I think it came from Shia, but that isn't relevant to my post. I'm talking about the site itself which I have read through quite a bit. Calls itself ahmadiyya, promotes Shia, falsifies everything according to Shia beliefs to fit the Shia narrative and falsiflies everything regarding Sunni beliefs to again fit the Shia narrative.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quran Yes. Hadith No.
- Thread starter EyE_OpEnEr_22
- Start date
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
They don't agree on any of our Shia principles or doctrines, they're very much Sunni in every way (apart from being regarded as heretical and even kafir by some).
What's your use of "Shia" here? is it anything you don't like?
The site? The site definitely promotes Shia. I'm not talking about ahmadiyya itself at all. But the site says ahmadiyya. If we take their word for it.. And apparently it is a "professional" one so, we should be able to trust them being ahmadiyya, no?They don't agree on any of our Shia principles or doctrines, they're very much Sunni in every way (apart from being regarded as heretical and even kafir by some).
What's your use of "Shia" here? is it anything you don't like?
Shia narrative, like their version of history, their hadiths, their teachings, their everything. That's what the site is all about.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Look, study up on Ahmadiyya because your confusion here is embarrassing. They're not Shia, they're Sunni. They differ from regular Sunnism but still Sunni. Case closed, read.
I'm not even talking about that. If you're correct the site is obviously lying. And that's awful because it's such a popular site for Shia Muslims to look up information.
I still stick to it being Shia. Shias just like to think there is no division in Shia islam. That's why they can't hold "responsibility" for it.
But, again, all of your point made is irrelevant to the question at hand: the website.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does Quran favor any such "professional" understanding, please?
If yes, then please quote from Quran to support one's point of view.
Regards
Does Quran favor any such "professional" understanding, please?
If yes, then please quote from Quran to support one's point of view.
Then why even to mention it.
Regards
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Oooh, now I know what you're confused about:
The Ahmadiyya site's url ( https://www.alislam.org ) is slightly similar to Al-Islam.org
They are both, however, completely unrelated in every way except for them both being Islamic sites.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Glad we cleared that up though. I didn't notice the url posted above on the previous page.
Augustus
…
Tacit knowledge cannot be an explicit message though, as that makes it explicit knowledge.
That the attitude 'I dislike non-Muslims' is held subconsciously doesn't make it tacit knowledge, it makes it latent explicit knowledge. A latent attitude can easily be crystalised into explicit knowledge if activated by a message/event.
Perceptual learning is not simply all learning via repetition (a la rote learning), but a special type of learning that fundamentally alters your sensory reaction to some part of the environment.
The gaining of a latent attitude via exposure would be represented by a), whereas perceptual learning relates to b).
a) A tendency to become favourable to messages we are repeatedly exposed to
b) A fundamental change in cognition caused by repeated exposure to a certain type of environmental stimulus that can only be undone by prolonged exposure to an alternative environmental stimulus..
This would be an example for tacit knowledge, but it differs from the Quran example, which regards latent preference/prejudice regarding a group.
As regards perceptual learning in this case you can't simply flip a switch and respond differently to the sound of the planes; you still associate them with friendly/enemy. To change this assumption you would need repeated exposure to engine sounds that caused a reevaluation over time (perhaps if a new kind of planes was introduced for example).
With latent preference you can, in theory, simply flip a switch and view the group differently. I'm sure you can think of an example where you have had a sudden about face regarding a person/idea/issue that you were hostile to based on a single instance that made you question you initial viewpoint.
I also don't think you can inoculate yourself against perceptual learning, whereas you can regarding a message of preference (no amount of Trump soundbites will turn an ardent Trump hater on their own).
You don't need to evaluate each individual example, just apply a general heuristic that negates the need to consider the individual instances (Trump is a lying, incompetent **** for example).
This would relate to traditional attitude change rather than perceptual learning . Exposure to message makes you question initial assumption and upon further investigation/consideration you revise an opinion. It requires a willingness to question an initial belief rather than mere exposure and relates to an attitude rather than an aspect of sense perception.
