Emerald

Yes, I've been trying to do that by not going on the internet for anything other than work for 6 out of 7 days of the week... which I've mostly been sticking to for a couple months. It just feels so draining to go anywhere on the internet... like watching YT videos, going on social media, going on here, etc. It just feels overwhelming in some way. And I broke that habit several days ago and have been going on here too much. And the thing that makes me break that habit, I usually think of as curiosity. And that's part of it. But it occurred to me a couple days ago that I'm looking for spaces for my anger to exist... and that's what attracts me here. So, it's a very magnetic pull to a space that feels kind of draining to me. But it's meeting a need in some ways. I'm going back to my 6 out of 7 days "no internet" habit tomorrow because I feel better the way. But I have something to solve now that I know what need it's meeting.

I do know that I won't shift his perspective. And in actuality, even though I consciously operate like that's my intention and I want people in general to wake up to their harmful way... it's not that important to me in this micro-context that he individually changes his perspective... as the argument is what I seem to be looking for. Like, if he was like, "Oh yeah. I guess you're right." I'd be like, "Okay cool." And then I'd move on to try to find another person to battle it out with... because the real driver is to seek a debate. I'm just like Brer Rabbit when he fights the tar baby and gets all caught up in the tar. And I just struggle to stop myself because it gives me something to be in "battle mode". But it's draining. It could be that I get to battle with a person that I can see as a symbol for the macro-cosmic dynamics that I find untenable. So, instead of arguing at the reality... I can duke it out with some random person on here and feel the simultaneous effectiveness and ineffectiveness that leads to rage. But these are what I think the reasons are... The first reason is that it gives me an outlet to feel rage and spin my wheels, which creates an "unstoppable force, immovable object dynamic" where I am the unstoppable force and he is the immovable object. And it puts me in a space where I can find this ragey-feeling holding point and connect to my suppressed rage in a way that is cold, controlled, and intellectual. The second reason is that it gives me the ability to spar it out and express my rage in a low-stakes reality. Like, I'm not worried about tip-toeing around sensitivities like I usually am. I can be direct and confrontational. The third reason is because it helps me form my thoughts by engaging in debates and putting my thoughts in writing. It's like argumentative journaling. And there's an inner work component to it... because it helps me know certain parts of myself more. The fourth reason is that it may have an impact on the perspective of those who are onlookers to the debate. But at the same time, it all feels draining because it wastes a lot of energy. But it's like I can't resist this process.

@Schizophonia I don't think we're getting anywhere here. And I'm not going to engage with and debunk all the defenses because those are just you hiding the truth from yourself to paint a nicer picture of reality over top of the much grimmer reality that you may rather remain ignorant to. You're just trying to justify over and over why it's okay to kill and exploit animals unnecessarily for your own pleasure... by making false claims about farms not causing animal's suffering until their deaths and their deaths being painless. And others are a bunch of defenses... some that are false like the idea that animal farming is ecologically a good thing to do. And others are just throwing spaghetti at the wall and using what-about-isms to try to defend the practice of exploiting animals for pleasure like, "So what? People work in terrible conditions" or "So what? You're going to die too. And it might be painful." And yet others are just baseless appeals to some inherent idea of human existential superiority. And still other are ad hominem attacks. But the commonality that all these defenses and logical fallacies have is that they are all a reflection of you desperately trying to shield yourself from the ugly truth and quell your own cognitive dissonance. They are all just another way of saying, "I don't want to face the facts, so I'm going to use this defense to try to hide from the truth." But I get that you don't want to look at that. I really do. It's a much prettier and nicer story that you're telling yourself of the myths of "happy meat" and "ethical slaughter"... and to justify, so that you don't have to admit complicity in that which is monstrous. But if you're interested in what's actually true... go watch Earthlings or other videos of what happens in slaughterhouses. And you will see a more accurate depiction of what happens in the meat and dairy industry. And it will dispel you of your naivety... and you will graduate from being the sweet summer child who live in a fanciful bubble to a disillusioned adult who looks squarely at the ugly ugly truth. Also... to start with a little truth to dispel the mythos.. 99% of animals are raised in crowded factory farms. And even the 1% of animals that are raised "ethically" usually have very minimum standards that the farmer has to meet to classify the animal as grass-fed or cage-free. So, even "ethical" farms (not that those actually exist) are few and far between... and the standards aren't much better, as businesses are just complying to minimum standards to get that designations.

