Skip to content

An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 5,720

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

John Collins is an author and the Founder of William Branham Historical Research. He discusses: gay-bashing; women-bashing; remarriage-bashing; social stigma around the rejection of the purported revelations; the community react to claims of an individual member losing supposed salvation; how former members can heal; homosexuals, women, the remarried, and the doubters finding help and a way out of “The Message”; and how William Marrion Branham blasted remarriage after divorce throughout “The Message” ministry while permitting or even helping brothers remarry several times.

Keywords: Christianity, John Collins, Seek The Truth, The Message, William Branham Historical Research, William Marrion Branham.

An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham: Founder, William Branham Historical Research (Part Five)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Some have been emotionally scarred due to the bashing of gays, of women, of remarriage, and the social stigma to the rejection of the ‘revelations’ in addition to assertions of individuals potentially losing salvation. What is the form of gay-bashing?

John Collins: The effects of emotional abuse in William Branham’s “Message” cult following and similar destructive cults are very painful, no matter the specific types of abuse.  They are also very personal.  Unlike physical abuse, the impact of emotional abuse is not limited to the area of impact.  As emotions are manipulated, whether it is from “bashing”, shaming, intimidation, fear, or other, the abuse is felt through each and every connected memory and even in other related emotions.  For those affected, it is a recurring form of abuse each time those emotions are brought to the surface.  Also, emotional abuse is not limited to the person being struck.  As cult leaders tear down the emotions of their victims, they often do so indirectly.  Victims of abuse for cults that practice “gay bashing” are not just those in the group who have homosexual tendencies.  Those who submit to the verbal abuse of others are also being emotionally abused into submission.

The social stigma created by this form of abuse contributes to the isolationist nature of the destructive cult.  When cult followers are manipulated into the approval of and the participation in emotional abuse, whether verbally abusing others or simply nodding a head or saying “Amen”, emotional abuse becomes a core value to the group’s integrity and is often used as a tool for punishment or further isolation.  Those who do not fully submit to the group’s rules and regulations are often the target of false accusation using the forms of emotional abuse most frequently used by the leaders.  Those who leave the group also become targets, and it is very effective.  Normal human emotions that would occur when a member leaves the group are suppressed when the former member becomes the target of verbal abuse — one emotion is replaced with another.  I, myself, was falsely accused of being homosexual as a tool by cult leaders to suppress the critical information that I had discovered, and some former members later informed me that this false accusation delayed their examination of the critical information for a long period of time.

For the person struggling internally with issues that are openly ridiculed or “bashed”, the pain runs deep.  While other struggles based upon cult doctrine may be discussed to receive encouragement, sympathy, counseling, or guidance, struggles that are the focal point for verbal and emotional abuse cannot.  Cult members have been manipulated, by example, to practice verbal and emotional abuse for those issues instead of offering help.  This, really, is the what differentiates a destructive cult group from a religious cult group.  William Branham’s “Message” cult is not unique in their religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, and sermons discussing passages from the Christian Bible against homosexuality are widespread even among some denominations in mainstream Christianity.  Healthy churches offer help and support for any issue, homosexuality or not, while destructive churches train members to discriminate and practice abuse.

Like any situation involving discrimination, human rights and human dignity is at risk.  All humans have a natural desire to help other humans, and a sympathy for those in need of help.  When a destructive group replaces that natural, human desire of love for other humans with hatred, they have also robbed them of their dignity and freedom and replaced them with captivity and oppression.

2. Jacobsen: What is the form of women-bashing?

Collins: In William Branham’s “Message” cult following, the New Testament passage from 1 Corinthians 11:3 describing male leadership is preached, while Galatians 3:28 describing equality is generally ignored.  The passage in Corinthians describes the hierarchy of leadership from God the Father, to God the Son, to males, to females.

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3) 

This passage is used and preferred, because it supports William Branham’s theological stance that women are inferior to men.  Branham taught that females were a “by-product” of man, and not in the original creation[i].  Interestingly, this passage is also used by mainstream Christianity as an example of a clear picture of the Trinitarian Godhead, which later versions of William Branham’s stage persona rejected.[ii]  While rejecting the relationship between God the Father and God the Son in the passage from 1 Corinthians, most versions of William Branham’s stage persona avoided the passage from Galatians 3 promoting equality, or re-purposed it to promote his male-only creation theology.[iii]

Galatians 3 describes the Apostle Paul’s views on racial, social, and gender equality.  Verse 28 states,

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. 