Which is closer to your opinion? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you really believe closer to a) but are couching it in the language of b) (which I believe is not an accurate use of the terminology).
a) Exposure to consistent negative messages regarding a group, on average, increases the likelihood you will hold negative attitudes towards them although there are many other factors that influence this issue, particularly your preexisting beliefs.
b) Simple exposure to a repeated message creates a perceptual learning environment which (almost) necessitates the subconscious semi-permanent internalisation of the attitude expressed in the message given sufficient exposure.
I'd say that is far less about the scripture itself though, and far more to do with what the adult tells them is true regarding the scripture. Almost any kid who gets exposed to any religious text will only do so after being told the main 'truths' of the religion anyway.
I'd say that, in general, the scripture itself doesn't play a massive role as it is not learned in a vacuum and is not their primary source of religious attitudes.
The context here is quite interesting. Are we to take apologists at their word? If so, then they would tell us that the Quran demonizes a wide variety of different groups. If that's the case, then "disliking non-Muslims" in general could be a large logical leap, one not easy to make explicit. That said, I think that in many cases your idea of "latent explicit knowledge" would be a good description.
While I think your definition of "b" is a bit too narrow, I can run with it for now. Let's imagine children brought up in religious households who attend services every week. Let's further say that their "holy man" has peaceful intentions, but does often quote scripture. This is an extremely common scenario, correct? So week after week after week, the explicit message being delivered is one of peace. But week after week after week, the scripture drums in the "us vs. them" message. At the very least this is going to create a lot of cognitive dissonance, but more than that, this is a very suitable environment for PL to take place.
Madison avenue and all of history's success propagandists would disagree. We all do conscious analysis, for sure, but I would say that the majority of PL happens without a conscious intention. So - for example - teaching others to listen for enemy planes is the exception to the rule. Most of the time PL takes place without conscious intent.
I think my earlier scenario - the peaceful, unwitting holy man - is an accurate example of a PL environment.
Again - WONDERFUL conversation, many thanks!
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I agree with one.
Regards
Augustus
…
But you can each of them explicit in one sentence, and anything that can be made explicit in a sentence is not tacit knowledge
Practical knowledge was Michael Oakeshott's version of Michael Polanyi's tacit knowledge and also can link to aspects of PL.
Technical knowledge can be learned from a book; it can be
learned in a correspondence course. Moreover, much of it can be
learned by heart, repeated by rote, and applied mechanically: the
logic of the syllogism is a technique of this kind. Technical knowledge,
in short, can be both taught and learned in the simplest meanings
of these words.
On the other hand, practical knowledge can
neither be taught nor learned, but only imparted and acquired. It
exists only in practice, and the only way to acquire it is by apprenticeship
to a master - not because the master can teach it (he cannot),
but because it can be acquired only by continuous contact with one
who is perpetually practising it. In the arts and in natural science what
normally happens is that the pupil, in being taught and in learning
the technique from his master, discovers himself to have acquired
also another sort of knowledge than merely technical knowledge,
without it ever having been precisely imparted and often without
being able to say precisely what it is. Thus a pianist acquires artistry
as well as technique, a chess-player style and insight into the
game as well as a knowledge of the moves, and a scientist acquires
(among other things) the sort of judgement which tells him when
his technique is leading him astray and the connoisseurship which
enables him to distinguish the profitable from the unprofitable
directions to explore.
Now, as I understand it, Rationalism is the assertion that what I
have called practical knowledge is not knowledge at all, the assertion
that, properly speaking, there is no knowledge which is not technical
knowledge. The Rationalist holds that the only element of
knowledge involved in any human activity is technical knowledge,
and that what I have called practical knowledge is really only a sort
of nescience which would be negligible if it were not positively mischievous.
The sovereignty of 'reason', for the Rationalist, means the
sovereignty of technique.
learned in a correspondence course. Moreover, much of it can be
learned by heart, repeated by rote, and applied mechanically: the
logic of the syllogism is a technique of this kind. Technical knowledge,
in short, can be both taught and learned in the simplest meanings
of these words.
