Paula Gordon sighting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

It seems Paula Gordon thinks that the victims are now persecuting the rescuers over Y2K.

From Ed Yourdon's "A Y2K Postmortem Discussion Forum" on coolboard.com:

http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=357597981081895&msg=465700774108401&page=1&idDispSub=827429801892357

RE: Trying to understand...

Hi KOS,

Interesting points that you raise.

I have been trying to understand some of the behaviorial aspects of what has gone on during the past several years, including what has happened since 1/1/2000. I hope to post it soon on my website. This new piece also includes a focus on some of the "groupthink" issues involving the Challenger disaster that Ed alluded to in this thread.

One interesting perspective that may help explain some post-rollover adversarial behavior can be found in Doug Stewart's description of the Karpman Triangle. This description also appeared in a GICC posting and is quoted here.

>POST-Y2K ANGER: THE KARPMAN TRIANGLE STRIKES AGAIN

> Along with the puzzling smoothness of the Y2K transition, one >of the more perplexing Y2K social phenomena is the turning of the >those who prepared on those who urged them to prepare in the first >place; i.e., anger directed at those whose basic intention was to >help. In psychological terms we say the Victim has turned on the >Rescuer. > In Transactional Analysis this dynamic is termed the "Karpman >Triangle," after Stephen B. Karpman, who originated the concept of >many dramatic events being played out by the roles of Victim, >Rescuer, and Persecutor. In this case, the threat of Y2K disruptions >was the Persecutor, preparation advocates were the Rescuers, and many >of the populace perceived themselves to be Victims (of Bill Gates, >the government, greedy businesses, "the hoax," etc.) > The drama of the Karpman Triangle occurs when the rescue is >apparently completed: the Victim turns on the Rescuer and the roles >change. What we're now seeing is the former Victim (now the >Persecutor) accusing the former Rescuer (now the Victim) of all sorts >of nefarious doings. Smooth and surprisingly innocent Y2K has now >become the Rescuer, lauded by the new Persecutors as "See, there was >no problem, you fakers!" > As many of you know, this drama was predicted by the Civic >Prep Task Force at least a month before the roll-over. >Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon trait of human nature. It >became so prevalent in our litigious society, in fact, that it led to >the passing of the Good Samaritan laws - doctors and nurses were no >longer stopping to assist at accidents for fear of being sued by the >rescued victims. > The causal dynamics of this role-reversal have long been >debated in psychological circles, and there is no clear-cut answer. >It may be the embarrassment of needing to be rescued in the first >place; i.e., the unwillingness to take personal responsibility for >the situation and lashing out at the closest target, the Rescuer. A >version of this may be that the victim wants to blame somebody - >anybody - for a threatening situation, and again the Rescuer is >handiest. It is also predictable that the role shift always occurs >AFTER the rescue is complete and the threat is over. > Being attacked by the apparently rescued Victim is often a >shock to the unsuspecting Rescuer, who typically responds in >amazement, "But I was only trying to help!" And so they were. > Is there a defense for the maligned Rescuer-cum-Victim? No >logical defense, because the attack is emotion-based. Responses >therefore range from turning the other cheek to questioning if in >fact the former Victim is now at least somewhat better off for having >been rescued, to explaining how you feel about being attacked for >having attempted to do a good turn. Don't expect much of a change of >heart on the part of the new Persecutor, however, for in this drama, >emotions run deep and logic runs shallow. > How do I know? The former managing editor of the newspaper >for whom I wrote a pro-bono Y2K column for a year has now urged the >publisher to "pillory Stewart in print - he took up all that valuable >space and nothing happened!" Fortunately, the publisher's cooler >head has prevailed. > The dynamics of the Karpman Triangle can make for powerful >drama, strong films, suspenseful novels . . . but it can be startling >and dismaying when it happens to you. After all, you were just >trying to help. (Written by Douglas Stewart, Ed.D., Santa Fe, NM and posted to GICC)

