- 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?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Emil you haven't answered the question, answer the question.
You didn't see my answer? OK let me put it plainly.
None apply to me because I was fortunate enough to never be a member of the WMSCOG. Both apply to your church as I have shown.
Another classic example from genny of ignoring what the majority of our church actually practices in order to bring up a single personal occurance.
I have learned to take your stories with a grain of salt, because you only tell half of it. But even if I were to believe you were treated rudely, which I do not:
Your singular experience and the handful of delusional malcontents here is not and and will never be an accurate portrayal of our church as a whole.
Fromtheotherside spoke the truth about how we operate. You need to open your eyes and admit that you all are a small and confused minority.
144000 wrote:
Your singular experience and the handful of delusional malcontents here is not and and will never be an accurate portrayal of our church as a whole.
Well it isn't singular now, is it then?!
More will follow… and we'll see how innacurate are the testimonies of thousands ๐
Your a majorly deceived group no matter how open you think you are liars by definition are not open
This just off the wire…
The State Department subscribes to teaching #9:
The U.S. State Department’s ability to investigate wrongdoing by its staff is under question after a report that the agency tried to cover up several crimes committed has surfaced.
Bush had a similar problem with Abu Gharaib. Upper management didn't want to hear complaints. Those inside the prison covered for each other.
Great rule.
/sarcasm
Terrible track record with a high probability for abuse.
fromtheotherside wrote:
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?
Robert is a medical officer. His friend Cindy went to visit him. The people cleaning up around Robert's living quarters were always very nice and cheerful; they whistled while they worked.
Much later, Cindy found out that the Jews she saw cleaning were required to whistle and be cheerful because this was part of the rules they had to live under at Auschwitz.
Incidentally, Robert found the selections he had to perform on the ramp to be disgusting at first. Within a couple weeks, he was acclimated to the environment and was of the worldview that his behavior was acceptable. Robert went willingly to Auschwitz because it would further his medical career. No one forced him to go there.
Robert entered a state of mind that he wasn't actually killing human beings. Us vs Them propaganda dispensed away the existence of the Jews, making it easier to murder them; additionally, the programs to facilitate this murder had loaded language "final solution", etc., which also enabled the killing because it wasn't called "killing".
Aside from the names, the above is accurate.
Never left over any slander only zhangs blasphemy
Not crying Zhang is.just an evil manipulative woman who is leading you to the lake of fire but in the end she’s still just a pawn of the evil one.
God can always count to seven perfectly (simple task for mere mortals even) Zhang can’t so Zhang ain’t God
fromtheotherside wrote:
Smurf wrote:
144000 wrote:
Your singular experience and the handful of delusional malcontents here is not and and will never be an accurate portrayal of our church as a whole.
Well it isn't singular now, is it then?!
More will follow… and we'll see how innacurate are the testimonies of thousands ๐
You guys aren't even in 3 digits. I can probably count you with my toes.
Isn't a small number an advantage? Didn't GP say the church with a small number of members……?
I see ftos has addressed everyone but me. I hope when the west coast gives them their release any minute now (it would be quarter past 11pm) he actually has to think about my posts.
The kid gloves are off.
fromtheotherside wrote:
genny wrote:
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.
It doesn't matter, it's your fault Genny, that's immature of you to blame others. If you wanted to leave then you should have. To say it's manipulation is just plain stupid, just like all of you here.
You must be feeling very defensive, FTOS.
I know mainstream Christians don't always behave appropriately. Christians should behave with love and grace, but I'm not blind to that fact that some don't. Some usually behave well but might have a bad day, while others chronically have behavior issues (as in acting contrary to Christian teachings). When I hear about Christians behaving badly from someone, I do not call that person a liar or say it's their own fault the Christian behaved badly. I tell them how unfortunate it was that the Christian misbehaved and that I'm sorry about it (and I truly am).
Certainly there are 'misbehaving' wmscog members too. I think you should re-evaluate how you respond to these kinds of things.
You can't expect humans to behave or be good all the time. it's in human nature to be bad. According to Jeremiah 17:9, let me post that "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" See the word "BEYOND CURE"? What people need to do is accept that no one is righteous. People should stop trying to earn their salvation thru their own efforts and lean on Jesus Christ's promise to save those who have true faith.
Trying to be good doesn't delete nor decrease the sins you've done in the past. The purpose of doing good should be so that other people will see your "light" as a Christian and seeing that, they will glorify God (Matt.5:16).
It is alright to be angry to people who've done something wrong to us but well, pointing fingers doesn't actually solve the problem when you may have done something more shameful yourself. In the end, it is between you and God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.