Tag Archives: richard dawkins

Richard Dawkins the Data Assassin.

untitled

Yesterday I posted a link to an article from richarddawkins.net about Sue Blackmore’s experience at Oxford and how she tried to get the students that came to her lecture to think of a new meme, all they did was think of meme’s that humiliated Christians, when she asked the students to contemplate meme’s that mocked Muslims and Islam 100 stood up and walked out and today I go to look at the same link and it has been data assassinated.  

Anyway, I strongly recommend everybody read this article. 

Now I look today and the article is back up. 

Introducing memes, I asked for volunteers to come up on the stage and invent a new meme. This same young man, called Moritz, was up in a flash, followed by four others. I asked him, at the word ‘go’, to make some simple movements and sounds. ‘One, two, three, Go,’ I said, and he waved one hand around in a circle, chanting ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word ….’. The others then imitated him and that was fun. Three obediently began reciting from the Bible but the fourth threw both arms in the air and declared ‘There’s a big old man in the sky’ and raised a huge laugh and cheer from (some of) the audience. This seemed an opportunity not to be missed so I asked the whole audience, at the word ‘go’, to imitate either of these two new memes, whereupon a great cry burst out of, ‘In the beg…’, ‘There’s an old man …’. Great, I said, we’ve now got two memes, you have just seen meme creation and selection at work.

I explained the idea of religions as memeplexes: they package up a set of doctrines, tell believers to learn them, to pass them on, to have faith and not doubt, and they ensure obedience with fearsome threats and ridiculous promises. This I illustrated with images of Christian heaven and hell. Then I read from the Koran “those that have faith and do good works, Allah will admit them to gardens watered by running streams … pearls and bracelets of gold.” “Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.” More walked out. By the time I arrived at a slide calling religions (Richard’s fault!) ‘Viruses of the mind’, the lecture hall was looking rather empty.

http://muckrack.com/link/ohFom/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture

https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10152568483890155

Richard Dawkins Deconstructed.

Image

So, I am going to practice describing Richard Dawkins inner world based on my psychological models and using my terms.  It is good for me to practice describing peoples profiles so I get used to using my thought technology (terms).  Religious language, in a manner of speaking, describes our internal world or the way we think the world works.  Our internal world is our soul, or our gestalt, it is our understanding of the world.  Now what is interesting with some atheists with the conceit that god doesn’t exist is that they don’t have any system for describing their internal world workings, which is to say they can’t scrutinize themselves.  Now I created my psycholinguistic model for detecting psychopaths while I was observing troll behavior on social networking sites.  Psychopaths conceal their true self and represent themselves falsely.  My model was created to understand the soul of people that were concealing themselves and revealing themselves strategically, people that don’t want to be understood.

Richard Dawkins, narrative recently changed, in his book, THE GOD DELUSION he mentions that a female associate of his said emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse and that he agrees with her.  Then recently this statement changed to, I was physically abused and I can’t condemn mild pedophilia.  One of the things I do in my deconstruction of narrative is learn to distinguish between authentic behavior and strategic behavior.  The second piece is closer to his true narrative (what is actually going on in his head)  but he is still concealing, although he did sidle up to his true narrative a little.  Now we look for variations on the narrative, and look for different deviations of narrative, and potentially contradictions.  One could say “nancy is a little loose” “nancy is a floozy” or “nancy is a slut.”  Each statement communicates slightly different data and characterizes the person speaking and the relationship between the two objects.  “I was molested and I can’t condemn it” in no way contradicts the narratives, “I enjoyed it” or “I wouldn’t mind doing it”.  So just like minesweeper we are going to go through his other actions and statements all of which are tautologies from his world view, as we think, so we speak, and so we act, unless you are a psychopath and concealing yourself, but we have the MIND HACKER on our side.

