[james_s_tayler]

That's not a third world phenomenon though. It's a nasty, unfortunate case of groupthink that sadly human beings are very susceptible to.

You see the same thing with regards to treatment of people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of but society at large still treats them like they were an actual offender.

Reminds me too of stories where people get in trouble with scammers in foreign countries and the authorities are never on their side and no one will listen and there just is no logic.

It's a harrowing and horrible account to read. It's a stark realization to come to that human beings basically aren't capable of computing the "truth", so things like logical argument and rationality and evidence actually mean nothing. They appear to work a lot of the time and you have to be careful about that because it's somewhat of an illusion. The only thing we value is consensus, and once we think we've reached it the process for coming to it stops. So if you're on the wrong side of consensus and every single person is buying into the consensus and there is no one willing to permit dissent then you are very screwed. Logic doesn't exist at that point as the majority doesn't need to persuade and you have no coalition and therefore no power.

Reminds me of Man's Search For Meaning and 7 Days to Live My Life and most of the middle ages really.

[Killes]

Its certainly more than a case a groupthink that "humans" are susceptible to. Well educated non zealot humans are certainly less susceptible to it....anyways

If we take intralizee's recounting of the events as correct there are several levels of horrific corruption, abuse of power and religious fanaticism involved. The not wanting to even know what is going on as long as they can bill the "patient", the tons of prejudice...jesus there are soooo many levels of wrong going in there, read again, please.

Third world is maybe the wrong way to describe it, by it I am meaning the levels of corruption and poorly educated people on display there.

In a way though it is way worse, there is a horrifically well engineered synergy between state/private entities here at play to extract money from the patient's insurance whilst severely violating his rights.

[james_s_tayler]

I've read it, read it and re-read it. My conclusion stands.

Abstract your level of analysis up and away from the specific doctrinal belief systems at play here and look to the fundamental operating system of human beings.

It's not that "those people" were corrupt. It's that the operating system has some fundamentally hideous bugs in it that most of the time go unnoticed. Until they don't. Especially when they show up in concert like this.

You might call them zealots and uneducated. The problem is they were simply faithful to a specific doctrine in which they were likely well educated. There are many scenarios in which you can suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of that.

There are a strikingly large number of pretty scary "features" in the operating system of individuals and groups. That things like this happen isn't surprising. Its horrifying, but I can't say it's surprising.

If you break it down to the simplest level there are only three types of action. 1) what you want to do 2) what you are willing to do 3) what you are not willing to not do

Three things basically underpin that. a) beliefs b) incentives c) social pressures

Do the math on it. It's scary to see how easily this kind of thing can happen. When no one has an incentive to stop it and when they have significant disincentives against stopping it, and when they think it is good and they think that's what everyone else thinks.

Take a long hard look at the history of how people have treated other people over time. How many cognitive bias traps we fall into. How unable we are to come to agreement about controversial issues. Being deeply flawed is our M.O. It's why rich stream of messed up shit happens every single day.

[intralizee]

I would think your assessment is correct for approaching things at first glance but I would say the people who abused me were "corrupt" at the end of the day. Not sure if that is the best word but I'll use it. I took it as far as possible for me to examine if they were corrupt and came to this conclusion. You're corrupt when the other person who has been traumatized by you (unjustly as well), goes through a lengthy processes of doing whatever is legally possible to illustrate the abuse and you choose to deny it. I found out the hospital, the university police and even the fbi would rather me not have any remedy to the torture I went through and for their illusions to not be shattered. Even my insurance that was billed wouldn't do anything when I reported it. HIPAA was even violated as the hospital lawyer had access to my complete medical history without my consent. I reported that and I doubt the government agencies did anything. Born with faith in the system, as I would prefer the logic of systems to emotional individualists. Yet, I learned the systems are completely broken for the wealthy.

[james_s_tayler]

Sure. I'm not in disagreement with your conclusion. It depends on which level you do the analysis at as to the exact conclusion you draw.

You mentioned you were born with faith in the system and would prefer logic of emotion. This is precisely why I make the argument at a higher level of abstraction. I believe the default viewpoint is the one u put forward that we tend to assume people are reasonable. It's an unwarranted assumption that leads us to a dangerous place and a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.

I believe the best way to make progress on these issues is for the wider public to understand how deeply flawed our systems for coming to conclusions are and to promote and permit dissent in order to raise the quality of thinking and decision making. That's much easier to do when at least some people are willing to say "well now hold on... it could be that WE are actually wrong about this and that warrants discussion". That's what would have given you a chance.

[masonic]

  people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of

That would be highly unusual. Perhaps you mean "exonerated" rather than acquitted?