Jump to content
cinepro

A Scientific Argument Why The Problem of "Immodesty" Will Never Be Fixed

Recommended Posts

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Imo the study's implications go pretty far.

The study shows that we really do see what we are looking for.   So the way to change the world we see is to change what we are looking for.  Change starts in our minds. 

A man is looking to move out in the country.  He stops at a farmhouse to talk with one of the locals.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"   The man says, "Oh they were wonderful - friendly, helpful, and considerate."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here."

Next day another man looking to move out into the country happens to stop at the same farmhouse.  He asks the farmer, "What are the people like around here?"  The farmer replies, "What were folks like where you come from?"  The man says, "Oh they were terrible - selfish, mean, and dishonest."  The farmer says, "Well, that's pretty much what you'll find around here." 

I understand that we all have biases and have a tendency to see what we want to see.  However, aren't some things so obvious that to take a contrary position is simply delusional?  One can always claim that disagreement with the group is due to some predetermined bias and vice versa.  However, sometimes certain views and positions are much better than others.  I think sometimes bias is overused as an excuse to justify certain beliefs when rationality points in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

That's a different phenomenon...

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

When I was a missionary we had this rule about our missionary attire, it was called "the Walk", why I have no idea. There was a rule about everything you wore and when you wore it and wear you wore it, it's unbelievable. Anyways our mission went to the LA Temple every 6 months and we saw the LA missionaries and TBH they looked like these grubby losers, but I remember thinking compared to us yeah but when you look at their rules i'm sure they were dressed modestly and didn't have all this extra stuff we had to do and be mindful of. The dress dial for us had been turned so far that it made others look bad even though they weren't really immodest

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I remember that German terrorist gang .:snort:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Relatedly, when I buy another car, before the purchase the particular type is rare but after the purchase I see them all over the place.

Try the Audi RS5. 🙂

They are rare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Nevermind.  It was stupid, and the board software just won't let me cancel the post before saving it.  

And that's nuts.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

2008-04-14-CXamish_porn.gif

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

I was told that , at one time, the back of the female neck was the most erotic in Japanese culture. If true , times change.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

 


The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

 

In other words: "We have learned through sad experience ..."

Share this post


Link to post

That's how we get to Coriantumr chopping off the head of Shiz.  If we are willing to have a category called "enemy" at all, then we will find something to fill it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Maidservant said:

If we are willing to have a category called "enemy" at all, then we will find something to fill it.

That is brilliant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Should you be allowed to post such filth here? 🤬

How about a not sutiable for the workplace warning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

Quote

Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done.

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

We see this characteristically in modern America, where statistical fact means little to a large sector of the population.  Delusion has become the norm for some "tribal" groups, and populist demagogues take full advantage.  As controlling POVs become dominant and non-congruent with reality, the greater the likelihood of major problems in society, perhaps leading to political & economic failure.  Blame must then be placed, which usually also follows a delusional path.

That reminds me of a July 24th parade in SLC years ago, and David O. McKay was in the reviewing stand with the Brethren.  A scantily clad drum majorette came prancing by at the head of a marching band.  One of the Brethren leaned over to Pres McKay to call attention to her immodesty.  Pres McKay replied that he didn't see anything but beauty.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That reminds me of a July 24th parade in SLC years ago, and David O. McKay was in the reviewing stand with the Brethren.  A scantily clad drum majorette came prancing by at the head of a marching band.  One of the Brethren leaned over to Pres McKay to call attention to her immodesty.  Pres McKay replied that he didn't see anything but beauty.

This anecdote appears frequently in LDS modesty discussions, usually followed by “to the pure, all things are pure.” Sometimes I wonder about its authenticity, or whether we got the full story, or whether he thought his associate was being a dirty old man, or what he actually meant if he really said it, or just what is the point of bringing it up?

I’ve also wondered if that story is meant to suggest that since one of our prophets was apparently ok with immodesty, so everyone else should be too. I wonder at what point he might have drawn the line with a majorette costume or how the one in that parade would compare with current costumes and if he would be ok with them, or if  he was just trying not to be judgemental.

 It should be noted that at other times President McKay strongly advocated modesty in dress, including publishing the first For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Eek! said:

Delusional positions arise from delusional thoughts.  That's not a justification of delusional positions, just a statement of cause and effect.  

Bias doesn't explain every irrational belief out there, but it does explain many of them.  Incomplete or incorrect data can result in beliefs that are technically "rational" but still incorrect. 

Some ways of seeing the world are much better than others, and how we see the world arises from our thoughts about the world.  The good news is, our thoughts are under our control (though often considerable effort is required).  We are accustomed to our actions being "right" or "wrong" or somewhere in between, but our actions almost always arise from our thoughts, so if we would focus on the CAUSE instead of the EFFECTS, our focus would be on our thoughts. 

The study cited by Cinepro illustrates this principle:  "Seek, and ye shall find."  This is true whether we are seeking blue dots in a sea of purples, or immodesty at a convent, or considerate fellow drivers.  And this principle applies to far weightier matters as well. 

So, do you believe the bofm was a 19th century invention or do you believe in historicity? It seems that a desire to believe is really group bias in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

So, do you believe the bofm was a 19th century invention or do you believe in historicity? It seems that a desire to believe is really group bias in action.

I'm no longer LDS (nor part of any group) so haven't put any time and energy into figuring out where the Book of Mormon came from.   I think it contains some great teachings, whatever its origins might be. 

Edited by Eek!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×