/8diamonds/ - /pol/ Intelligence Agency

So, first, my bit:

There's this bit of popular knowledge being tossed about suggesting that "Willpower" is something you can run out of.

https://archive.is/YJ8aN (Something from the APA defining Willpower)

Two of the main proponents of this viewpoint are Dr. Roy Baumeister and Dr. Kathleen Vohs. Baumeister is one of the earliest proponents of this viewpoint.

On Roy Baumeister:

https://archive.is/GZaXI (Wiki page)

https://archive.is/gniH1 (Personal Site, you can find his CV there.)

https://archive.is/SE23k (A bio where he says that he was raised by wolves and some other crazy shit.)

He's also written lots of books. Some interesting ones, from the Wiki page:

"Masochism and the self"

"The social dimension of sex"

"Free Will and Consciousness: How might they work?"

He was also an author of:

"Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will."

If you look at his CV, though, you'll notice that one of the sources of funding he secured was from the John Templeton Foundation. That'll be important later.

On Kathleen Vohs:

https://archive.is/RYs8F (You can find her CV around here somewhere)

She works very closely with Baumeister, which is to be expected of people working on the same thing. However, she has also gotten funding from the Templeton Foundation.

This suggests to me that the Templeton Foundation has some stake in pushing this research: they've funded multiple people with the same viewpoint and the same goal.

On the Templeton Foundation:

https://archive.is/YyJaI (At a glance)

https://archive.is/VGnb (Mission statement)

Their goal is to mix the spiritual and the scientific, basically. It's really crazy, and I'm not sure how to explain it.

Their funding, according to their site, largely comes from an ultra-huge endowment they got from John Templeton. He's dead now, but there might be something interesting about him floating around.

I've also looked into other researchers who have done this work, but they don't seem to be tied to the Templeton Foundation. If you want, I can post that stuff, but I don't think there's anything in there.

>>1156

that is some cult shit. might they be trying to secure research grants for their ridiculous notions?

Given the financial history of the family behind Templeton, I believe people like to push this kind of info because they pay out so much. They give some really generous cash for research, and that in turn helps get the information out there and slowly legitimized.

Roy and Kathleen must've gotten a lot of benjamin franklins shoved up their asses

>>1164

Right, but the big question is "Why does the Templeton Foundation fund this research?"

I mean, I know it's cult shit, but what does this particular cult shit have to do with anything?

>>1165

As far as I can tell, it was Sir John Templeton's personal interest, and the foundation is following in his spiritual footsteps. There were a lot of young lads thinking like him in his age, but he was fixated on finding out more about the universe and the divine with the modern tools of science.

I can't seem to find exactly what caused that interest or where he got it from. New Thought is probably what this would be called though, a religious, pseudo-science belief that the divine is in everything and that the mind is stronger than matter itself.

If you're looking for a potential intent on pushing this for more sinister means, I don't quite see it. Looks like the organization is following Sir Templeton's line of thinking and researchers latch on for the funding.

I'll dig deeper for the "why" part, but you should read up on New Thought and find detailed accounts of Sir John Templeton's life and spiritual beliefs

>>1154

>I've been digging through some psychology nonsense, and I ran all my leads dry…

Does the specific nonsense mater? They always can pick up one or another and pretend yesterday's nonsense does not exist.

It's weightless because it's empty.

"Hahaha! We retain the old business, but we are totally not freudists now!"

"Hahaha, the NEW and more progressive manual have the new names for the old stuff, disregard all the argument about the whole ADHD thing being bullshit"

It's not even the usual shell game like with economical "theories", it's a shell game where the new shells are introduced as needed - because they cost nothing.

What's the point to note any little details that will be in trashcan tomorrow - whether because you nitpick them loudly enough or simply because there are new ones that fit the demand better?

Op interesting thread you got here. Hopefully you see this if you are still around.

www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/new-spirituality.htm

Neale Donald Walsch is no stranger to this movement. Back in the '90s his Conversations with God books captivated seekers both inside and outside the church. On his website, New Spirituality, he introduces the worldwide "Humanity's Team":

"Humanity’s Team… proposes a New Spirituality that enlarges and enhances humanity’s current beliefs about God… bringing peace and harmony to our planet at last. The New Spirituality… is an expansion of all our present theologies; an updating of them; a refreshing of them, rendering all of our current sacred teachings even more relevant to our present day…. God is not separate from anyone or anything…."

Who are the members of this worldwide Team of spiritual change agents?

Walsch gives us a clue. His list of links will "take you to the websites of some key organizations and resources we’ve identified as active partners." These "active partners" include the following organizations – and many more:

In fact, The John Templeton Foundation is listed as one of Walsch's "active partners." It makes sense! By merging mystical science and spirituality, it paves the way for a spiritual sociology for a supposed common good. Its page on "Spiritual Capital" fits right into the UN quest for global solidarity. You may be familiar with human capital (the value of a workforce) and social capital (the value of a harmonious, dialectic community), but what about Spiritual Capital? How can that be measured in economic terms?

Spiritual Capital: "…This is an interdisciplinary social scientific research initiative on the economic and social consequences of religion and spirituality. The program seeks to integrate the concept of spiritual capital into the human sciences…."

>>2637

so… the new sen-simonites?