Galatians 3:28

Many Christian apologists use this verse as an example to claim that early Christians were advanced in teaching equality compared to other religions in the ancient world[iv], though historically, some ancient civilizations did practice equality in one or more of the three categories mentioned by in the passage from Galatians.[v]  In William Branham’s “Message” cult following, however, all three categories are rejected in full.  William Branham claimed that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not intended for the Jews[vi], that Christians were supposed to “forfeit their rights”[vii], and that the female human was less in stature than a dog or a hog.[viii]

This misogynistic theological stance leads to all forms of abuse – verbal, emotional, and even physical.  By example, “Message” cult leaders use quotes from the transcript of William Branham’s sermons to ensure that women are “in their place”[ix], submissive, obedient, and silent[x].  Some “Message” cult pastors expand upon this theological view to introduce additional misogynistic doctrines and rules, disallowing women to have religious discussions without men present.  Others preach entire sermons that are parroting Branham’s misogynistic teaching that women are inherently evil by design[xi], and must contain that evil at the risk of eternal damnation.

As a result, women are unknowingly trained to accept verbal abuse as “correction”.  Adolescent girls are trained to believe that their bodies were designed by Satan[xii] for sex[xiii].  Teenage girls are forced to believe that William Branham is the authority on doctrine and scripture[xiv], and that his praise given to those who practice physical abuse[xv] for women who do not adhere to the cult’s dress code is both acceptable and “commissioned by God”.  Mothers are trained to believe that it is OK for their husbands to follow William Branham’s advice and physically abuse both them[xvi] and their daughters, and that husbands who do not are “sissies”.  In other words, it goes far beyond “woman-bashing”.  Women are forced to believe that Branham’s verbal abuse is “godly”, that verbal and emotional abuse by current cult leadership is “righteous”, and that verbal, emotional, and physical abuse by their spouse or father is “justified”.

3. Jacobsen: What is the form of remarriage-bashing?

Collins: Remarriage after divorce, except in cases of the death of a current or former spouse, is a delicate subject within most Christian communities.  There are specific passages in the New Testament that instruct married couples not to separate until death[xvii], as well as passages that consider remarriage after divorce of a living spouse to be adultery[xviii], which is in violation of the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament[xix].  Unfortunately, there are no Biblical instructions describing the many complex situations that occur within a marriage, or how Christians should behave towards those who knowingly or unknowingly broke those rules by remarrying after divorce.  Fundamentalist Christians and many Christians with fundamentalist leanings view these passages as black-or-white and do now allow for the “gray”.  Remarriage after divorce is strictly forbidden in fundamentalist Christianity.  In most versions of William Branham’s stage persona, this was the doctrinal position presented.[xx]

Christians without fundamentalist leanings take a more moderate approach.  They still believe remarriage after divorce while the spouse is still living to be sin, as the Bible states, but also believe that Jesus Christ died for that sin.  As with any other personal issues considered to be sinful, advice and support is offered.[xxi]  Each divorce case is considered to be unique, and attempts are made to save marriages whenever possible.  In cases where a spouse is abused or in danger, however, separation is advised.

Though these two positions are the exact opposite of each other, both approaches have some common ground.  After the divorce and remarriage is finalized, healthy churches on both sides offer their love and support to the new couples that emerge.  Members are not ridiculed for their decision, are not insulted during sermons, and are not severed from fellowship.  This is not the case in the unhealthy churches that exist on the fundamentalist side.  Since there are no biblical instructions explicitly stating how one should behave towards a remarried couple, those new couples who “broke the rules” and remarried are targets for verbal and emotional abuse.  William Branham “Message” cult churches, which fall into this category, are no exception.