Image

(https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/everything-i-know-looks-through-me/)

Richard Dawkins was habituated into an environment that was highly sexually charged at a young age, boys punished each other sexually, and they rewarded each other sexually too, C.S. Lewis experienced this behavior in school, the boys called it tarting and fagging.  Dawkins also had a teacher that rewarded the boys with sexual attention, and put his hands in his pants at one point and knocked his junk around.  People have a normative bias, they think what is normal is good.  Although Dawkins portrays himself as a victim of circumstances as a tacit emotional appeal, I suspect that he actually enjoyed the environment, and the sexual attention and we will get into why later.  It is also important to mention that in Richard Dawkin’s mind, learning is associated with sexual arousal (and so is teaching), from his experience, teaching and learning are sexy and arousing.

Psychopaths perseverate in their behavior and internal narrative.  Psychopaths can’t reform they only become more manipulative.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,”[2] or the “act or task of doing so,”[3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

The mind is averse, and it reacts against things it doesn’t like.  This eventually creates the form of the conquest for psychopaths.  Being morbidly in relationship with their issues and in the case of a histrionic psychopath clinging to those issues instead of seeking mental health, they need to change or attack whoever they blame for whatever their mind is averse to.  So what is Richard Dawkins mind averse to?

Image

He is averse to shame and he blames Religion as the cause of the bad for his shame.  Now when he says “child abuse” he is referring to emotional abuse and when we say emotional abuse we mean shame, specifically sexual shame.

Image

Notice the association between not being able to enjoy your life, and god not existing?  That is the way he is mentally in relationship with god.  If god exists it means you don’t get to enjoy your life.  Because of sexual shame.  So now we look for repeating occurrences in his behavior and narrative for sexual shame, what do we find?  Do we find a perseveration of emotional morbidity?

Out Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Out Campaign is a public awareness initiative for freethought and atheism. It was initiated by Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist.[1][2]

 

“There is a big closet population of atheists that need to come out.”  Richard Dawkins

R. Elisabeth Cornwell has stated that the gay rights movement was a source of inspiration for the campaign.[5] The campaign, however, encourages one to “out” only oneself; it invites atheists to:

  • Reach out and talk to others about atheism and help spread a positive view of atheism
  • Speak out about their own beliefs and values without feeling intimidated, thus helping people realize that atheists don’t fit stereotypes and are a very diverse group
  • Keep out, meaning to promote the idea that religion should be kept out of public schools and government, and that nobody’s religious agenda should be allowed to intimidate
  • Stand out and become visible in their communities and become involved. An offshoot of Stand out is the Non-Believers Giving Aid campaign, which has raised money to help out in the aftermath of disaster. The A+ symbol used in the campaign refers to Atheists Standing out for their activism in social and humanitarian efforts.

So we see he was inspired by a campaign for reversing the sexual shame of the stigma associated with being gay.  How do they identify themselves?

Image
The campaign aims to create more openness about being an atheist by providing a means by which atheists can identify themselves to others by displaying the movement’s scarlet letterA, an allusion to the scarlet letter A worn by Hester Prynne after being convicted of adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne‘s The Scarlet Letter.[3] It encourages those who wish to be part of the campaign to come out and re-appropriate, in a humorous way, the social stigma that in some places persists against atheism, by branding themselves with a scarlet letter.
Again we see the recurring theme of sexual shame.  What this signals to me is that he is concealing something that was very powerful and he is very averse to, and that was caused by his being shamed, by a religious person, and that is why the form of his conquest is to attack and marginalize religion, and humiliate and ridicule religious people.  Let’s see if we can’t piece together more of his narrative.
ImageImage

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

So exactly where do morals come from?  And what are your morals Richard Dawkins?  Some of his arguments suggest that humans are innately moral.  I find this interesting.  I think he is suggesting that his morals are good which means that he doing what he wants is innately correct.  Because men are innately good, and we shouldn’t be being good because somebody is watching us or threatening us.  Are you starting to get the picture yet?  Let’s take it a step further, what of the morals of a psychopath or a sociopath or a child molester?  If people are innately good than whatever their morals allow them to do is also innately good.  How does he propose we agree on what is good and moral?  Should we turn Science into a religion?  and then science can tell us what is moral?  I mean this is coming from the man that wants to eradicate religion.  Should our morals come from the government?

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Anatomy of the Female Mind

Image

When I say “the female brain” I am referring to several things: the emergent patterns in the way women as a group behave and make judgments, men that have been indoctrinated into the moral superiority of women, and in a conflict or a relationship the more irrational person or psychopathic person, male or female.