Thank you for sharing! I can relate to that a bit. My posting on here is a mixed bag of things. On one hand, I use it like a journal that responds (and even argues) back with me. So, I get to get my thoughts out. So, that's helpful. But on the other hand, I find the there's something that feels draining about it... and like I keep running through a coping strategy of "fighting with the tar baby", but not getting to the under-layers. But it gives me a stoic and easily controlled outlet for anger... where I can just do the intellect part.

Thank you for reading. And thank you for being welcoming! One thing I would say though, is that I don't tend to like how ethical concerns specifically get categorized in a specific phase of Spiral Dynamics... as it puts a box around compassion and ethics that frames it as a lesser "tier 1" perspective. Often times, people will brush off concerns about the unnecessary harms in the world as "Stage Green" and firmly within Tier One. But the idea on the forum is that it's superior to transcend Tier 1 and move to Tier 2, so it devalues Stage Green, even as most on this forum are fairly Orange-dominant and whose highest leverage point for growth is to open up to Stage Green values (which is what enables me to fight the good fight on here with all the dick-measuring contests). It's just so easy for people to feel like their perspective is superior to it and discount it as a stage that they've transcended... when they only criticize Green from below and cannot differentiate Green perspectives from higher perspectives on ethics and loving-kindness. So, it frames any ethical concerns that one might pose as tier one... while tier two is seen as ethically neutral and a more detached. After all, Stage Yellow is a bit like that. 'So, why wouldn't Stage Turquoise operate that way if it's also in tier 2?' But in the deepest states of awareness that I've been in (like in my medicine journeys experiencing Christ Consciousness) it is very much centered in heart-wisdom and unlocks the ability for deep compassion. And it solidifies the value of loving kindness towards all. It absolutely breaks your heart open in these states of higher consciousness because all griefs and all sufferings are our own. And it's how I conceptualize of the difference between Turquoise and Yellow. Yellow is very detached, intellectual, and multi-perspectival... and it's like having a really strong effective sword for cutting through to truths from many angles. But Turquoise is this opening of heart wisdom and recognition of the oneness between others and yourself... and a recognition that the pain of others is your own pain. And to the untrained eye, it can look Green. So, if I am approaching a topic (like trying to raise awareness around the unnecessary suffering of animals in the meat and dairy industry)... I will tend to approach it more from a mixture of Stage Green and Yellow. So, if I have a person who goes into a defense about it. I'm going to approach that topic from the vantage-point of, "How can I get this person to see the truth beyond their intellectual defenses?" So, in Yellow, it's the question of "What are the underlying root causes that make people more likely to perpetuate suffering (or specifically the suffering of animals)? And how can I address those root causes?" And you try to treat the germ and not the symptom. Like, for humans perpetuating the unnecessary suffering animals... the symptom is exploiting animals for pleasure but the root cause is ignorance (where heart wisdom and empathy isn't extended into the perspective of the animal). And what is the medicine for ignorance? Truth. That's how to approach animal rights from a Yellow perspective looks... even if we think about animal rights activism as a Stage Green thing. But in Green, it's more like advocating for particular causes that one sees as "the right cause". And it comes from a political perspective, where there is polarization and you try to get others to hop on your cause through appeals to moral certainty... and you fight it out with the opposing viewpoint. And because of the polar nature of Green approaches to these sorts of topics... if a Stage Green perspective gets a win, there will be a backlash of its opposite polarity because it doesn't address the real root causes. So, Green is a more surface level approach that advances its opposition even as it advances its own cause. But both Stage Green and Stage Yellow can be oriented towards the same goals. That's why I think there is a tendency to see anyone who is talking about things that pertain to the reduction of suffering as Stage Green... or to view it as some narrow ideology. And I've had it happen plenty of times that someone who's operating from a space of lesser integrity and lesser awareness, tries to frame my perspective as Stage Green and theirs as a Tier Two perspective. But in actuality, they're usually a mixture of Orange with a smattering of Yellow and a resistance to Stage Green. And this can muddy the waters and embolden the cruel and enablers of the cruel because a stance against cruelty gets framed as less evolved than those who believe themselves to be in higher perspectives than they are. What it really boils down to is that I am consistently advocating for that which avoids unnecessary suffering... and what provides mercy to unnecessary suffering.

