Stockholm Syndrome Big Time?

[Thomas Loeber]

WARNING! The following may appear as too long and useless but if you decide to skip it you might miss out on being informed of one thing that could save you lots of money and suffering.  Hint: it starts with the letter "x."

You might not guess it from the Wikipedia on the Stockholm syndrome as they relate that only 27% come to identify with and defend their captors but maybe it, or something very like it, afflicts a much larger percentage.

I made the current ninth entry on epistemic relativism at the CoLABoration quasi-wiki and then after a couple of days the following current tenth entry:

==================== Begin copied post

As a potential example of the danger of epistemic relativism run amuck:

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary, US Treasury, February 25, 2010:

"The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of 'their' government, are facilitating this outcome."

from http://www.worldreports.org/news/272_paul_craig_roberts_sticks_it_to_the_911_criminals

==================== End copied post

Jack Park, a participant in the CoLABoration quasi-wiki, then continued an earlier email discussion where we basically were wishing each other good tidings and the following occurred:

-------------------- Begin exchange

Well, I have to swallow my words. Now  it appears to me that you

turned an otherwise sound set of postulates into a socio-political

diatribe.  That will teach me to defend you... Now it is you being off

topic, unless you can show otherwise.  Don't bother.

Jack

-

I was telling the staff of my kids' dentist about how xylitol stops

tooth decay. They had never heard of it before. The dentist came in

and overheard. He said "xylitol, oh yes." You got your doctorate yet?

Tom

-

Humor me. Tell me how this relates to an issue you and I both share.

Jack

-

Oh, I like humor.  Just seems that when someone has a vested interest

in a system, they are not liable to value information that might

challenge the existence of that bread winner.  Going for a doctorate 

might mean you prefer to not see anything or support any attention to

that which might suggest the school system, the nation it is in and

reflects, are not sustainable, at least not trustworthy.

I avoided three root canals and removal of three teeth by starting

using xylitol.  No dentist told me of it.  Just found out Trader Joes

has a decent tube of no fluoride xylitol based tooth paste at only

$1.99 .  I hope my kids like the taste.  They like the Spry brand I

get from Vitacost.com but it's like about $4.00 or more for a small

tube.  They've been cavity free now for two years, same for myself.

Ok, that's not very humorous.  Maybe the look on my face when the

dentist said that was.  I think my incredulity was showing.

Tom

-

Still, like most everything in our recent experience, it's off topic.

Jack

-

That is a relative guess about which I disagree but, heck, I seek no

doctorate, would feel ashamed to have one.  I can't profess to know

reality.

Tom

-

Conversation terminated.

Best wishes to you in the future.

Jack

-------------------- End exchange

I looked up the definition of the word "diatribe": "a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism"

I see no evidence to Jack's assertion but sure seems he found my relating of a recent quote as no more than "potential evidence" as offensive.  I think Jack is suffering from something that might very well be much like the Stockholm syndrome.

Concerning Jack's "Knowledge Garden" project when he mentioned it would house and/or redirect information via a server farm, I asked "Who would own the server farm?"  He answered that it would be held by a public trust.  I found myself thinking that some tricky word play would be invoked to make at least some of the "public trust" that the information would not be subject to censorship or corruption.  Apparently the "Knowledge Garden" would convey information presented in wikis and other sources via the one server farm.  

In the last email thread I started in this Google email list a guy butted in with lots of information but none pointedly directed to the discussion, as far as I can tell, along with mention of his own company, no less.  If the purpose was to demonstrate that nothing really matters and we should attempt to bury any salient comments in trivia, I think perhaps he succeeded.  When I did not reply in that thread he sent another message to the group in that thread with my first name at the top that appeared to be a continuation of attempting to enforce the idea that being mired in trivia was cogent.  I did not reply to that one either.  He then sent me an email direct where he accused me of flaming the founder of Apropedia and included some more trivia including how intelligent he himself was.  He also referred to "sustainability experts" as "wonkers."  I don't think "wonkers" conveys something we should consider as all that innocuous or non-violent.  Seems to me the man may be exhibiting another instance of Stockholm syndrome if not brazen lunacy.  Yes, my noting that Apropedia's founder is using a name that seems to reflect a bit of nonsense to his efforts could be interpreted as flaming.  I do think though that his stating there being no panaceas was a leak of his world view that is not conducive to facilitating people finding appropriate technology.  I look at the picture of the guy on the Apropedia web site and I wonder. I usually have short hair and a short full beard.  I think it is appropriate with my wanting to lessen my impact on the planet, use less electricity, less water, waste less of my time.  For the founder of Apropedia to have personal appearance etiquette that does not appear to convey dedication to appropriateness causes me to further question his motives.  This causes me to further question the integrity of the Apropedia endeavor.  If pointing out the obvious is flaming then I am guilty.

In general I don't like Wikis.  The wiki on the 9/11/01 attacks has only three FAQs.  I find the answer to the first two to be highly dubious and the third one blatantly illogical and false.  That third one is "Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy?" and their unequivocal answer is "No."  If the findings of the 9/11 commission did not purport that al-Qaeda "conspired" to pull off the event then that could hold some credibility but that is not the case.  That totally wrong basic assumption propagates throughout the entire Wiki to justify falsifying much of its presentation.  Evidence counter to what the managers of that wiki find appropriate must keep them busy censoring as a lot of credible information has come out that suggests the "conspiracy theory" of the 9/11 Commission is very weak and demonstrably false.  You can see by the many, many pages of discussion that many contest the wiki's stance.  Appears this too might be a case of the Stockholm syndrome or, at least, epistemic relativism.

There is a wiki that I tend to like, Wikileaks, http://wikileaks.org/ , but apparently it is targeted by US military concerns to be destroyed http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf .  I think a wiki's dependence on one or a few servers is a real weakness to trusting them to be what we need.  Wikileaks just leaked a video that was requested by Reuters using the Freedom of Information Act about the murder of news reporters in Iraq that the US military has yet to release officially: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded .  Seems it shows quite clearly that US military statements on the matter are misinformation.

I pointed out where I describe the concept of epistemic relativism on a quasi-wiki before to this email group (currently still ninth entry at http://www.socialtext.net/colaboration/?potential_quick_scaled_organizational_tensegrity but again exactly where that text is could change as it is a wiki). At that site I asked Jack Park concerning his Knowledge Garden project when he mentioned it would house the needed information in a server farm "Who would own the server farm?"  He answered that it would be held by a public trust.  I found myself thinking that some tricky word play would be invoked to make at least some of the "public trust" that the information was not subject to censorship or corruption.  

The thing is, if you want an appropriate information management scheme that brings pertinent data to individuals when they seek it, it will not be a top-down affair.  There is no escaping a hierarchy but in my proposed project, the hierarchy (continually retested and reformulated) is developed from the bottom up with direct access by participants so they can query individuals who have proved concern for their own issues.  I think it holds potential to provide the quickest access to pertinent information regarding any individual's queries with trust being an important and observable feature. 

Challenging the top-down management of people's concerns could be dangerous.  I love life, love my two kids, my wife and life in general, the many forms it takes on this most precious and unique planet.  Don't want to lose my life but there is no escaping the circumstances, I seek to end what Buckminster Fuller called "The Grunch of Giants." I have more projects that I think hold great potential to help humanity and our entire life font become a long lived success and would love to have the liberty to eventually get around to them too.  In the final analysis, life in a big sense is more important than any individual.  My project does not appear to be all that complex and there is software out there that demonstrates that it is feasible.  I suggest that people copy my offered suggestions and work on the project to date so that maybe some one else might realize it if I never do.

Yours,

Tom