4. Jacobsen: What is the social stigma around the rejection of the purported revelations?

Collins: Much like the cases of “breaking the rules” for remarriage or dress code, those who reject “supernatural” claims by William Branham become targets for verbal and emotional abuse.[xxii]  Even in cases where members reject a claim made by William Branham that has unequivocally been proven false, they face discrimination and sometimes isolation from current members that support the false claim.  In many cases, this happens at the instruction of the cult leaders.[xxiii]  “Message” cult pastors, attempting to halt the spread of critical information, have quickly learned that truth can only be stopped by silencing those asking questions.  Rather than address William Branham’s false claims in transparency before their congregations, most cult pastors choose the pathway of least resistance.  Only a handful of “Message” cult pastors have attempted to publicly address the controversial issues, and a majority of those are now former members.[xxiv]

This typically occurs indirectly rather than directly, however.  When it has been learned that one or more members of a cult church have discovered the critical issues with “supernatural” claims, cult pastors shame current members by ridiculing or cursing former members who disagree with William Branham’s false claims.  Those who reject the claims are labeled as incompetent or ungodly while being cursed to all sorts of tragedies and eternal damnation.  Former members have described their former cult pastor claiming that “hell will not be hot enough” for those who reject Branham’s claims, and others describe sermons predicting God’s wrath on those leaving the cult by claiming that “sometimes God likes a good killing” (implying that those leaving might die).  To the target of the curse or ridicule, these statements are harmless.  To members of the congregation who have discovered the critical research, however, it is an indirect form of emotional abuse that transitions into a social stigma and fear of consequence.  That stigma worsens after participating in cult gatherings where the pastor’s opinion is favorably discussed.

As the listener follows the pastor’s abusive statements to their logical conclusion, they connect the examination of critical facts to losing their “salvation”.  Under this type of fear, to avoid eternal damnation, one must also avoid questioning William Branham and/or the pastor’s authority.  Unfortunately for members of a destructive religious cult, this fear of eternal damnation is far greater than all other consequences.  It is almost crippling.

5. Jacobsen: How does the community react to claims of an individual member losing supposed salvation? 

Collins: In destructive cults, the group’s members become one body of people that is either physically or mentally disconnected and/or isolated from other bodies of people.  In religious cults that are destructive, this separation is based upon beliefs of salvation.  In the case of a destructive cult based upon Christianity, for instance, the group has mentally isolated themselves by believing that their particular group will earn salvation while all other Christian groups will not.

Doomsday cults such as William Branham’s “Message” cult[xxv] are even more destructive.  In religious doomsday cults, cult doctrine and beliefs are structured in such a way that members focus more intently upon life after death than life before death, and life itself is devalued by predictions of destruction.  Members are manipulated into thinking that this world and all that is in it has no meaning, and that after the destruction predicted by the cult leader, only those who believe that leader or share his or her doctrinal beliefs will survive.  With destruction “imminent”, and all personal connections outside of the cult about to be severed, non-cult connections (those who did not earn salvation) are devalued, including former members.

Without having been involved in a destructive cult, it would be very difficult to understand the mental separation that occurs when a former member leaves, or more specifically, “loses their salvation” by leaving or rejecting the cult leader.  In these cases, there were strong personal connections, often with many members of the cult.  Yet because they are no longer associated with the cult’s perception of “salvation”, they are now supposed to be “spiritually” severed from the cult and its members.  Cult members that have been manipulated into believing the cult’s isolationist doctrine are faced with internal conflict due to their deep personal and emotional ties as those connections sever.

In some cases, these personal and emotional ties cannot be broken, and it leads to more members “losing their salvation” as they, too, begin to question the destructive nature of the cult.  Unfortunately, in many instances, this is not the case.  Cult members unable to resolve the internal conflict and are forced to resolve it by “grieving a loss”.  Similar to a death in the family, cult members enter the process of grieving, loss, recovery, and then disconnection.  Once disconnected, the result is “shunning”, whether physically or emotionally, as a self-defense mechanism to prevent reconnecting to a cult member that has now become a non-cult member.

6. Jacobsen: How can former members heal? 

Collins: As you can imagine, all of this is extremely painful for former members of a cult.  Many describe it as the single-most difficult time of their lives.  While their connections suffer through the stages of grief, they too must grieve their own losses.  Even through some friends and family that are still cult members may have not physically severed ties, their view of the former member has now changed from “one of us” to “not of us”, and they are forced to emotionally disconnect.  When a former member begins to experience emotional shunning by people they have known for many years — sometimes their entire lives, they also enter self-defense mode.  Cult members become “one of them” while the entire rest of the world becomes “us” – reversing the problem.  Even cult members who are genuinely making an attempt to be kind and sympathetic are mentally grouped with those who have caused great pain, and eventually, ties are severed from both ends.