On the other hand, practical knowledge can
neither be taught nor learned, but only imparted and acquired. It
exists only in practice, and the only way to acquire it is by apprenticeship
to a master - not because the master can teach it (he cannot),
but because it can be acquired only by continuous contact with one
who is perpetually practising it. In the arts and in natural science what
normally happens is that the pupil, in being taught and in learning
the technique from his master, discovers himself to have acquired
also another sort of knowledge than merely technical knowledge,
without it ever having been precisely imparted and often without
being able to say precisely what it is. Thus a pianist acquires artistry
as well as technique, a chess-player style and insight into the
game as well as a knowledge of the moves, and a scientist acquires
(among other things) the sort of judgement which tells him when
his technique is leading him astray and the connoisseurship which
enables him to distinguish the profitable from the unprofitable
directions to explore.
Now, as I understand it, Rationalism is the assertion that what I
have called practical knowledge is not knowledge at all, the assertion
that, properly speaking, there is no knowledge which is not technical
knowledge. The Rationalist holds that the only element of
knowledge involved in any human activity is technical knowledge,
and that what I have called practical knowledge is really only a sort
of nescience which would be negligible if it were not positively mischievous.
The sovereignty of 'reason', for the Rationalist, means the
sovereignty of technique.
There are 2 distinct ideas being conflated here: 1) persuasive messages are oft repeated 2) messages are persuasive simply because they are repeated.
Advertising, PR and propaganda are not usually about simple exposure to a message. You need exposure of course, but message formulation and delivery is key.
Simple exposure tends only to be a valid strategy is when your objective is recall rather than attitude change. Very annoying adverts often have this purpose. For example, a local taxi firm used to have the most annoying advert in history with an awful jingle that just repeated the phone number. I must know about 5 phone numbers in the world off by heart and this is still one of them despite not hearing the advert for 20 years. The thing is this advert didn't aim at persuading me that this is a great taxi firm, it just wanted me to be able to remember their phone number.
Repetition of a message certainly can work in persuasion, but only when that message is written in a manner that appeals to the sensibilities of the target audience. Repeating a message that goes against their sensibilities will often lead to a more negative view than existed in the first place. You see this in politics where presenting well reasoned, factually based arguments rarely persuade people away from a position, and studies have demonstrated these can even make them more certain in their initial assumption.
It's not as simple as 'if they here it they will believe it', it relies on changing mental associations in the audience and this is a feature of message construction rather than message frequency.
I'm pretty sure that Trump adopting 'us and them' rhetoric on immigration has led to many Dems becoming more supportive of immigrants and immigration due to the mental association such ideas have formed.
You also see it with opposition to Brexit. Few people were passionately pro-EU prior to the debate, but in the eyes of many the EU is now a metaphor for tolerance, globalism, peace, multiculturalism, liberal progress or whatever. It's far less about the EU than about what they have decided the EU represents: mental association.
I still think you are using these terms outwith their proper usage.
Tacit knowledge is significantly different from latent explicit knowledge, and perceptual learning is not a general tendency to be more favourable to a political idea you have often heard repeated, it is a long-term change in sensory perception.
Perceptual learning refers to how experience can change the way we perceive sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touch. Examples abound: music training improves our ability to discern tones; experience with food and wines can refine our pallet (and unfortunately more quickly empty our wallet), and with years of training radiologists learn to save lives by discerning subtle details of images that escape the notice of untrained viewers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221730619X
Moving past the my belief that subconscious attitudinal influence is of a different nature to PL, whether or not the scripture 'drums in' an attitude depends largely on the context.
What are the person's existing beliefs and attitudes? What are their attitudes towards scripture? What are the core principles of their denomination? What is the person's attitude towards the speaker? How much are they 'outsourcing' the scriptural interpretation to them? What is the framing of the sermon? What is the wording and context of the verse in scripture?
And if it did cause cognitive dissonance, then the CD needs to be resolved and it is almost always resolved by rejecting that which contradicts original beliefs.
There are many reasons why simply quoting an "us and them" verse could not increase us and them thinking in the listener (and these don't require a scholarly contextualisation. It might be as simple as their mum having told them as a child that God wants us to love everyone.
There are far too many variables that influence message response to assume exposure = attitude change.
Thank you too.
(And no reference to logical fallacies
)
I'm criticizing a book and discussing the nature of human brains, pay attention.
