On moral disengagement

[prof]

Here, to provoke a discussion on an important topic, are some reviews of a book that came out in 2016 - a book that you may want to order for your local library. After reading this masterwork, let us know what your have learned, and what you think about the relevance and import of the case he makes.

Albert Bandura, in his book of Moral Disengagement, begins by showing how our moral compass works. He builds this foundation, brick by brick, with solid research. Then he details the four mechanisms we use to engage or disengage our moral compass. When it’s engaged, we judge our actions against our values. When it’s disengaged, we feel good even when we behave badly. Good people become capable of doing cruel things …capable of even barbaric cruelty.

Bandura has written a new masterpiece. A must-read by the world's foremost psychologist. This is written to be read, and it shows. The prose flows well, and it's not filled with jargon. Bandura sets up his model in thr first two chapters then applies moral disengagement theory to many domains of law, policy, and everything in between. From gun policy to the environment to corporate greed, Bandura captures how otherwise good people can do evil-- and live with themselves!

One of the nation’s greatest thinkers, has given us a scholarly dissertation on the mechanisms employed by people to justify doing harm to others while absolving themselves of blame for their actions. Using these mechanisms, they are able to disengage from any self sanctions that might otherwise prevent them from pursuing such harmful conduct. The book is replete with specific examples from modern times that offer a framework for understanding how individuals, corporations, governments, and other organizations can cause so much suffering, and even death, without experiencing remorse for their actions. He has characterized these mechanisms as “loopholes in the human conscience” by which people allow themselves to conduct inhumane acts while avoiding the anguish of self-condemnation. These mechanisms include “Moral Justification,” “Euphemistic Labelling,” “Advantageous Comparison,” “Displacement of Responsibility,” “Diffusion of Responsibility,” “Disregard or Distortion of Consequences,” and Dehumanization.” Chapter by chapter, he amply illustrates how each of these mechanisms has been employed—by the gun industry, tobacco companies, the entertainment industry, terrorists, climate change denialists, politicians and others—illuminating some of the most provocative examples of moral disengagement in our times, ranging from gun violence to climate change to terrorist attacks. The scope of his discourse includes such recent practices as the relentless promotion of e-cigarettes to our youth, the tragedy of the Charlie Hebdo terorrist attacks, and the summary dismissal by a certain segment of the populace of any human contribution to climate change. As Bandura says, “morality is governed socially rather than by inbred laws of nature, thus enabling people to shape the quality of life in their society.” Understanding the principles of moral disengagement is vital to the attainment of a better future for our nation and for our world; and a first step toward enabling us to help counter the perpetration of further inhumanities performed without condemnation,

The material in this book gives us an understanding why people behave immorally or commit atrocious acts and can still live in peace with themselves! This is a fascinating book to read, particularly the chapters on the gun industry, terrorism, and the environment. I couldn't put these chapters down. Dr. Bandura covers such timely issues and even discusses recent events such as the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo, the tobacco and e-cigarette industry, and recent environmental sustainability debates. It's a very illuminating read!

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Disengagem ... op?ie=UTF8

Just as a meteorologist contributed so much to the early understanding of Chemistry, is it possible that a psychologist can profoundly aid our understanding of Ethical Theory?

See also: Ethics Unwrapped on the web;
and also see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjuA4Xa7uiE

Also see - https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C - which came out in 2017.

[prof]

Here is a link to a short video

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/vide ... ion-making

It can serve as an introduction to the entire "Ethics Unwrapped" series of lessons on Ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

See also: Ethics Unwrapped on the web;
and also see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjuA4Xa7uiE

I listened to the above video and find it VERY interesting.

As a leftist and libtard [..I presumed] you had condemned my views [in another forum?] on the critique of Islam as an ideology with inherent evil elements.
However Bandura's views point very strongly as a critique of the ideology of Islam, so I wonder why you are heaping praises on him rather than condemning him in his indirect condemnation of the ideology of Islam.