Though it is a slow and painstaking process, former cult members must re-establish themselves in the world without relying upon any ties to cult members.  New peer groups must form, with new circles of friends and new support.  Old memories now painful must be replaced with new memories more pleasant.  Former cult members must find people who energize them and avoid people who drain them of energy until they are healed enough to energize others.

This is not to say that current cult members cannot be part of this process — they certainly can, but they must not be the only form of support and friendship.  Their ties may seem strong during the initial break, but they may not always be.  It is difficult to heal from the larger separation when dealing with the repeated pain of additional separations.

7. Jacobsen: How can homosexuals, women, the remarried, and the doubters find help and a way out of “The Message”?

Collins: For anyone attempting to escape from a destructive cult, no matter the reason or situation, it is best to begin establishing a support group prior to leaving.  No matter what a person is dealing with, whether it be homosexual tendencies, abuse, divorce, or other, there are many, many people who have endured similar painful situations.  Find others to ask for advice.  In some cases, counselling or therapy is helpful.  Find a psychologist familiar with destructive religious cults.  Don’t be afraid of medication; several people who have escaped require anxiety or anti-depressant medicine for a period of time, some long-term due to the trauma of separation.

Be prepared to give an answer as to why the choice was made to leave.  This seems to be the most difficult part of leaving a cult for many people: the fear of a heated argument or debate with people who no longer share the same core values and will not understand why.  Yet in almost every instance of a person leaving a cult, this is an inevitable situation.

Before the information age, researching was a very difficult task.  By design, destructive cults conceal critical information.  Finding that information was a challenge.  In today’s world, however, information is abundantly accessible — both critical and non-critical.  Newspaper archives, government archives, online resources and more provide a means to learn about many cult groups and their structure.  By learning how other cults behave and operate and identifying the similarities between other cults to their own, a cult member can easily list reasons why staying would be a bad idea.

In the case of William Branham, however, finding critical information is extremely easy.  Not only are there numerous research sites publishing information concerning William Branham’s “Message” cult and the many sub-cults that were created after, Branham’s sermon transcripts from 1947 to 1965 have been made public and searchable[xxvi].  Former members can easily query against his transcripts to identify conflicting statements between different versions of William Branham’s stage personas[xxvii], list the very destructive doctrines Branham taught[xxviii], and describe Branham’s prophecies that have failed[xxix] or his teachings that do not align with Biblical doctrine.[xxx]

8. Jacobsen: How did William Marrion Branham blast remarriage after divorce throughout “The Message” ministry? Yet, he permitted or even helped brothers remarry several times.

Collins: Historians have erroneously described William Branham as an evangelist having consistent views during his twenty to thirty-year career by using only the later versions of his stage persona, which in many cases was a persona strongly opposed to remarriage after divorce.  Because that history has been mostly written by “historians” sympathetic to William Branham’s cult following, other versions of Branham’s stage persona with differing doctrinal positions[xxxi] appear to have been purposefully omitted.

William Branham is typically described as a “non-Trinitarian”[xxxii] “Baptist”[xxxiii] minister who after the Ohio River Flood of 1937 came in contact with Pentecostalism and a “supernatural” experience that led to his “Message” of hyper-fundamentalist Pentecostalism.  Yet he was baptized and ordained in a Pentecostal church as early as 1932[xxxiv], worked closely with the United Brethren Church during the time a Brethren minister performed his second marriage ceremony[xxxv], and for almost a decade used a Trinitarian stage persona[xxxvi].  Not only did his doctrinal views change between different versions of his stage persona, his doctrinal stance changed with his varying religious affiliations.  Those changes range from core values such as the nature of God to his views on remarriage after divorce.

It is interesting, however, that during the time William Branham primarily used a stage persona claiming to be a fundamentalist Baptist minister — which would have at the time opposed remarriage after divorce — Branham performed the marriage ceremonies for his brothers after they divorced and remarried multiple wives[xxxvii].  As late as 1941, William Branham’s core values off stage do not appear to match his core values on stage.

It is also interesting that most historians and even cult members claim that William Branham was opposed to remarriage after divorce, when the 1965 version of his stage persona was not fully opposed.  In most versions of Branham’s stage persona, William Branham did claim to be opposed to remarriage after divorce for both men and women.  After his son’s marriage, divorce[xxxviii], and remarriage, however, Branham’s stage persona created an exception for the case of men (not women) who wished to remarry after divorce.  In a 1965 sermon entitled “Marriage and Divorce”, Branham began teaching that “he can, but she can’t.”[xxxix]  In that version of his stage persona, William Branham avoided all passages in the New Testament that describe men remarrying after divorce as adultery.  Luke 16:18 was avoided entirely.