I will give a brief synopsis of my theory on “organic computers”, Neural Myelination is passed on through cellular memory, successful techniques are passed on by people that survived, patterns that were repeated are neural myelinated, this myelination influences the way we perceive reality and make judgments, our judgments were informed by the need to survive of our ancestors, those patterns were created in situations where survival was difficult, those instincts in modern times can be out of touch with reality.

Image

Now, Nature, for lack of a better word compartmentalized functions into male and female functions.  The consideration set of the female mind was edited to be concerned with and for babies, to presuppose an environment created for her in which she could indulge herself in the concern for which her brain was created.  In doing so the female brain makes certain presuppositions and ignores certain factors.  Those concerns which would not be conducive to taking care of a child but would be useful in providing a safe environment for woman and child were the business of the male mind.

Men and women are essentially the same, but compartmentalized by nature to deal with two different concerns and topics in two different ways.  I discovered this when creating my psycholinguistic philosophy.  My philosophy states.

“All narrative is doxography.”

Which seems innocuous at first but it is much deeper than one might expect.  All narrative is point of view, which means that everything said characterizes the person speaking *(assuming you know how I deconstruct narrative).  It wasn’t until I started studying Deborah Tannen‘s research on Male and Female communication patterns that I realized there were two completely different consciousnesses talking to one another.  She refers to this as complimentary schizmogenesis, I think it is more like two alien species that have different values and speak two different languages.

MOTHER

Babies start off as objects, entirely dependent on their mothers, incapable of doing anything for themselves.  They can’t defend themselves, think for themselves, or provide for themselves.  Babies communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, so from the perspective of the female mind emotions have to be valid.  That which has NO value or negative value in the heat of battle is valid to women.  Deborah Tannen refers to the interpretation of the emotional data by these little piss and shit factories as “ventriloquizing”.  Where the woman acts as the pythian oracle to interpret the omens sent to her through the medium of the squirming and whining of the child.

The mother protects the child’s psychosis and aberrations as well as the child.  She doesn’t care if the child is insane, or is capable of dealing with the world at large, that has never been a concern for her, she has a man for that.  She just wants the child to live and be as happy as possible.  This is why historically there was an age or a trial to mark the end of the authority of the mother and the beginning of the training and teaching that would make the child suitable for their transition to the world.

The mother manipulates the child to do things and to think that it was the child’s own idea.  Women use these exact same strategies on men if they can get away with it.  That is just how their brain works.  Women also keep on bringing the attention of the child back to a subject and then communicating emotional data to try to influence the way the child feels about the object.  When women do this to men it is called nagging and whining, or henpecking.  I call it jingling the keys.

SASD

Due to the feminine bias that is innate in the human organism, and due to the nature of superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions coming from the feminine part of the brain.  We judge the flow of negative emotional data as good or bad.  Negative emotional data flows from the child to the mom and from the mom to the dad.  We have a negative reaction to seeing the negative emotional data flowing in the opposite direction.  This patter in collective human judgments creates emergent properties that create disparate impact in favor of unreason, women, and children.  What looks good is not always good for you.

Allow me to illustrate in this way.  The Neural Myelination created over millions of years predisposes us to think that foods that are more densely packed with Macro nutrients are good for us, because that neural myelination was created in an environment in which survival was difficult.  The more packed with positive survival data it is, the better it tastes, to the point where the animal will never eat its natural diet if it has the option.  This makes the horse fat and sickly to the point of death.  Neural Myelination wasn’t created in an environment where survival was easy so our instincts are WRONG!  We as a society redouble our efforts in the wrong direction, compounding the problem because we are not aware of the organism through which we experience life and we are thinking sentimentally instead of analytically and logically.  If you don’t know the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases you can’t keep yourself from making them. 

Horse-Face-Eating-Grain-dreamstime_110698611

*It always annoys me when I tell people that everything said characterizes the person speaking and then they start trying to psychoanalyze me without knowing my method and having NO experience themselves, and never having thought about it until I brought the subject up.  What a bunch of idiots.