In the video Bandura mentioned the evils of terrorism [Islamic as the obvious] and he postulated moral-disengagement as due to the following;

• 1. Sanction by authority - as in the Milgram Experiment
  2. Attributing blame to the victims
  3. Dehumanizing the others [re Us versus them]

Note the above elements in the Quran from the immutable words and commands of God [the ultimate and highest authority];

• 1. Sanction by authority - as in the Milgram Experiment.
  There are loads of such sanction in the Quran, one example;
  
  • 2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
  2. Attributing blame to the victims
  When SOME Muslims rape they always blame the victims for arousing them.
  There are tons of misogynistic verses in the Quran that treat women as objects leading to females to be abused by man.
  
  3. Dehumanizing the others [re Us versus them]
  Note the list of dehumanizing elements in the Quran, where non-Muslims are condemned as apes, swines, pigs, asses, the worst creature, and the likes.
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25122

One solution Bandura suggested is, stronger human-moralization of those who are vulnerable to moral disengagement. His is just talk [theory] but he provided no practical effectively solutions toward the future. I have implored the neurosciences, psychology, psychiatry, etc. in this area.

Bandura however did not mention the easiest solution to deal with the consequences of moral disengagement.
The easy solution is to get rid [or suppress] of the ideology that trigger evilness in those who are vulnerable to moral disengagement. This how humanity has done with Nazism.
For example there is censorship of evil laden materials in the medias, movies [PG ratings] and punishments for those who spread hateful elements.
Thus the very obvious solution to all the Islamic-based evil and violent acts due to the moral disengagement by SOME evil prone Muslims is to deal with [suppress or get rid of] the proximate root causes, i.e. the tons of immutable evil laden elements within the Quran.

I believe you are also vulnerable [very, it seems] to moral disengagement when you condemned those who critique the immoral evil laden elements from the ideology of Islam.

[prof]

See also: Ethics Unwrapped on the web;
and also see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjuA4Xa7uiE

I listened to the above video and find it VERY interesting.

As a leftist and libtard [..I presumed] you had condemned my views [in another forum?] ...

I believe you are also vulnerable [very, it seems] to moral disengagement when you condemned those who critique the immoral evil laden elements from the ideology of Islam.

When and how did I condemn anyone ( - other than Benedict Donald)?

[And with regard to DJT, I agreed with Bill who (very early on) called him "the most dangerous man in America." Events have shown this to be true. The occupant of the White-house is systematically destroying this country, piece by piece.]

I don't know where you get off calling me names - such as "leftist." I don't appreciate such labels. I'll be glad to rationally discuss policies, and the values that preceded their advocacy, but I subscribe to no "isms" ... except "optimism" as I have defined it.


The Koran is written with no punctuation, with run-on sentences; thus its text might mean anything: it is subject to any kind of interpretation anyone might put on it. Let's use ethical conduct [or the lack of it] as our criterion as we judge "evil." Some conduct is clearly not ethical. Corruption is immoral and is a crime; there ought to be criminal penalties for this crime in every instance.
See: http://blog.transparency.org/2011/07/18 ... st-society

https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&o ... corruption

All rational comments welcome !!

[Veritas Aequitas]

See also: Ethics Unwrapped on the web;
and also see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjuA4Xa7uiE

I listened to the above video and find it VERY interesting.

As a leftist and libtard [..I presumed] you had condemned my views [in another forum?] ...

I believe you are also vulnerable [very, it seems] to moral disengagement when you condemned those who critique the immoral evil laden elements from the ideology of Islam.

When and how did I condemn anyone ( - other than Benedict Donald)?

[And with regard to DJT, I agreed with Bill who (very early on) called him "the most dangerous man in America." Events have shown this to be true. The occupant of the White-house is systematically destroying this country, piece by piece.]

I don't know where you get off calling me names - such as "leftist." I don't appreciate such labels. I'll be glad to rationally discuss policies, and the values that preceded their advocacy, but I subscribe to no "isms" ... except "optimism" as I have defined it.

Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam.

The Koran is written with no punctuation, with run-on sentences; thus its text might mean anything: it is subject to any kind of interpretation anyone might put on it. Let's use ethical conduct [or the lack of it] as our criterion as we judge "evil." Some conduct is clearly not ethical. Corruption is immoral and is a crime; there ought to be criminal penalties for this crime in every instance.
See: http://blog.transparency.org/2011/07/18 ... st-society

https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&o ... corruption

All rational comments welcome !!

I did present a rational comment above in relation to Bandura's Moral Disengagement based on his points in the video where he mentioned terrorism, thus the prevalent current terrorism from the jihadists.

I have studied the Quran very thoroughly with a smatter of Arabic. Except for some, the majority of verses in the Quran are very straightforward.
Note I mentioned the few verses e.g.

• 2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

How can the above and others be vague or ambiguous?

If the Quran as you stated "is subject to any kind of interpretation anyone might put on it" then that would be worse because the Quran contains loads of evil element that would induce moral disengagement in SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts which is very evident.
Here is one example of a set of evil acts by SOME evil prone Muslims;



My point here is Bandura's moral disengagement* is best represented by what is happening with the terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who are inspired by the verses in the Quran which they deemed as a divine duty.

* points raised i.e.

• 1. Sanction by authority - as in the Milgram Experiment
  2. Attributing blame to the victims
  3. Dehumanizing the others [re Us versus them]

[Age]

I listened to the above video and find it VERY interesting.

As a leftist and libtard [..I presumed] you had condemned my views [in another forum?] ...

I believe you are also vulnerable [very, it seems] to moral disengagement when you condemned those who critique the immoral evil laden elements from the ideology of Islam.

When and how did I condemn anyone ( - other than Benedict Donald)?

[And with regard to DJT, I agreed with Bill who (very early on) called him "the most dangerous man in America." Events have shown this to be true. The occupant of the White-house is systematically destroying this country, piece by piece.]

I don't know where you get off calling me names - such as "leftist." I don't appreciate such labels. I'll be glad to rationally discuss policies, and the values that preceded their advocacy, but I subscribe to no "isms" ... except "optimism" as I have defined it.

Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam.

As explained to you previously veritas aequotes the REASON you SEEM to see things that are NOT there, e.g., "islam apologist", "leftist", et cetera, et cetera, IS because of your distorted thinking, which is derived from your strongly held onto BELIEFS that you have and continue to carry around with you.

You ill-gotten distorted views and thinking allows you to see 'ills' (evil) that is NOT there, and the following ill-given WRONG labels, which you like to place on others, is ill-received, just plain WRONG, and MOST UNWELCOME and unhelpful to any one. As has been proven over and over again, by you.

If you want to discuss a point, then do so correctly and properly. Also, if you want to TRY TO argue for one of your own STRONGLY HELD points, then also do that correctly and properly. Just saying things like; you do not have a thorough understanding of some thing, does NOT mean that you have. You still are blinded to the fact that no matter what another says, if it is in disagreement with what you BELIEVE is true, then that person is either stupid, not capable of understanding, not well-read, or another attempt at TRYING TO belittle that you make. Looking at the person, and seeing what is NOT there, instead of looking at the actual POINT and WHAT IS there, does NOT make YOUR point any more right. That behavior of yours just makes you look like what you really are. That is, unable to argue for your ill-gotten, evil view of others, who are not to your liking. That is if a person does NOT agree to and with your beliefs, then you do NOT like them, and to you THEY MUST BE STOPPED. As is very well proved and evidenced from the rest of quote below and elsewhere where you write and speak.

By the way, I have already explained to you, and some one else is doing the same also, texts can be interpreted in so many different ways, some texts more so than others. Therefore, it is just about impossible to KNOW the actual ideology of some thing without the actual first-hand clarification from the One who wrote it. I will ask again, is it even in your imagination that just maybe YOUR INTERPRETATION is WRONG?