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Luke 16:18

It would be very difficult to understand how that William Branham could preach so strongly against remarriage after divorce on stage while performing the wedding ceremonies for divorced couples offstage without having the full and complete historical information concerning Branham’s multiple stage personas.  Especially when historians have been misinformed about the “consistency” of Branham’s doctrinal positions and so much critical information has been withheld.  Once his varying stage personas are examined, and his conflicting doctrinal positions are compared, it becomes more apparent that the man on stage with his multiple personas were not the same as the man off stage.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Author; Founder, William Branham Historical Research.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

[i] “Look, a woman is not even so low… She’s not even a creation in God. She’s a by-product..”

Branham, William. 1956, Jul 15  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/women

[ii] “Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don’t get excited. Let me say this with godly love, the hour has approached where I can’t hold still on these things no more, too close to the Coming. See? “Trinitarianism is of the devil!” I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD! Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word “trinity” is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that’s from hell. There’s one God. That’s exactly right.”

Branham, William. 1961, January 8. Revelation Chapter Four 3 Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/trinity

[iii] William Branham’s transcripts from 1947 to 1965 mention the “male nor female” passage in his 1965 sermon “Marriage and Divorce”, which claimed that women were the lowest of animals on the earth.  “When, in God’s sight, the Word, she is the lowest of all animals that God put on the earth.  Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21. http://table.branham.org

[iv] Groothuis, Douglas.  Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.  pp 107

[v] “The first systematic analyses of equality as a concept comes from the Greeks of the classical age, which is perhaps not surprising given their intense interest in mathematics. One of the most thorough of these early systematic explorations of equality was undertaken by Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) in several of his works.”

Equality Overview: Ancient Views Of Equality.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://science.jrank.org/pages/9186/Equality-Overview-Ancient-Views-Equality.html

[vi] “Before this Message is over, you’ll see it’s THUS SAITH THE LORD, by Word and by Spirit. Israel will be converted over, the whole nation, in one night. The Bible said so. But the Gospel is not even to them. There is a few renegades that’s out, and so forth like that, that come in, and outside the main body of Jews, that come in and get saved.”

Branham, William.  1961, July 30.  Gabriel’s Instructions To Daniel.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[vii] “It’s your American privilege, you say. Oh, yeah. If you’re a lamb, a lamb forfeits his rights. He don’t have but one thing: wool, and he forfeits that. If you’re a lamb you’ll forfeit your American rights to serve God.”

Branham, William.  1962, July 13.  From That Time.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[viii] “There is no hog, no dog, or no other animal, designed like her or can stoop as low as she can stoop. Now, that is true.”

Branham, William.  1965, Feb 21.  Marriage and Divorce.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/women

[ix] “But woman’s place is at home in the kitchen, and when she leaves that she’s out of her place. Exactly right.”

Branham, William. 1957, Jul 27.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[x] “I wished I had time to read that from the Greek here, what it said. Said, “If your women want to know anything, let them ask their husbands, because it’s shameful and disgraceful for a woman to even speak in the church. The Greek says that—I mean, the Hebrew. “As also saith the law let them be in silent with all subjections to the pastor

Branham, William.  1959, Jun 28.  Questions And Answers.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xi] “Excuse this, young ladies. She is nothing but a human garbage can, a sex exposal. That’s all she is, an immoral woman, is a human sexual garbage can, a pollution, where filthy, dirty, ornery, low-down filth is disposed by her. What is she made this way for? For deception. Every sin that ever was on the earth was caused by a woman. And an analyst just from Chicago, a—a woman wrote this article, the police force; that they chased down, in United States, metropolitan United States, that “Ninety-eight percent of every crime that was ever did in any form, in the United States, there was either a woman in it or behind it.”

Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xii] “You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that’s the Truth. Satan designed her. He still does it.”

Branham, William.  1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xiii] “But she is designed to be a sex act, and no other animal is designed like that. No other creature on the earth is designed like that.”

Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xiv] “I am God’s Voice to you. See? I say that again. That time was under inspiration.”

Branham, William.  1951, May 5 – My Commission. Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xv] “You would find out how illiterate they were. She’d beat her till she’d be so full of welts, you couldn’t get the clothes over the top of them. That’s what needs to be done tonight.”