Of course, anything online can be monitored. Like, if a crime that pertains to national security were committed and a forum member was a suspect, they'd probably have an agent or two comb back through that forum member's interactions... and keep tabs on them. But the idea that there would be government agents randomly keeping active tabs on this forum is highly unlikely. That would only be in the unlikely case that someone on here is a suspect in a crime that threatens national security. The fact of the matter is that government agencies don't have an infinite amount of resources to pay agents to keep tabs on every random forum that exists on the internet. And while they might keep tabs on the forums of politically radical groups with many members which might threaten the status quo, they certainly wouldn't alot resources to hiring an agent or two to keep tabs on the Actualized forum because this forum is not a threat to national security.

This is not a real dilemma because I have the privilege of being human, and I don't have to choose between a life of extreme suffering and being killed as a young adult and a life of slightly less suffering and being killed as a young adult. It would just be armchair philosophy for me to consider it. So, it's a false choice because I have human privilege, and I don't have to choose between two horrible options. But both options are horrible and completely untenable, and animals don't even get a choice between horrible and worse. Add to that that most people just eat meat for pleasure and creature comforts, so it's also a false dilemma because we don't even need to subject animals to that kind of treatment at all. We could just stop breeding them into existence to kill and eat them, and switch to healthier and more sustainable sources of nourishment that doesn't involve immense amount of suffering to produce. And if my entire life was being raised to be farmed, exploited, and slaughtered in my teens or early twenties, I would much rather not be born. It would save me from being constantly made pregnant to have a calf, so that I continue to produce milk that gets extracted from me daily. And then, when that baby that I carried for 10 months is forcibly taken away from me, it's either shot with a bolt gun immediately... or it's pinned up so that it can't move and its muscles atrophy and it can be slaughtered sold for veal 2 months later. So, it's a short hard life of nothing but suffering. And I would much rather not exist if I had to choose non-existence and being farmed and slaughtered. It's like, you set up a false dichotomy and ask, "Would your rather murder a middle aged person or an old person?" And if the answer is anything other than "Neither", there's a problem. So, we don't need to choose. We can just quit paying for exploitation. There is no such thing as "happy meat".

You've certainly led an even more decent life than those life-stock animals by being free to go anywhere you want and living in human quarters. Are you okay with me stunning you and slitting then your throat to sell you for meat? Then, when you say no to being killed and sold to be eaten for pleasure for my own profit, I'll just remind you, "But you don't understand. Killing people like you creates so many jobs."

