Without "believing", would words be 'more' than words?

[sakoz]

Bullying is in the news, again. What gives words (thoughts) power? "Believing they are real." ( without physical harm) what gives 'power' to the bullies words?
If it was not for the harmful effects of verbal bulling, we must admit the 'power' of words, or rather the power of BELIEVING words/thoughts are real.
On the other hand, some readers claim they do not understand what I write; that means my words don't have the effect that bullies words do.
Without 'aha', my words are just words. My words are not even close to the effect of bullies words?
Do bullies words really have power, or is the power in the "believing" of the listener?

[S. Earl Martin]

Word's only have impact if they are accepted or understood. A line I used to use as an insult was this.
" I would have been your daddy, but my dog beat me upstairs."
This insult is delivered on several levels. Someone has to accept it for it to have any power over them. Also they have to understand the complexity of the statement. Because the catch of the phrase is not directly stated. Any insult or joke to be most effective has to have an element of suprise. If there is no suprise you don't get that aha, burn or ooooo reaction.

Bullies tend to look for the most vulnerable point to insult their victim. Our society is very competition oriented. "The higher the fewer." Meaning as competition continues less and less competitors are left. Why do bullies do what they do? Several possibilities.
It is a learned behavior. Someone else bullied them.
Insecurity. Get them before they get you. 
Control / Submission. Be the Alpha person in the group.
Popularity. Other people may look up to them because they think they are brave.

Bullying has been going on probably forever. In the story of David and Goliath. Goliath is bullying the Isrealites. By insulting them and their God. In packs of primates. Bullying occurs.

As far as your delivery of information? I have told you. Your information is disorganized. Plus it lacks details and a stated purpose. You keep stating the same basic thing over and over. I have tried to help you organize it and to help you find a purpose. I can't find it for you because I don't have the understanding of what you are saying. I also have suggested you make a flow chart. That way you can map it and see where it go's. That should help you find the purpose.   

[sakoz]

My information is disorganized, your wrote. My immediate reaction is; "like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? then assemble them." ( no pun intended ).
My impression is that when I use metaphors, analogies, examples, you zero in on them rather than what I refer to by using them. Does any other reader 'see' this about Earl? or is it my  idiosyncratic 'myopia'?

[S. Earl Martin]

I have no way of assembling them. I have tried all this time. It is with great effort I have been able to "assemble" what I have already. To be frank. I have had more success than anyone else here. I am not saying that as a boast. It is just what I stated before. If I am going to work a jig saw puzzle I need to be able to see the picture so I can put the pieces together. I actually received a puzzle that was all one color. You had to try every piece over and over. I said forget it and decided it wasn't worth it. I have reached that point here, but because the information has merit and you are sincere about your beliefs I have persevered. It is your puzzle. I can help you put it together. Which I am attempting to do, but there are still missing pieces and you have them. The biggest one is what is the point or purpose of this information?

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin; I'm stymied, baffled at what to write. I give you great credit for your 'loyalty', tenacity; what 'sliver' do you see that prompts you NOT to write; "sakoz, what exactly are you hallucinating." If no one else sees what I see, what other explaination can we come up with? We start learning language at a very early age (eight months?) We learn it so well, it seems innate.
What if there's a error/flaw in the structure of language, we perpetuate it by using the language without recognizing the 'error built in'. What is that 'error'? The IS of identity. A is A; Aristotles Law of Identity. Newton recognized the Law of Gravity; Aristotle recognized the Law of Identity. How do we misuse the Law of Identity? This happens, it's not hypothetical example; A child writes on the wall or other behavior considered mischievous by adults. If told; " You ARE Bad", the Law of Identity in use in a very perncious way. No options for the child. They believe they are 'bad', damaged, defective, irreparable reject. (Grist for thearpy). But if told; " Your behavior, in this instance, is unacceptable." What option is available? To refrain and desist from repeating such behavior if they want to avoid the wrath, etc. A difference that makes a big difference.
Another possibility is shifting/jumping perspective, similar to out-of-body experience. Persons being extremely tortured or raped with no escape possible, get a 'semblance/modicum' of escape by shifting out-of-the body and observe as if spectators.

What is the purpose of the information I've been disseminating? Well-Being, Mental Health, Fully Functioning Human Beings. Happiness, Choosing 'responsive' rather than 'reactive' living.

Shall we call a 'moratorium' till after you read one,of the following books? From Amazon, ."The Renaissance of Psychology"  by George Pransky. 1998, used 7.99
"Sanity, Insanity and Common Sense" by Suarez, Mills, Stewart  1997, used 2.95.   "Realizing Mental Health" by Roger C. Mills, 1996, used 2.62.  Do me the favor of reading one or all three, after all the effort you put in trying to understand me.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sorry guy you are still trying to get me to solve your problem. I have a life and am busy doing things. It is your puzzle. You read the books and you put the pieces together. I am not a psychology major. I have knowledge of a great many subjects. I will however think about reading 1 or more of these. Not because I am going to help you. I will try and do that anyway, but because I have been thinking about reading more about psychology so I can further the D-Text. My health has improved enough that I am able to do more and I have a lot of catching up to do. I still think if you graphed your informatin on a flow chart you would be able to express it more effectivly. Peace. 

[pljames]

I feel words can take on power meanings if believed. But if not believed they are just words without any power. pljames

[sakoz]

pljames, where have you been? 
Yes if 'believed'; believing makes the difference. I've been pointing out that 'most' of the time we don't recognize believing, because it's too often done automatically by habit but our involuntary is compelled to react even to false thoughts; that causes emotional suffering and dysfunctional behavior, 'needlessly' simply by not recognizing when we believe.