The Koran is written with no punctuation, with run-on sentences; thus its text might mean anything: it is subject to any kind of interpretation anyone might put on it. Let's use ethical conduct [or the lack of it] as our criterion as we judge "evil." Some conduct is clearly not ethical. Corruption is immoral and is a crime; there ought to be criminal penalties for this crime in every instance.
See: http://blog.transparency.org/2011/07/18 ... st-society

https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&o ... corruption

All rational comments welcome !!

I did present a rational comment above in relation to Bandura's Moral Disengagement based on his points in the video where he mentioned terrorism, thus the prevalent current terrorism from the jihadists.

I have studied the Quran very thoroughly with a smatter of Arabic. Except for some, the majority of verses in the Quran are very straightforward.
Note I mentioned the few verses e.g.

• 2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

How can the above and others be vague or ambiguous?

If the Quran as you stated "is subject to any kind of interpretation anyone might put on it" then that would be worse because the Quran contains loads of evil element that would induce moral disengagement in SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts which is very evident.
Here is one example of a set of evil acts by SOME evil prone Muslims;



My point here is Bandura's moral disengagement* is best represented by what is happening with the terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who are inspired by the verses in the Quran which they deemed as a divine duty.

* points raised i.e.

• 1. Sanction by authority - as in the Milgram Experiment
  2. Attributing blame to the victims
  3. Dehumanizing the others [re Us versus them]

[Veritas Aequitas]

As explained to you previously veritas aequotes the REASON you SEEM to see things that are NOT there, e.g., "islam apologist", "leftist", et cetera, et cetera, IS because of your distorted thinking, which is derived from your strongly held onto BELIEFS that you have and continue to carry around with you.

Your views are of the worst case.
Despite what I have written you invent accusations out of the blue.

Note I wrote the following;

• "Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
  However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam."

If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify.

'Prof' has been posting all over the internet in various forums.
I was referring to previous discussions I have had with 'Prof' in other forums.

Other than the above I agree with most of 'Prof' moral [a specialty of his] views.

Regardless of what I believe, the point is one must justify whatever one's claims empirically-rationally or rationally [if theoretical and empirically possible].

Note the potential and real danger of your type of belief [illusory] where SOME theists believe their God is the most real to the extent of sending immutable commands that contain evil elements via prophets/messengers and inspiring them as a divine duty to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.
Your insistence God is objective real imply indirect complicity to the above evil and violent acts.

[Age]

As explained to you previously veritas aequotes the REASON you SEEM to see things that are NOT there, e.g., "islam apologist", "leftist", et cetera, et cetera, IS because of your distorted thinking, which is derived from your strongly held onto BELIEFS that you have and continue to carry around with you.

Your views are of the worst case.
Despite what I have written you invent accusations out of the blue.

Note I wrote the following;

• "Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
  However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam."

If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify.

'Prof' has been posting all over the internet in various forums.
I was referring to previous discussions I have had with 'Prof' in other forums.

Other than the above I agree with most of 'Prof' moral [a specialty of his] views.

Regardless of what I believe, the point is one must justify whatever one's claims empirically-rationally or rationally [if theoretical and empirically possible].

Note the potential and real danger of your type of belief [illusory] where SOME theists believe their God is the most real to the extent of sending immutable commands that contain evil elements via prophets/messengers and inspiring them as a divine duty to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.
Your insistence God is objective real imply indirect complicity to the above evil and violent acts.

You write, "If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify."

Even though I have told you so already, You are still under the ILLUSION that I BELIEVE some thing. You are still under the ILLUSION that I am a THEIST. You are WRONG, and, you are WRONG.

Even after you are told that some one is NOT what you assume, believe, and say they are, you will still continue to assume, believe and say the exact same thing and that they are.

From what you write in your responses to me you still have just about NOT understood any thing I have written and said. You have misinterpreted and taken out of context just about every thing I have written and said to you.