I've been on and off with this forum since it began. And truth-be-told, even though I've met some cool people, I never really enjoyed the vibes in the culture of this place... at least not since the very beginning. It definitely isn't the kind of culture that I would cultivate if I had my own forum as it's a pretty combative space... and my philosophy on curating social spaces is about creating a safe container that enables people to be more open and vulnerable. And yet, I feel quite drawn to coming back here... even though I find it to be a bit draining. And I've been reflecting on this in the past couple days. And I think I figured out what it is. To give some context, I have always had issues with being aware of and expressing anger. When I was a child, I discovered that anytime I ever tried to stand up for myself it was futile and just made things worse... and it would just add insult to injury. And eventually, I developed this coping strategy of remaining stoic and unemotional in the face of boundary violations and things that I dislike. And anger became my worst enemy. And this was very empowering because those who might try to engage in verbal abuse towards me would have nothing to grab ahold of. I would just sit there and watch them jump up and down like a yo-yo and cuss and scream and insult me at the top of their lungs... and watch them completely buckle under the futility of getting a reaction out of me. So this worked a lot better than what was before. As a child, it was just embarrassing and demoralizing when I would try to stand up for myself and it would backfire. So, as a pre-teen, when I decided towards a stance of never getting angry and never showing anger, it was like this shield where people didn't mess with me as much.... and people couldn't get a rise out of me. So, it was a powerful stance to disengage and have a perpetual poker-face in combination with coming across as cool and laid back. And it also came with certain cherished identities where people would see me as this really chilled out person who's easy to be around. And I would receive people unconditionally without push-back on anything... which helped me develop the ability for me to just hold space for people. And this parlayed into something very near and dear to my life's purpose, which is the ability to exercise deep levels of understanding and compassion for why someone is the way that they are... and to see it as always logically understandable as to why anyone is the way that they are. It's a very merciful viewpoint to hold in a very unmerciful world. So, it's quite valuable to many people. But in the less aligned elements of this coping strategy (despite its many positives) it can enable a lot of terrible behavior and leave you without defense. And it puts a gag on anger and disgust... and enables all sorts of boundary violations. It's like having no lock on the door of a home with lots of money laying around in it. And if someone comes in and steals the money, I can't even say anything about it because it would feel like I was being un-stoic, disempowered, and no better than cruel plebeian angry masses. So, it put me in a place where I'd have no choice but to simply quit while I'm behind. And it would temporarily make me feel like a loser and very (whatever the gender neutral term is for emasculation), but I'd reframe it quickly as some kind of stoic strength that proved me stronger and more dominant than them... like a priest that says, "Oh my poor child... you are lost." And that is always how I'd responded when anger comes up... ignore it, it's futile anyone, let's quit while I'm behind... then reframe it as some kind of stoic virtue. And of course, a lifetime of that builds a lot of rage. But that rage gets turned always inward because it's me allowing these things to happen. And I had even (as a teenager) developed a cosmology where the concept of right and wrong is completely relativistic (for others) but absolute (for me). And I pretended for a couple years to have no strong convictions and that I was perfectly moderate in all ways. My philosophy as a 12 year old was always to stay in the middle of the road... which I framed as a wisdom that arises from detachment but was actually a coping strategy to avoid confrontation. So, it placed me in this elevated space of stoic superiority, where I accepted all things and was exercising god-like forgiveness to others for their short-comings and trying to practice unconditional love, receptivity, and acceptance of that person.... but if I were to show some kind of flaw (especially anger or disgust towards that person), I'd be very ruthless with myself because "I should do better than others." It was like, the world can be as angry, frenetic, emotionally weak, terrible, and cruel as it wants to be... because it will only draw emphasis to my own state of stoic detached grace. And by contrast, I will be the winner. And then there'd be all these fears that I've harmed a person if I even have a mild expression of anger or disgust on my face... not only for fear of falling from my pedestal of stoic grace but for fear of subjecting others to cruelty... as I so hated the cruel and the pain they cause. So, I built lots of filtering mechanisms that have made my anger and disgust even unconscious to myself. And I check my facial muscles constantly in conversation to make sure that I'm not hurting that other person with unconscious micro-expressions... be remaining hyper-conscious of my micro-expressions. And it built out this entire superiority complex in my teens around being the one super-human who can accept others without anger or disgust. And this put me in very vulnerable positions in my relationships because I tolerated so much to maintain that superior identity. But being the graceful one who unconditionally loves the cruel one was the way that I had always coped. So it made sense that this pattern would show up in my life. And I was frequently the target of cruelty... which would strengthen my identity because I built a philosophy of, "Even if someone comes up and beats the crap out of me, I will not land even a single punch on them. I will simply absorb it and stay stoic." Mind you, a lot of this