[HeyItsRyan]

sakoz, has anyone ever told you that you bring up the most RANDOM topics I've ever seen? lol And yes, I don't understand half of what you say as well. It seems to me that you're trying to act overly smart and you're complicating your sentence structure for no reason.

Just because you simply things on a psychology forum doesn't make you stupid, buddy.

[sakoz]

HeyItsRyan; thanks for your feed-back. I better 'improve my communication method'. What I'm trying to convey is exemplified by the Nine-Dot puzzle, in a 'nut shell'
That puzzle illustrates extremely well what we all do but don't recognize doing it at the time.  Another classic example of not recognizing a thought at the time of reacting to it is; "I thought the gun was empty".

[HeyItsRyan]

HeyItsRyan; thanks for your feed-back. I better 'improve my communication method'. What I'm trying to convey is exemplified by the Nine-Dot puzzle, in a 'nut shell'
That puzzle illustrates extremely well what we all do but don't recognize doing it at the time.  Another classic example of not recognizing a thought at the time of reacting to it is; "I thought the gun was empty".

Eh, saying something like "I thought the gun was empty" is common because when you pickup a gun that isn't yours, you ASSUME the owner has taken proper caution and care to make sure the weapon is unloaded, as this is a BASIC safety rule for all firearm owners.

But it's nothing more than conscious laziness when your mind assumes something, simply because you don't want to work the steps and take the time to come to a proper, certain conclusion on your own.

Here's a prime example for you. Subconsciously, MOST teenagers KNOW how to check if a weapon is loaded with or without proper training for that specific weapon. Why? Simply put, media. Every kid who's played 'Call of Duty' and has seen the animated repetition of the reload knows, basically, how to put a magazine into a weapon, load a round in the chamber, and fire the weapon. In that same sense, they should also know how to REMOVE a magazine from the weapon and expel a chambered round.

I certainly have no personal experience with an M4 assault rifle, but if you handed me a loaded one I'd have enough common sense to remove the magazine and unchamber a round before messing around with it.

So even if people know how to do something, our minds tell us not to do it because it simpler to ignore it. When you give 2 kids a loaded firearm, they're going to want to "be cool" and play around with it. Give a SINGLE kid a loaded firearm and he'll be rational, taking self-preservation into consideration and knowing that he could harm himself if he plays around with the weapon.

I've previously discussed the Principles of Rationality and have even presented my own equation to calculate how rational a person's decision making will be. This equation proves the old gem that, "a person is smart, people on the other hand are dumb, panicky, irrational creatures."

[sakoz]

HeyItsRyan; Bingo. I use metaphors. We all use assumptions as you well point out. It's virtually a 'principle' that we often do not recognize our own assumptions and react to them AS IF reacting to 'reality'.(in our environment). Usually, only after they don't match facts do we recognize our erroneous assumptions. The gun example,I use to point out that omission, I not talking about gun safety, I'm talking about UNRECOGNIZED assumptions that are reacted to, even though some are false. See the liability of reacting to unrecognized, false assumptions?

[HeyItsRyan]

HeyItsRyan; Bingo. I use metaphors. We all use assumptions as you well point out. It's virtually a 'principle' that we often do not recognize our own assumptions and react to them AS IF reacting to 'reality'.(in our environment). Usually, only after they don't match facts do we recognize our erroneous assumptions. The gun example,I use to point out that omission, I not talking about gun safety, I'm talking about UNRECOGNIZED assumptions that are reacted to, even though some are false. See the liability of reacting to unrecognized, false assumptions?

Well, I don't know about other people, but I don't "react" to my assumptions, I do them. It's not until AFTER I've assumed something, specifically something wrong, that I realize my assumption was incorrect.

But I have an inherent tendency to not assume, because I'm rational by nature. And according my principles of rationality and my equation on rationality (T(I) / P = R(.10)), I KNOW that the more involvement I have with other people who are not as like-minded as I am, then the more irrational I will be.

The funny thing about rationality which makes it, in MY opinion, an anomaly is that it's NEVER the same. What's rational for you might be irrational for another person.

For example, a one-on-one debate between an atheist and a theist will more than likely go nowhere. Because although it's irrational for the atheist to believe in a God, it's equally irrational for him not to believe from the stance of the theist individual.

But, start bringing in more people and one of the key principles of rationality comes into play... persuasion. Put 20 atheist scientists in a room with 1 Christian for 2 hours to do nothing more than argue the principles of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the discovery of other life-sustaining planets in the known universe, and etc. and there's a very good chance they will shake that Christian's beliefs.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that rationality can be forced on an individual. Every time I say this I like to use an example from the movie 'Inception,' which I'm sure you saw. Basically, the character Fisher in the movie had his mind made up to continue his father's company after his death. Then a bunch of people get together and essentially coerce his mind into subconsciously changing this decision. Therefore, what was once a rational decision to follow in his father's footsteps turned into an irrational decision, resulting in a change of mind and the eventual dissolution of his father's company, all because a group of people (outside influences on the mind's decision making process) convinced it to do that.

[sakoz]

HeyItsRyan;You don't react to your assumptions? Do you realize how naive that statement is?
You have a inherent tendency to not assume?  Just the opposite. When a deer reacts to a noise from behind a bush, you probably say it's reacting to/by instinct. Yes and assumptions originated; evolved from such physiological origin.