Once again, for My friends, this person, through written evidence, just further proves what I have been saying and showing of how the belief-system can completely inhibit the human beings natural tendency for intelligence.

See how the beliefs this person has and the assumption this one makes renders the person incapable of any real logic nor reason and just expresses anything that fits in with those beliefs and assumptions. ALL of this is held within the human brain, and when the human being looks only from and through the brains perspective things can be and are totally distorted from reality.

[TimeSeeker]

Even though I have told you so already, You are still under the ILLUSION that I BELIEVE some thing. You are still under the ILLUSION that I am a THEIST.

You conflate belief with theism.

In the common meaning theism is a subset of belief.

subset.png (14.33 KiB) Viewed 3683 times

Atheism is another kind of belief.
Liking marshmallows is yet another kind of belief.

In the broadest possible sense and in the empirical sense the word 'beliefs' are the things that guide your actions/behavior.
Things that you use in if-then reasoning. If I jump from the 10th floor, THEN I will hurt myself because gravity.

To speak of beliefs in the metaphysical (as in God-belief, Unicorns exist or don't exist) sense of the word is a really silly game to play...
The sooner you stop - the less of your own time you will waste. A belief without any real-world consequences is not a belief, it's just lip service.

See this for a different perspective on "belief": https://medium.com/incerto/no-worship-w ... b4aa341092

Once again, for My friends, this person, through written evidence, just further proves what I have been saying and showing of how the belief-system can completely inhibit the human beings natural tendency for intelligence.

I have a question: Do you think you are immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect, and if your answer is no, then what is your strategy to avoid falling for it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As explained to you previously veritas aequotes the REASON you SEEM to see things that are NOT there, e.g., "islam apologist", "leftist", et cetera, et cetera, IS because of your distorted thinking, which is derived from your strongly held onto BELIEFS that you have and continue to carry around with you.

Your views are of the worst case.
Despite what I have written you invent accusations out of the blue.

Note I wrote the following;

• "Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
  However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam."

If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify.

'Prof' has been posting all over the internet in various forums.
I was referring to previous discussions I have had with 'Prof' in other forums.

Other than the above I agree with most of 'Prof' moral [a specialty of his] views.

Regardless of what I believe, the point is one must justify whatever one's claims empirically-rationally or rationally [if theoretical and empirically possible].

Note the potential and real danger of your type of belief [illusory] where SOME theists believe their God is the most real to the extent of sending immutable commands that contain evil elements via prophets/messengers and inspiring them as a divine duty to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.
Your insistence God is objective real imply indirect complicity to the above evil and violent acts.

You write, "If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify."

Even though I have told you so already, You are still under the ILLUSION that I BELIEVE some thing. You are still under the ILLUSION that I am a THEIST. You are WRONG, and, you are WRONG.

Even after you are told that some one is NOT what you assume, believe, and say they are, you will still continue to assume, believe and say the exact same thing and that they are.

Your fault for being a bad communicator.
You should have stated 'I am NOT a THEIST' and give reasons.
Btw, I am placing monotheism, polytheism, deism, pantheism, panentheism within the same set 'theism'.

From what you write in your responses to me you still have just about NOT understood any thing I have written and said. You have misinterpreted and taken out of context just about every thing I have written and said to you.

Once again, for My friends, this person, through written evidence, just further proves what I have been saying and showing of how the belief-system can completely inhibit the human beings natural tendency for intelligence.

See how the beliefs this person has and the assumption this one makes renders the person incapable of any real logic nor reason and just expresses anything that fits in with those beliefs and assumptions. ALL of this is held within the human brain, and when the human being looks only from and through the brains perspective things can be and are totally distorted from reality.

Don't blame others than your own fault for being a very bad communicator.
This is why repetitions where necessary are very critical to good communication.

What you wrote above is more applicable to yourself in that you are indulging in an illusion.
Whatever I claim is verifiable empirically and rationally.
Whatever views I have of you is based on what you posted, GIGO.