broke down under the sheer weight of living life... especially when I entered the work-force at 16. But that foundation that I built between age 12 and 16 is still there. And I still have a hard time with knowing what to do with my anger. I've seen the value of integrating it now since my early 20s. But I haven't gotten over the fear of being the cruel sadistic woman who harms with abusive words and facial expressions... which is the origin point of this whole mess. I don't want to hurt anyone... which I feel is very easy to accidentally because I interpret people as very very sensitive, and like I exist as a tiger among bunny rabbits. And one wrong move (even a subtle facial expression that reflects a tiny bit of anger) and I will unintentionally split the bunny rabbit in half... even if I make the slightly wrong facial express or use the wrong word. That person will totally implode. And I don't want to be the 'cruel inferior plebeian' who is too weak to be stoic and kind. So, that's the context. But on this forum, there's actually space for this disowned part of me that is sadistic, angry, and cruel... and who delights in defeating others. And I don't need to show my facial expression or see theirs. So, I don't feel like I'm tip-toeing around bunny rabbits. Plus, my most effective and sharpest sword is my intellect. And on here, I can have all sorts of intellectual duels with people. So, what I do is that I channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty and I hook it up to my intellect... which is an effective weapon, and not futile like my childhood expressions of anger. And with my intellect, I can still maintain the image of stoicism because it's a cold process. And I can channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty through the stoic mask of my intellect. Then, I have certain rules for dueling that both cloak my sadistic tendencies and mitigate the harm of them, which are... I must remain intellectually honest I must not use ad hominem attacks I must not grand-stand or posture in empty ways (i.e. "You just don't get it the way that I do." or "Well, you're Stage Blue/Red? Green, so..." or (posturing myself like the authority who knows something the other person doesn't) "That's for you to figure out on your own." I must genuinely try to help the other person understand I must not use logical fallacies I must state the source of where my insight is deriving from so as to give my explanation the proper amount of authority in the eyes of the reader (i.e. a scientific study, an insight that I got, what makes logical sense to me, my friend experienced this, etc.) I must clean up what I've written to take off any personalized harsh edges... and keep my edginess purely in the intellectual dismantling of the topic at hand. And so, in this space, there's a ton of nerdy guys getting into combative intellectual arguments with one another to prove who is the most intellectual or the most correct. And I know that I can out-do most of them because of my fealty to intellectual honesty and reconciliation of many perspectives. So, this forum is like a big intellectual dick-measuring contest... and I have a really big one. And I like to win. And it's like bumper-cars... if you're going to participate, combativeness is par for the course. But in cases where the person has a cruel or ignorant perspective that muddies the water around or enables the plebeian cruelty that endemic in this world, I really take the gloves off. In my typical response to this, I receive that person entirely and seek to understand why the person had developed that perspective. But in this setting, I can just dismantle it... and defeat their perspective. And instead of doing the emotional labor of holding space for a person to be exactly where they are... I can actually express, "This viewpoint is a problem, because it would lead to x, y, z outcomes." So, I get to draw firm lines in the sand. But the sadism piece of this is also present, as there is a desire to cause some pain to those who have a more cruel perspective... or who act as enablers to cruel perspectives. And I recall once, when I was in an argument that was in-kind to arguing against cruelty, I was laying on the couch. And suddenly an image of myself came into my head of this queen that looks a bit like Helena Bonham Carter's version of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland... but much rougher and colder than that. It was this stoic, cold, sadistic mean queen. And she had a look of sheer hatred and disgust on her stony face. Her forehead was high... which fashionable ladies used to pluck their hairline to give themselves a really high hairline and around the renaissance. Her face was powdered. And she had thin black lips. And she was laying in the same position as me and on the same couch as me. She had medium-short curly reddish hair. It was like this image was showing me this part of myself. It's like, this forum is the only space where I can be her... but also hide her under the guise of the intention of intellectual helpfulness. So, at the top level, I can genuinely be trying to help... and I always am. But I am so angry about human cruelty, that there is this cold death mother drive that's somewhat akin to the idea of, "I brought you into this world... and I can take you out... that is if you can't play nice with your sibling or the family pets and you're destroying the house." It's like this, if you can't play nice, let's just set the world on fire and be done with it. And I can really channel that on here... especially when people are advocating for cruel/foolish perspective and/or perspectives that muddy the waters to enable cruelty and foolishness to continue unchecked. And it's like I made myself into a dormant volcano of cruelty where I hold it all in to cope with cruelty and defeat the cruel ones by denying them an outlet. But I have had no outlet for that cruelty and anger because the stoic method also gives me the same kind of powerlessness... but the forum gives me an outlet. And it's like I can keep running through the process that I needed to happen when I was a child... to have my anger actually win me the fight that I was in the right about.