For now, I can agree with that. But it could be that a person develops an intuition or a gut feeling that they cannot make explicit. We've all experienced meeting someone and having a negative gut reaction to that person that we cannot explain.
That's too limited of a definition. For example, PL can also be used to teach aspects of STEM topics.
I will grant you that their are many contexts. Some less applicable to PL than others. But I think you're wrong to conclude that incoming attitudes and framing and such will have much impact on PL. PL is - almost by definition - a pattern matching process that occurs independent of the "mind" (the way I'm using brain vs mind in this discussion).
I think that whenever you're hoping that the mind can override the patterns the brain is discovering via PL, you're headed in the wrong direction. This pattern matching process is occurring "above the mind's security clearance" if you will.
Augustus
…
I agree with the idea, it's just not tacit knowledge though.
Latent attitudes, even if you can't think of how to express them, are not tacit knowledge, which is internalised practical know-how. Even in the general sense, attitudes and knowledge are 2 different things.
STEM often relies on perception, the radiographer in the quoted definition for example.
Have you got a source which explains your definition as it doesn't seem to match any of the ones I've seen.
I will grant you that their are many contexts. Some less applicable to PL than others. But I think you're wrong to conclude that incoming attitudes and framing and such will have much impact on PL. PL is - almost by definition - a pattern matching process that occurs independent of the "mind" (the way I'm using brain vs mind in this discussion).
I think that whenever you're hoping that the mind can override the patterns the brain is discovering via PL, you're headed in the wrong direction. This pattern matching process is occurring "above the mind's security clearance" if you will.
Well I don't think it is PL in the first place
but standard verbal learning of explicit knowledge. In verbal learning/persuasion all of these things certainly have a massive impact. I accept the general idea, that being exposed to verbal information may influence you subconsciously beyond your rational faculties, but this is significantly dependant on the things I mentioned which is supported by significant amounts of research and is reflected in industry practice.
Still, for those like me intrigued by the persuasive properties of a communication, there is a crucial insight to be gained from the underlying structure of mental activity: the brain’s operations arise fundamentally and inescapably from raw associations. Just as amino acids can be called the building blocks of life, associations can be called the building blocks of thought.
In various influence training programs, it’s common to hear instructors advise participants that to convince others to accept a message, it is necessary to use language that manages the recipients’ thoughts, perceptions, or emotional reactions. That strikes me as partially right. We convince others by using language that manages their mental associations to our message. Their thoughts, perceptions, and emotional reactions merely proceed from those associations.
Nowhere are the implications for effective messaging so stark than in a relatively recent research program designed to answer the question “What is language principally for?” The leader among the group of researchers pursuing this line of inquiry is the renowned psycholinguist Gün Semin, whose conclusion, in my view, comes down to this: the main purpose of speech is to direct listeners’ attention to a selected sector of reality. Once that is accomplished the listeners’ existing associations to the now-spotlighted sector will take over to determine the reaction.
For issues of persuasion, this assertion seems to me groundbreaking. No longer should we think of language as primarily a mechanism of conveyance; as a means for delivering a communicator’s conception of reality. Instead, we should think of language as primarily a mechanism of influence; as a means for inducing recipients to share that conception or, at least, to act in accord with it. When describing our evaluation of a film, for instance, the intent is not so much to explain our position to others as to persuade them to it. We achieve the goal by employing language that orients recipients to those regions of reality stocked with associations favorable to our view.
Especially interesting are the linguistic devices that researchers have identified for driving attention to one or another aspect of reality. They include verbs that draw attention to concrete features of a situation, adjectives that pull one’s focus onto the traits (versus behaviors) of others, personal pronouns that highlight existing relationships, metaphors that frame a state of affairs so that it is interpreted in a singular way, or just particular wordings that link to targeted thoughts.
Robert Cialdini - Pre-Suasion
Would you call a chess master's knowledge "tacit"? I would. How about the mathematician who just somehow "knows" how to start solving a multi-step problem that defies known approaches? I would.
So perhaps I just have a broader sense of tacit knowledge than you do?
As for a source, I'd start with Reber.
Can you say more about industry practice?
firedragon
Veteran Member
What is the Shia ahadith that as you say are used by the ahmadiyya?