indulgence. The conception of this silly notion might stem from rumors of me and Mr. Reed allegedly having elevated ourselves to the position of gods.
While I cannot wholeheartedly give my support to such an outrageous conspiracy theory, we have jointly revealed in earlier posts that there is a particle of truth to that statement. What I'm referring to is, naturally, the second principle of the club.
Apart from oiling the expressive wheels of the lingual clockwork, this also gives opportunity to enlighten by example, to bring cloudy ideas down to the ground and into the gutter, so to speak.

During the writing of a text it is inevitable to now and then walk head-first into the colloquial wall. Dazed, and sometimes confused, one lies there on the ground wondering where the air went. After a while, when the fingers are as cold as they were from the start, the creative cramp has let go, and writing may again commence. This is all about practise, I reckon. The wall can be a time-thief, but I think that active training (continuous, stubborn if you may, writing) can help keeping one eye out for approaching walls.

For the sake of argument, suppose that we during some point in time have reached a state of streamlined crea-/productivity in which the conversion of thoughts to text comes with negligible resistance. What in some cases then seem to happen is a sort of overspilling of ideas, ideas and formulations appear that are irrelevant to the text currently growing before one's very eyes.
Since some of these fragments (sometimes whole passages) can be worked upon, one is tempted to write them down elsewhere. I felt a sudden urge to use the marvellous (one of my favourite in the English language) idiom "to add insult to injury" in a text, but couldn't quite find a proper use for it, not wanting to add superficial chunks to the text. Now I've used it, however.

I now wander over to the outdoor field of feedback. Since me and Mr. Reed write for ourselves (whenever we claim the opposite we lie) the texts get a sort of smug quality attached to them. I am aware of the fact that we have a small multitude of readers, but I highly doubt that anyone apart from me and Mr. Reed really reads the texts. I'm fine with that, and it would be extremely foolish of me to even make an insinuation in the other direction. That would be like network channels claiming that people steal TV when not watching the commercials.
The club is designed in such a way to handle feedback (or the lack thereof) that originate from outside of the club's perimeter. When it comes to seeking the hidden libel and the concealed homage, care is taken that in order to find it, one has not only to read between the lines, but also behind them. We are so tongue-in-cheek.

The point I tried to make in the previous passage can be related to the one I will present now. I firmly believe that in order to write successfully on the Web, the text needs to be concise, witty, and link elsewhere. In real life, first impressions last. This also holds true here. If you have set aside the time to read this far, chances are that I know you.
Otherwise we certainly have a stalker on our hands. Quickly, J.P., notify the feds! Don't let them predators get you again! Sad story, really. He thought he was meeting up with a 14-year old girl when in fact 'she' turned of to be a 'he' not caring much about consent. A few visits to the proctologist later he now knows better than to publish his income on MySpace.
Lost my train of thought there for a minute in libelling Reed. The fact of the matter is that MTV has destroyed a generation, namely ours.

A quick recap. The inner problems of creativity in writing are, as I have identified them: starting, the brief nature of comfortable presentation, dealing with writer's block, losing the thread. The 'outer' aspects are largely made up of feedback and the desired brevity of Internet material. I think I can remove the knife now.

P.S. I am very concerned about recent intelligence received from our finance department regarding the use of club credit cards during Mr. Reed's research visit to Germany. Anyway, full disclosure has always been our (or)deal, so I will patiently await the report.