I didn't see your arguments. What were they?

First off, I'm not single... and I'm 36 years old. So, I'm past that phase in life. And I wouldn't need to give anyone a chance even if I were single. And the idea that women should be doing all that emotional labor for guys she's not interested in and simply "giving chances" to men who are flawed is honestly silly. It just isn't how dating works. The way it works is that a woman is either attracted to a man and interested in him... or she's not. There's no "Let me give this guy a chance" logic, as that isn't how women decide who to date... unless she really doesn't know herself at all or has terrible self-esteem. It just begins with, "How do I feel about this guy?" And if the response isn't feelings of desire and attraction, then she's not going to give that guy a chance... because why would she give some guy she's not attracted to a chance? Then, a smart woman is also very aware of her deal-breakers and incompatibilities and will even sort men she's attracted to from consideration if he hits those deal-breakers or is incompatible with her. And the more a woman uses her intuition and sorts unapologetically on the basis of "What kind of dynamic do I want and need in my relationship? And who is the best match for that intention?" the better a match she will strike... and the better the relationship will be more likely to be. And relative to the idea of 'accept these flawed men with open arms and be empathetic with them', the first thing to know is that the best thing a woman can do is to have very strong boundaries and preserve her energy... and to sort with high discernment. And one skill that's very important to learn for women is detachment and selective empathy... otherwise your energy gets drained trying to pour into everyone else's cups. And empathy is emotional labor, and women don't owe that labor to every random person who wants to extract that value from them. I also know from direct experience that this piece of advice you're giving for women to "accept the flawed man with open arms and give him empathy" is very unwise and could even be dangerous for a woman to follow... as a man who isn't doing well in his life can take out his resentment towards the woman he's with. And I had made that mistake in my teens of being the empathetic woman and getting into a relationship with a flawed man who was a lazy ne'er-do-well type. And in my extreme empathy, I subjected myself to a terrible relationship. And there's a hope in many inexperienced young women that ("with the power of my love, empathy, and unconditional support) I can pull him up." And you may even unconsciously look for a flawed man because you get to feel so helpful and needed. But these inexperienced women who just want to give and give end up throwing themselves into the grinder. And from 16-20, I spent 4 years trying to be supportive to him and empathetic... and trying to rescue him. But the reality is that he just became a weight weighing down my entire life. And I was just depleting my energy because I had no boundaries... just pure empathy and understanding constantly being poured out of my cup. So, it never works. Such a man is a taker and not a giver and will only pull you and your entire life down. And if you have kids with that man, he will pull your kids' lives down. And that is why it's important to sort strictly based on what his situation is at this very moment in time.... and not for some future potential version of him who has overcome his current flaw with the power of a woman's love and empathy. With much experience, I know that if a man doesn't have his life together and has flaws that he wants a woman to fix, that he's looking for an unconditionally present and nurturing mother,and not a partner who chooses him because she prefers him. And an excess of empathy towards this kind of man just enables his current status quo and will drag a woman's life into the ground. But when I was younger, I was certainly trained on that "Be more empathetic" messaging. If I were to give advice to the younger version of myself, I would tell her, "The quality of your parter will determine the quality of your life. And you should be a lot more ruthless in your sorting process." And "female-isolated" men can often have issues with not seeing women as fellow humans to make friendships with... and that's a huge block to the friendship foundation of a relationship. And lots of guys who hang out only with guys can be afraid of women.... or even intensely dislike women. So, it's an important thing to take note of as a woman... and watch out for.

I do think it very likely is the choice element... but also that it's an ethical choice specifically, and that makes people feel uncomfortable. That's especially true because a lot of non-Vegans really care about animals and don't want animals to suffer... and would feel very disgusted and traumatized if they saw or participated in the slaughter of animals. But they haven't fully made the conscious connection between their own routine actions and animal suffering. They know it in the abstract, but not in the concrete. So, if they encounter a Vegan, it can be something that rubs a person the wrong way because it draws attention to what wants to be ignored. And yes, that concealment would certainly breed resentment over time.

I've never heard of that. Is there any evidence to back up that claim?

With your struggles with setting routines and organizing your life, what do you find to be the most difficult or overwhelming thing about that? Also, is there any kind of aversion to imagining your life organized in the way that you wish it were?

Because someone's religion is often a huge part of their cosmology... and their identity is shaped in relation to that cosmology. So, religious deconstruction is usually only precipitated by a dark night of the soul where the bottom falls out of the paradigm entirely, and the person must deconstruct and reconstruct a new identity and new cosmology. It's not for the faint of heart, at all. I've had many clients and friends who have deconstructed, and it's very difficult inner work precipitated by a crisis of meaning. But if you're a scientifically-minded person, I could give an analogy... Imagine a scientific thinker who was raised in an environment where the central paradigm of the society was a very science-based cosmology. And let's say that that scientific-thinking person's cosmology and identity is shaped on a foundation of scientific rationalism. And all their coping strategies are based in this paradigm as well. And then, let's say (hypothetically) if a new and more accurate intellectual paradigm and cosmology was presented where science was discovered as incorrect, illusory, or constructed... then you could imagine how difficult that would be for that person to deconstruct their scientific paradigm and the identities they've built up off of it. That's what happens when religious people go through the process of deconstruction.... they have to unpack and change A LOT of elements of their worldview and identity... perhaps most of them. And it takes time. And while a really shrewd cult leader-ish person, could unethically brainwash someone and pull them over into their own cosmology... most people don't deconstruct at the behest of other people. And that's especially true if you give rational arguments. What you do when you confront a religious person to try to get them to deconstruct when they are content with their current paradigm is to either entrench them further (in 99% of cases, this is what happens) or you potentially destabilize their identity and push them into a dark night of the soul and identity crisis that they don't know how to handle (in a small percentage of cases this happens... and it's not great if you push them over prematurely)