- Topic
Victim Mentality, (taken from wiki)
Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider during the early years of the 20th century. In his 1920's dissertation Heider addressed a fundamental problem of phenomenology; why do perceivers attribute the properties of an object they sense, such as its color, texture and so on, to the object itself when those properties exist only in their minds? Heider's answer was to consider the object being perceived and the physical media by which it is sensed – the ticking of a watch causing vibrations in the air for instance – to be quite distinct, and that what the perceiver's senses do is to reconstruct an object from its effect on the media, a process he called attribution. "Perceivers faced with sensory data thus see the perceptual object as 'out there', because they attribute the sensory data to their underlying causes in the world."
Heider subsequently extended his ideas to the question of how people perceive each other, and in particular how they account for each other's behavior, person perception. Motives played an important role in Heider's model: "motives, intentions, sentiments … the core processes which manifest themselves in overt behavior". Heider distinguished between personal causality – such as offering someone a drink – and impersonal causality such as sneezing, or leaves falling. Later attribution theorists have tended to see Heider's fundamental distinction as being between "person (or internal) causes and situation (or external) causes of behavior.
There are two types of "victim mentalities"
1. Explanatory attribution: People make explanatory attributions to understand the world around them and to seek reasons for a particular event.
Ex. If Kermit's car tire is punctured he may attribute that to a hole in the road: by making attributions to the poor condition of the highway, he can make sense of the event without any discomfiture that may in reality have been the result of his bad driving.
2. Interpersonal attribution (many ex members fall under this category) Sometime, when your action or motives for the action are questioned, you need to explain the reasons for you action, interspersonal attributions happen when the causes of the events involve two or more individuals.
Ex. Grouch had a fight with the Cookie Monster because C.M wouldn't share his cookies. So when Big Bird asked what the fight was about, Grouch says its because C.M wouldn't share his cookies even though he asked politely, so to make himself the victim, and C.M the bad guy he also fails to mention the fact that Grouch had already asked for a cookie 5 mins before that and again 5 mins before and again and again, and had practically eaten all of C.M's Cookies.
Ex. For ex members: Cindy L. went with her friend to a church bible study, because her friend Robert D. really enjoyes going and was always bragging to her about her church. So Cindy went there and studied and really liked what she heard. Every one there were nice just like Christians should be and showed her love. But when she went home she thought she might look up the church to learn some more about it. She saw slanderous remarks and got angry. Next thing you know it she goes on the forum and starts leaving angry words and says her friend tricked and they tried to brain washer her into joining the Church, but she fails to point out the fact she came willingly and no one handcuffed her into coming, but makes it the church and her friends fault and they are the bad guys.
So there are two types which one are you?
It is in the Bible. I believe the original wording about trusting gut feeling is in Greek. Its been driving me nuts for a bit. Hopefully between the two of us (or more) we can find it.
When you are taught to believe untrue things with ever so subtle manipulation that is trickery
Noone is saying we didn’t initially choose to study
Yes you clearly read what I said rather than into it..
Subtle not overt
Zhang is not God she’s too stupid to be God
fromtheotherside wrote:
If you believe what we teach is false then that's your interpretation of our truth, No one taught you misleading information nor did anyone lie to you.
To teach that Ahn is God when he did not make such a claim, to teach that Zahng is god because Ahn said so when he actually said the opposite, to say that Ahn restored the passover so he is god, that is teaching not just misleading but false information. To say that the bible prophesies about Ahn, to say that Ahn ascended into heaven, to say that Zion is in Korea, that too is teaching false information. To say that keeping the passover at your church is necessary for salvation, I could go on and on.
fromtheotherside wrote:
For example, some claim that you were tricked by our teaching and "studies". Therefore trying to understand why you did, you classify it as information controll and tactics to draw you or trick you into our group. You see you overlook the point that you actually wanted to study with us and no one forced you to study, we even tell you to go home if you stay too long wanting to study. But no you want to make yourselves feel better and instead of admiting you came willingly you want to make yourself a victom saying you were tricked. So that way you place less blame on yourselves.