******

Another interesting perspective has to do with the extraordinarily adversarial nature of some of the ongoing discussion. A clinical psychologist I know shared some very interesting thoughts he has had about what is going on. He relates the kind of behavior that can be found in some discussants to the "Magus Syndrome". This syndrome helps explain at least some of the behavior of those who adopt adamant and seemingly unyielding positions on issues of any of a variety of topics. What can happen is a person who has developed a certain level of confidence in his or her perceptions can go off on a tangent and get caught up in a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over those on the "other side" of the debate. What may have begun in the spirit of reasoned debate may turn into a crusade fueled by an adrenalin high. This can become a self-perpetuating condition, particularly for a person who has never experienced such exhilaration before. Such a person can become increasingly divorced from his or her own humanity and capacity for reason. The debate turns from matters of fact to matters of personality (perceptions of the personalities and assumed motivations of those who are "wrong"). The person on such an adrenalin high can be operating on the basis of a wholly unrealistic view of his or her own "powers" and can be quick to adopt viewpoints concerning perceived adversaries that bear little if any resemblance to reality. Indeed, when the syndrome truly takes hold, there seems to be little chance of getting through to the person who has been overtaken by it. Their emotional investment in their perception of the "truth" and the certainty in their moral and intellectual superiority can become paramount. Time and eventual loss of interest in the subject matter or a sense of diminishing returns or loss of supporters may be the primary factors in the person's eventual return to a previous level of normalcy.

I would be interested to hear what you think about the Karpman Triangle and the Magus Syndrome.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 29, 2000

Answers

If truly a psychological syndrome, the Magus Syndrome describes the Doomlits to a tee. But then, we debunkers always knew that the Doomlits needed psychiatric care...

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), June 29, 2000.

I have, generally, made it a point to ignore Paula Gordon, and have found that approach profitable.

In this case, I will make an exception. It appears that she knows as much about psychology as she does about software. Of course she is a master at revision of history. Above is a stellar example. Paula the Rescuer, indeed.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 29, 2000.


Sounds like Eddie is up to his old tricks, having diarrhea of the pen. Also, KOS shows just how stupid he really is. Pollys didn't want the doomers to stop preps, they wanted doomers to stop shouting the sky is falling. I couldn't give a hoot how much money KOS spent on his preps. Even now, they still don't get it. We looked at the same data and came away with different conclusions because we are just smarter than them, especially KOS. Sorry to be so blunt.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 29, 2000.

Maria:

I am amazed. Evidently, you read the whole thread. For me, I have so much information coming at me on a regular basis, I have had to develop a screening procedure. I look at the source. If it hasn't been reliable in the past, I ignore the information. That is what I did with this thread. Although I did notice that Ed is into Chemtrails. Go figure.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 29, 2000.


I look at the source. If it hasn't been reliable in the past, I ignore the information.

Words to live by Z, in this age of Net disinfo.

I hope to post it soon on my website.

Wasn't that her angle last year? "I'll soon review this horseshit and post my conclusions in an inDEPTH dung article on my website. Meanwhile, I'll disappear because I really don't like flack (sp?) from the Karpman/Mangus crowd that's after all of us do gooders".



-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), June 29, 2000.



I truly had NO idea chest-beating was such a popular pastime. That in some individuals this practice engenders addiction leads me to assume a federal law banning this stupid, mind-numbing, sophomoric,

repetitive, cancerous, lobotimizing, look-at-me I was right,

back patting, torturous, juvenile, grow-the-fuck-up,

2nd-grade playground, they-did-it-too, shoot-me-now, infantile,

save-you-from-yourselves, individual responsibility be damned,

FUD-fuckers best friend...................AAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhhh

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 29, 2000.


Maria, this is verbal diahorrea from Yo'Toasty&Fried with Sauce di Paulina Revere (a white wash sauce). Sauce di Paulina can only be poured from round hollow pegs into square holes.


Later, when the TV show is over, you find out the crew never eats anything those two "cooks" make up during the show vs. the crew of Julia Childs.


I thought I saw a fictionalized version of Yourdon on "Law and Order" last night (the one where the Motivational Cult Leader thinks nothing of planting a small bomb on a NYC helicopter to get rid of his wife's lover but ends with the Zillionaire Cultist in jail thanks to a double cross by his long abused wife.) Not that EY would plant a real bomb. He wouldn't have the nerve. Instead, he emplanted 100s of cyber bombs with his FUD brain farts. Typical of the North, Hyatt, rest anti-establishment creeps who demand "civilized debate" while they SMELL UP THE BANDWIDTH.