[Age]

Even though I have told you so already, You are still under the ILLUSION that I BELIEVE some thing. You are still under the ILLUSION that I am a THEIST.

You conflate belief with theism.

In the common meaning theism is a subset of belief.
subset.png

Atheism is another kind of belief.
Liking marshmallows is yet another kind of belief.

In the broadest possible sense and in the empirical sense the word 'beliefs' are the things that guide your actions/behavior.
Things that you use in if-then reasoning. If I jump from the 10th floor, THEN I will hurt myself because gravity.

To speak of beliefs in the metaphysical (as in God-belief, Unicorns exist or don't exist) sense of the word is a really silly game to play...
The sooner you stop - the less of your own time you will waste. A belief without any real-world consequences is not a belief, it's just lip service.

What are you going on about here? Just about NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I am talking about, that is for sure.

I was NOT talking about a person who has been labelled a "theist" and what they 'believe'.

I am pointing out that the person I was responding to:
Accuses me of having BELIEFS, and,
Accuses me of being a THEIST.

Besides the fact that I keep saying I do NOT believe any thing, and, the fact that I am NOT a theist. This person still refuses to see or recognize this fact and still says the things that they do. That is; I have BELIEFS, and, I am a THEIST.

This person in fact still BELIEVES that I believe that the God they talk about actually exists, which is about as ridiculous as ridiculous as can get. The actual truth is what that person BELIEVES is TRUE IS actually TRUE. What I have been doing ALL along is just pointing out that the way the right their argument is completely WRONG, and therefore will NOT convince any one of what they are trying to do. I have tried to help in pointing out better ways to explain and write, which will then formulate an argument that would in fact be an unambiguous fact that could not be disputed, by anyone. BUT they have failed to recognize and see that that is ALL I have been actually doing.

Can you now understand the difference between what I am and have been writing and saying here FROM what you THINK i have been writing and saying here?

I KNOW the other person has also not previously been able to.


See this for a different perspective on "belief": https://medium.com/incerto/no-worship-w ... b4aa341092

Once again, for My friends, this person, through written evidence, just further proves what I have been saying and showing of how the belief-system can completely inhibit the human beings natural tendency for intelligence.

I have a question: Do you think you are immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect, and if your answer is no, then what is your strategy to avoid falling for it?

Have you ever considered this?
Do you think a person who uses words like; "So if you think I am not superior to you" could have illusory superiority, which could then leave them in just about an unrecognizable state of falling into and actually being in the dunning-kruger effect?

Also, could a person who also writes things like; "'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'" could be mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it actually is?

Now, after you hopefully you thought about those questions, did you mean to use the word "no" or "yes"?

I class everything I write and say as could be WRONG. I inform others of this fact, so that they WILL then explain to me WHY it is wrong. This is because at that moment of writing or saying some thing I did NOT have the cognitive ability to recognize the WRONGNESS in it. my cognitive abilities are NO more than any other ones are.

I remain OPEN always, therefore NEVER believing any thing I say nor write true, right, and correct.

I also inform that NO person is more superior than another is, especially me.

There are three strategies human beings could use to avoid falling for the dunning-kruger effect.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Besides the fact that I keep saying I do NOT believe any thing, and, the fact that I am NOT a theist. This person still refuses to see or recognize this fact and still says the things that they do. That is; I have BELIEFS, and, I am a THEIST.

As I had stated it is not my fault when you are a very bad communicator.
If you are not a theist then generally it is understood you are a non-theist or atheist.
Do you claim to be a non-theist or atheist? or whatever?

There is no way you don't have BELIEFs as generally understood.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1]

How can you deny you don't have the above "state of mind"?

Note in communication generally, the default meaning of words are taken to be what is conventionally understood.
If you have an unique views, interpretation and definition of terms, you will have to explain thoroughly and repetitively where necessary.

[Age]

Your views are of the worst case.
Despite what I have written you invent accusations out of the blue.