FTOS if this is true, then you need to make sure all the members get the memo. I recall the night I studied at the church and I kept telling the teacher that I had limited time because the place I was staying closed the gate at a certain hour and I had to drive across the city to get there. As time went on I kept telling her that it was time for me to leave, but she would not close the conversation. I don't know which is worse–her rudeness for not respecting my time, or my rudeness for pushing to leave when she was not done talking.
In any case, you may think that your members do not manipulate people because they don't "twist your arm or put a gun to your head," but it is a subtle manipulation. Like the kind that keeps a person listening to the salesman on the phone because they don't want to be rude by hanging up on him.
144000 wrote:
Questioninginla
You are stuck in a Victim Mentality where WE are the bad guys for trying to beg people not to slander us with their delusional lies.
You also cannot understand the concept of time, or that people had full access to all information and learned everythign long before any alleged NDA's. And I say alleged because they happen so rarely that I've never actually seen it happen.
You cleverly omit everything we do to promote knowledge and a full disclosure of studies, and thats the real key to understanding that its people like you, specifically you, who only tell half of the story, they only tell the parts that make their argument sound good, and they don't tell the whole truth.
Did you say that NDAs happen rarely and you've never seen it happen? Here's one. Last page of this document.
So why do you think that an NDA is appropriate when the member receives the sermon book part 1? The studies in that book are very basic and can all be found online. I would agree with you that there is full disclosure of the studies in that book. So why the NDA?
Simon wrote:
Zhang is not God she's too stupid to be God
Every once in awhile someone makes a short to the point statement that just totally nails it!!!
The whole thing is just STUPID!!!
I've seen my son bugged constantly with texts and calls from church members to go to the church, even at 11 or 12 at night when he has work the next day. It is stepped up when any of us visit as well. He doesn't want to go at those times, and he doesn't want his visits with family interrupted. It's a manipulation to test whether he is under complete control or not, and to cause trouble with family members who rightly might be worried or offended that he leaves at unreasonable times to go to church to do something they could have anyone else do. He has a job that is demanding, and he is tired after a day's work. Also, we all have to take time off from work, etc., and spend a lot of money to fly to visit him, yet they want him to do flunkie work at the church at all hours while we are there visiting, and try to cause problems. No consideration at all for my son or others.
Also, the NDA's are presented as a way to "protect" the member who is leaving, and protect the church as well. When examined they only offer protection to the church. And they won't let you take the NDA to a lawyer to look at it. How fishy is that?
fromtheotherside wrote:
What maniputlation, did we twist your arm, did we put a gun to your head? If you believed then that's your decision to say it was trickery, is victom mentality.
So say the Moonies, JWs, et cetera ad nauseam.
Clearly this one desires to learn a lesson.
fromtheotherside wrote:
No one answered my question of which of the two fits you. I'm still waiting.
I answered your question on the 1st page itself. Here it is in case you missed it.
emil wrote:
Most people are taken in by information that shows only one side. You have rightly shown how listening to only Grouch's side of the story sounds like he is the victim. In the same way, Cindy listens to all the audio-visual inputs at the Zion and in the background of her own limited knowledge of scripture, is mighty impressed by all she hears.
She then comes here and sees the story from a different perspective. Now that she has heard both sides, she is able to better understand that what she was fed at the Zion were blatant lies about other churches being Babylon, Ahn is God because he restored the Passover, Ahn predicted he will preach for 37 years, and on and on ad nauseum.
Yes 144000, FTOS is making some very valid points.
So you see, the stories apply very well to your church. You guys manipulate others and call yourselves victims. When you real victims look around for help, you complain about that too.
Your truth is blasphemy
To call Zhang God is to worship someone utterly incompetent at basic tasks
Such as when she couldn’t correctly count to seven in 2010
fromtheotherside wrote:
@Genny, if you really wanted to leave you should have left. You wanting to be polite is your fault. That is your choice, and you made it. There are people who say stop, and they leave.Yes, I made the choice to be polite enough to stay longer than I wanted. But you said, "we even tell you to go home if you stay too long wanting to study." Why wasn't that lady polite enough to tell me to go home then when she knew I needed to go home? That's one reason why, if it's true what you say about how the members are supposed to behave, I don't think they've all been told so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.