Its clear on Toasty's current forums that he is playing to a fan club that likes a peculiar stench to almost anything.


I guess I must have a soft heart for any females mislead by the Moron Money Mavens of Y2k. It must go back to my reading "The Tales of King Arthur" so many times before I was 10. (I seem to have collected some I want to overlook, "Lisa", Eve and now Gordon who is "historic" as the first Liberal I've ever given the benefit of the doubt (they are all evil, you know.) The addition of Gordon's view on that thread http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=357597981081895&msg=4657 00774108401&page=1&idDispSub=827429801892357 can only be viewed as that of a cult *follower* brainwashed to believe that Yourdon knows ANYTHING. Lets view Gordon and the "Center for Y2k and Wasted Grant Money as "Victims" of EY/Carmichael and others and let it go.


THE Y2k Doomers as "Scientists" vs. the adult juvenile pollies??


HUH?? Can Yourdon be this "dumb"??


You have to read it 3-5 times to believe that he would write this so late in the day and before his "Y2k is over" (which now must mean: "I, E. Toasty, can't milk it for anything else except a hit count on my free E-Forums and maybe referral fees on book links)


++++++++++++++++


they will be lucky enough to escape the consequences of the dangers being predicted by the scientists, or (in our case) the Y2K doomers. _______________________________-


EdYourdon 04/11/00 10:29 PM RE: Trying to understand polly-think ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hallyx, Thanks for the observations about the Polly mind-set. Let me add another possibility, and one that turned out, with 20-20 hindsight, to be relevant with Y2K: the pollies either have an instinct, or they have learned from experience, that most of the time, they will be lucky enough to escape the consequences of the dangers being predicted by the scientists, or (in our case) the Y2K doomers.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 29, 2000.


they will be lucky enough to escape the consequences of the dangers being predicted by the scientists, or (in our case) the Y2K doomers.


Maria, Yup, Yourdon "rational" but anti-doomers "lucky", this is verbal diahorrea from Yo'Toasty&Fried with Sauce di Paulina Revere (a white wash sauce). Sauce di Paulina can only be poured from round hollow pegs into square holes.


Later, when the TV show is over, you find out the crew never eats anything those two "cooks" make up during the show vs. the crew of Julia Childs.


I thought I saw a fictionalized version of Yourdon on "Law and Order" last night (the one where the Motivational Cult Leader thinks nothing of planting a small bomb on a NYC helicopter to get rid of his wife's lover but ends with the Zillionaire Cultist in jail thanks to a double cross by his long abused wife.) Not that EY would plant a real bomb. He wouldn't have the nerve. Instead, he emplanted 100s of cyber bombs with his FUD brain farts. Typical of the North, Hyatt, rest anti-establishment creeps who demand "civilized debate" while they SMELL UP THE BANDWIDTH.


Its clear on Toasty's current forums that he is playing to a fan club that likes a peculiar stench to almost anything.


I guess I must have a soft heart for any females mislead by the Moron Money Mavens of Y2k. It must go back to my reading "The Tales of King Arthur" so many times before I was 10. (I seem to have collected some I want to overlook, "Lisa", Eve and now Gordon who is "historic" as the first Liberal I've ever given the benefit of the doubt (they are all evil, you know.) The addition of Gordon's view on that thread http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=357597981081895&msg=4657 00774108401&page=1&idDispSub=827429801892357 can only be viewed as that of a cult *follower* brainwashed to believe that Yourdon knows ANYTHING. Lets view Gordon and the "Center for Y2k and Wasted Grant Money as "Victims" of EY/Carmichael and others and let it go.


THE Y2k Doomers as "Scientists" vs. the adult juvenile pollies??


HUH?? Can Yourdon be this "dumb"??


You have to read it 3-5 times to believe that he would write this so late in the day and before his "Y2k is over" (which now must mean: "I, E. Toasty, can't milk it for anything else except a hit count on my free E-Forums and maybe referral fees on book links)


++++++++++++++++


they will be lucky enough to escape the consequences of the dangers being predicted by the scientists, or (in our case) the Y2K doomers. _______________________________-


EdYourdon 04/11/00 10:29 PM RE: Trying to understand polly-think ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hallyx, Thanks for the observations about the Polly mind-set. Let me add another possibility, and one that turned out, with 20-20 hindsight, to be relevant with Y2K: the pollies either have an instinct, or they have learned from experience, that most of the time, they will be lucky enough to escape the consequences of the dangers being predicted by the scientists, or (in our case) the Y2K doomers.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 29, 2000.