Note I wrote the following;

• "Note I qualified [..I presume] and it has nothing to do with DJT.
  However [previous discussions] you are seemingly an Islam apologist without a thorough understanding of the Quran and Islam."

If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify.

'Prof' has been posting all over the internet in various forums.
I was referring to previous discussions I have had with 'Prof' in other forums.

Other than the above I agree with most of 'Prof' moral [a specialty of his] views.

Regardless of what I believe, the point is one must justify whatever one's claims empirically-rationally or rationally [if theoretical and empirically possible].

Note the potential and real danger of your type of belief [illusory] where SOME theists believe their God is the most real to the extent of sending immutable commands that contain evil elements via prophets/messengers and inspiring them as a divine duty to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.
Your insistence God is objective real imply indirect complicity to the above evil and violent acts.

You write, "If 'Prof' is not what I had presumed, then all he has to do is to explain to clarify."

Even though I have told you so already, You are still under the ILLUSION that I BELIEVE some thing. You are still under the ILLUSION that I am a THEIST. You are WRONG, and, you are WRONG.

Even after you are told that some one is NOT what you assume, believe, and say they are, you will still continue to assume, believe and say the exact same thing and that they are.

Your fault for being a bad communicator.

I have on multiple occasions written that I am here to learn how to communicate better. Therefore, obviously implying that I am NOT a good [bad] communicator and thus NEED to improve myself.

Other than stating;
I do NOT believe any thing. And,
I am NOT a theist.
I do NOT, yet, KNOW of any simpler way to explain that I do NOT believe any thing, and, that I am NOT a theist. Tell me how else I could better explain those two things to some one else so that it is accepted and understood, including your self?

You should have stated 'I am NOT a THEIST' and give reasons.

I am NOT a THEIST because I am NOT a THEIST.

I was, previously, unaware, that one of the rules of live and communicating that if a person is NOT some thing that they "should/must/have to/et cetera" GIVE REASONS for WHY they are not some thing. But anyways here I go; I am NOT a THEIST for the same reason I am NOT a rhinoceros. Just so you do NOT misunderstand this, or misintrepet this, or take this out of context, The reason I am NOT some thing is BECAUSE I am NOT. Does any other reason NEED to be given.

Do you NEED to give a reason WHY you are NOT a muslim?

Btw, I am placing monotheism, polytheism, deism, pantheism, panentheism within the same set 'theism'.

I do NOT care what YOU place, and where you place it. They are 'isms', of which I am NOT, and NEVER will be any of them.

I KNOW Who 'I' am, and, 'I" am NOT any thing with an 'ist' at the end nor do I belong in any group of things that end in 'ism'.

You can for the rest of your life TRY TO to put me in with belonging to some thing, and also TRYING TO give me some sort of label, but as you are now you will NEVER be able to even come close to the real and actual TRUTH.

From what you write in your responses to me you still have just about NOT understood any thing I have written and said. You have misinterpreted and taken out of context just about every thing I have written and said to you.

Once again, for My friends, this person, through written evidence, just further proves what I have been saying and showing of how the belief-system can completely inhibit the human beings natural tendency for intelligence.

See how the beliefs this person has and the assumption this one makes renders the person incapable of any real logic nor reason and just expresses anything that fits in with those beliefs and assumptions. ALL of this is held within the human brain, and when the human being looks only from and through the brains perspective things can be and are totally distorted from reality.

Don't blame others than your own fault for being a very bad communicator.

I NEVER have and NEVER will. Go back throughout every thing that I have written here and see if you can find your ASSUMPTION that I blame others for my bad communicating skills anywhere.

This is why repetitions where necessary are very critical to good communication.

Do you really BELIEVE that. Are you aware that part of the ideology that was used in the writing of the quran was repetition? Is that book, to you, a form of good communication?

Have you ever heard the expression: More is less?