Branham, William. 1956, Jul 28. Making The Valley Full Of Ditches Shreveport.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/physical_abuse

[xvi] “All right, men, here you are. Any man that’ll let his wife smoke cigarettes and wear them kind of clothes, shows what he’s made out of. He’s not very much of a man. That’s exactly right. True. He don’t love her or he’d take a board and blister her with it. You know that’s the truth. Now, I don’t say that to be smart. I’m telling you the truth. That’s right.”

Branham, William.  1958, Mar 24.  Hear Ye Him.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/physical_abuse

[xvii] Ex: “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:39

[xviii] Ex: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”  Matthew 5:32

[xix] “You shall not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14

[xx] Ex: “Now. First Corinthians, 7th chapter, 15th verse. Now, the question they asked: Brother Branham, does this mean a sister or a brother is free to remarry? No. See, you don’t get his question there and what he’s saying. They’re not free. See, that would make a contradiction in the Scripture, and the Scriptures doesn’t contradict themselves at all.”.

Branham, William. 1962, May 27. Questions And Answers.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/divorce_and_remarriage

[xxi] Ex: 3 Beautiful Truths Every Divorced Christian Needs to Know.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/3-beautiful-truths-every-divorced-christian-needs-to-know.html

[xxii] Ex: I’m A Survivor.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://castingpearlsproject.com/im-a-survivor

[xxiii] Ex: A Long Journey.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://castingpearlsproject.com/a-long-journey

[xxiv] Ex: William Branham and my Deliverance from A Religious Prison.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTvhbjsvVqI

[xxv] Doomsday Predictions.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/doomsday_predictions

[xxvi] The Table.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://table.branham.org

[xxvii] Stage Persona.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/stage_persona

[xxviii] Ex: Justification, Sanctification, and the Holy Spirit.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Justification,_Sanctification,_and_the_Holy_Spirit

[xxix] The Prophecies of William Branham Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=The_Prophecies_of_William_Branham

[xxx] Ex: William Branham and the Bible .  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/William_Branham_and_the_Bible

[xxxi] Ex: Trinity.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/trinity

[xxxii] Ex: William Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5870-william-branham

[xxxiii] Ex.  Concerning Cults-William Branham (Part 1). Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://www.evangelical-times.org/26489/concerning-cults-william-branham-part-1

[xxxiv] “I am the minister who received Brother Branham into the first Pentecostal assembly he ever frequented. I baptized him, and was his pastor for some two years. I also preached his ordination sermon, and signed his ordination certificate, and heard him preach his first sermon.” (Rev. Roy E. Davis.)

Wm. Branham’s First Pastor.  1950, Oct.  The Voice of Healing.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/people/roy_e._davis

[xxxv] Meda Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/people/meda_branham

[xxxvi] Trinity.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/trinity

[xxxvii] Ex. Jesse Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/people/jesse_branham

[xxxviii] Willam Branham alleged that the marriage of his son was annulled, but court records confirm their separation by divorce in the Clark County Courthouse.

[xxxix] “See, she has got a living husband, so no man can marry her. Care what she does and who she is, she’s got a living husband, there is no grounds for her at all. But, it’s not, for him. “Causes her,” not him. Get it? You have to make the Word run in continuity. See, nothing saying he couldn’t, but she can’t. See, “causes her,” not him. That’s exactly what the Bible says, “causes her.” It is not stated against him to remarry, but “her.” Why? Christ in the type. Notice, it is stated that he cannot remarry, only a virgin. He can remarry. He can, he can remarry again if it’s a virgin, but he can’t marry somebody else’s wife. No indeedy. And if he does marry a divorced woman, he is living in adultery, I don’t care who he is. The Bible said, “Whosoever marrieth her that is put away, liveth in adultery.” There you are, not no divorcees. See that original back there, “from the beginning,” now? Remarrying, now notice, he can, but she can’t. Like David, like Solomon, like the continuity of the whole Bible, now, same as David and the rest of them.”

Branham, William. 1965, February 21. Marriage And Divorce.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from https://william-branham.org/site/topics/divorce_and_remarriage

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/collins-five.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-220. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 3,916

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson founded Hawkeye Associates. Carey Linde founded Divorce for Men (Law Offices of Carey Linde). They discuss: some qualifications; transgender identities and transsexual identities; dominant orientation of the psychological community; historical perspective on the issue; the current social and political context in Canada now; the impacts of these social and political contexts on conversations around transgender identities and transsexual identities; the position taken by Mr. Linde impressing Dr. Robertson; confusion of the public on terminology; and the psychological science definition of the self in relation to transgender identities and transsexual identities.