Bingo1... I think you're right. Please post many posts about how you are right so that everyone will know you are right. It would speak very highly of you and let everyone know how important it is to be right and how important it makes you, too!!

Remember... practice makes perfect (and perfectly right!)

Regards...

-- keep the faith... (booann777@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.


I'm not sure what the heck Bingo is referring to, but I for one certainly don't think there is anything wrong with doing something to counter the type of BS still being spewed by the purveyors of Y2K fear.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 29, 2000.


Okay, Buddy, I'll take you up on it -- examples, links, whatever? I'm ready to be convinced. (And no, referring back to this thread doesn't count -- it's referring to post-non-event outcomes, not the original problem. Or problem not, whichever.) I'd be interested to know who is still worried about it and spreading FUD or massive amounts of fertilizer.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 29, 2000.

And it appears you never will, Buddy. That's OK. Mine was a rant of one or two minutes in duration. I've finished venting. You & a few others must continue to purge yourselves. Lord knows I wouldn't want you to take this anger out on your SO's.

It's just a shame you all are shitting where I & many others meet for communion & the sharing of ideas across a vast spectrum of interests.

Don't misjudge this response, that I might truly be interested in you or the others. You folks are so wrapped up in dredging up the past & saving the future of mankind that naught else is of ANY importance. Why waste words of wisdom on the wicked who act with wanton disregard of our wishes.

I am sorry there is so much bitterness in your hearts, so much pride puffing chests wide. I know the feeling, the need to hang on to the bile. It makes one feel alive - though instead there is death, creeping death within.

Go hug your wife & your children. Their world is safe for another day.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 29, 2000.


Debbie playing Cyber Shrink:

I have seen this a number of times as power point presentations [is anyone else getting tired of this stuff]. As I mentioned above, I have learned to ignore things which provide no reliable information. This would be one case. Although, everytime our organization gets a new leader, we get the same venue of power point presentations to improve us. I just try to be out of town at those times.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 29, 2000.


What the @#(*%() ????

It looked perfect in my editor! Cursed drawing patched together with  's ... grumble grumble , oh well no time to fix it.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 29, 2000.


DEB,

Don't worry about the nsbs. You hit part of this correctly. I find it astonishing that Gordon has to dredge up 25 year old "TA" (tranactional analysis aka: I'm OK, You're OK and its Mutations). How in the world she can't *ID HERSELF** as anal retentive addictive mystifies me. Its SOOOO obvious. But like pre-"intervention" XX-a- holics, they never can see such things in themselves. "Denial" takes the form of "sublimation" or Scarlett's "I'll think about MY WHITE PAPER tomorrow."

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 29, 2000.



Have a heart, world-weary Z, management consultants have to fill up those presentation binders with SOMETHING don't they? The client needs "deliverables" after all. They're doing the best that they can, don't be so cynical ;-)

I have learned to ignore things which provide no reliable information

....?

And is there some reason I should not ignore "statements which provide no reliable information" ? :-0

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 29, 2000.


Charles:

Yah, okay, it's trite stuff, recycled a zillion times (Eric Berne TA; Karpman; don't know which one got it from who). Some people think this stuff is really "deep" (or used to in the old days when it was "novel"), others it makes them LIVID or deadly B..O..R..E..D. others see dollar signs..it is dreadfully over-used that way. Lots of funny stories of therapy groups in the '70s too, how these and other "tools" were used.

I find a modest amount of insight to it though, and I take my insights wherever I can get them. It points to making itself unnecessary, that is its redeeming feature in my book. ...

The problem with any of these "formulas" of course, is that glommed onto and applied too fervently, they soon close out the possibility of any NEW, original perceptions. As Gordon will do... And like the latest formula catching the public fancy as we speak, "Right about Y2k/Wrong about Y2k" complete with chorus line. (I expect to see Brian's name in lights any day now.)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 29, 2000.




-- One Handsome Devil (so@good.looking), June 30, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