For some people just hearing some things ONCE is enough. Some people find just an explanation in a very simple and easily clearly understood way, is a far better form of communication then repetition ever was or is. What i have found is the people who NEED repetition are usually the ones who fail to SEE [understand] things, like truth, by themselves. These people NEED to be repetitively told some thing in order for them to just begin to understand things. They also need the repetition/mantra from outside, and from within themselves continuously, in order to believe that that thing is true. They do this, because the actual and real TRUTH is usually some thing different or completely the opposite on many occasions.

What you wrote above is more applicable to yourself in that you are indulging in an illusion.

Would you care to share, with the readers and observers here, what you SEE and BELIEVE that that supposed "illusion" is?

I am certainly NOT one to back down from the truth being brought to light.

ONLY when you shine a light on it, then we can look at, and then see if you are actually SEEING things correctly.

Whatever I claim is verifiable empirically and rationally.

I KNOW that is what you BELIEVE. I was the one telling you the exact same thing about yourself. That is; whatever you claim is verifiable empirically and rationally, then you BELIEVE that whatever you are claiming can NOT be any thing other than empirically and rationally verifiable. To you, the claim can NOT be any thing other than TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT. That is the NATURE of HOW BELIEFS, themselves, work. That is the belief-system at work.

Whatever views I have of you is based on what you posted, GIGO.

I do NOT know what 'GIGO' stands for or means. Would you like to clarify for us who do NOT know?

Also, I would hope that whatever VIEWS you gain come from what you have actually SEEN. The problem now for you is; How do you look at things clearly without SEEING them with and through already distorted lenses?

[TimeSeeker]

Have you ever considered this?
Do you think a person who uses words like; "So if you think I am not superior to you" could have illusory superiority, which could then leave them in just about an unrecognizable state of falling into and actually being in the dunning-kruger effect?

Also, could a person who also writes things like; "'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'" could be mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it actually is?

Now, after you hopefully you thought about those questions, did you mean to use the word "no" or "yes"?

I class everything I write and say as could be WRONG. I inform others of this fact, so that they WILL then explain to me WHY it is wrong. This is because at that moment of writing or saying some thing I did NOT have the cognitive ability to recognize the WRONGNESS in it. my cognitive abilities are NO more than any other ones are.

I remain OPEN always, therefore NEVER believing any thing I say nor write true, right, and correct.

I also inform that NO person is more superior than another is, especially me.

There are three strategies human beings could use to avoid falling for the dunning-kruger effect.

Notice that you did not answer the question. Remaining "OPEN" is not a strategy. To defeat the dunning-kruger you need ACTIVE strategies. You need to take ACTUAL steps in decision-making.

Like for example ACCEPT that you are always wrong (which I have done). Have you?

[Age]

Have you ever considered this?
Do you think a person who uses words like; "So if you think I am not superior to you" could have illusory superiority, which could then leave them in just about an unrecognizable state of falling into and actually being in the dunning-kruger effect?

Also, could a person who also writes things like; "'I make as few mistakes in reasoning as possible'" could be mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it actually is?

Now, after you hopefully you thought about those questions, did you mean to use the word "no" or "yes"?

I class everything I write and say as could be WRONG. I inform others of this fact, so that they WILL then explain to me WHY it is wrong. This is because at that moment of writing or saying some thing I did NOT have the cognitive ability to recognize the WRONGNESS in it. my cognitive abilities are NO more than any other ones are.

I remain OPEN always, therefore NEVER believing any thing I say nor write true, right, and correct.

I also inform that NO person is more superior than another is, especially me.

There are three strategies human beings could use to avoid falling for the dunning-kruger effect.

Notice that you did not answer the question. Remaining "OPEN" is not a strategy. To defeat the dunning-kruger you need ACTIVE strategies. You need to take ACTUAL steps in decision-making.

I provided three ACTIVE strategies. You are once again missing the mark and NOT seeing and understanding. DECIDING to remain OPEN is an actual step in decision-making, which you are showing to be incapable of doing, at the moment.

Like for example ACCEPT that you are always wrong (which I have done). Have you?

Yes I have already accepted that YOU are WRONG. You just once again proved that HERE, now.