Keywords: Carey Linde, Divorce for Men, Hawkeye Associates, Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, psychological science, self, Transgender, Transsexual.

An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self: Founder, Divorce for Men (Law Offices of Carey Linde) & Founder, Hawkeye Associates (Part One)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s begin with some open statements, not on general but, on relevant expertise in these areas. On transgender identities and transsexual identities, what are the relevant areas of expertise or qualification, or professional experience, for each of you?

Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: I know Carey primarily from newspaper reports, and I admire him for taking an unpopular and public stand while representing a father who argued his daughter should wait until she was 16 before transitioning into a male form. I know none of the actors in this case and therefore I cannot comment as a psychologist on any of their motivations, but the public discussion demonstrated, I think, confusion over terminology and a hardening of positions that sometimes trumped reason. I would like to hear Carey’s views on this.

My own area of expertise within psychology is the self, and I have a book coming out on that subject this fall. Transwomen volunteered to become research participants in two research projects I conducted: one on mapping the self and the other on the stigmatization of men. In one case the subject had a series of bad experiences with males, and ze viewed short hair as a sign of evil. Another subject had a series of bad experiences with women, but both viewed themselves to be part of a third gender separate from men or women so the term “transgender” was not really appropriate in their cases. I have also worked with trans people in my private practice, and I have a personal interest in this area. My cousin and I were raised together as kids and ze transitioned when ze was in his fifties. I think of my cousin as a “her” when remembering her in female form, but as a “him” in his present male form. I suspect this tells you more about me than him, but I suspect I am probably normative on this point.

2. Jacobsen: To define terms scientifically, psychologically, and colloquially, what are transgender identities? What are transsexual identities?

Carey Linde: For a person feeling their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth they can adopt 3 degrees of transitioning:

  1. They can adopt an opposite gender name, assume the clothes and hairstyle and outward manifestations of the opposite sex. Perform and present as if the opposite sex. This is called social transitioning.
  2. After a period of time and psychological if not psychiatric counselling, and a medical determination that the person suffers gender dysphoria, or perhaps not, the person can receive opposite sex hormones. This is called hormonal transitioning.
  3. After further counselling and medical attention, a person can undergo genital reassignment surgery. Women desiring to be men, will have double mastectomies. The term transsexual is currently narrowing to describe this 3rd stage.

Robertson: I am going to disagree with Carey a little here, although I acknowledge he is using politically correct definitions, and probably the definitions that are used in court. The idea that sex is assigned at birth is just silly. Human infants are born with penises or vaginas (some are intersex but they are a vanishingly small percentage). We do not assign the sex, but we notice and name the difference.

There is a stronger argument that we assign gender at birth. The term “gender” was appropriated from the study of grammar in English speaking countries during the 1960s to represent learned roles, behaviours and associations associated with sex: we teach girls to act as girls and boys to act as boys. What we have learned since then is that much of what we thought was learned with respect to personality, behaviours and even interests is innate, and that men’s and women’s brains are different in some ways. An excellent primer on this is Steven Pinker’s classic The Blank Slate.

The fact that we are not “blank slates” does not mean we are all the same. Both women and men exhibit a large spectrum of behaviours with considerable overlap with the result that it is a mistake to overgeneralize and say “this is what men are like” or “this is what women are like.” A problem with the concept of gender; it tends to lead to just that. At one time people who were cross-dressers, or were “masculine” women and “feminine” men still retained their biological sex identification. Now many are considering themselves “transgender” without any intention of changing their sexual characteristics. I read a newspaper account of a biological woman who is having a child and wants to be named as the child’s father. You can see that the concept of gender is actually restricting diversity by suggesting to people who do not adhere to what are now considered gender norms for that sex are not really of that sex, and that gender trumps sex. The term “transsexual” is more objective. A person who has completed hormonal and surgical sex change has now changed their sex, and we can see that this is so.

3. Jacobsen: Dr. Robertson, what seems like the dominant orientation of the psychological community – across schools of psychological thought – on the question of heritability of general intelligence, personality, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, inasmuch as a consensus exists on these areas of ongoing research?

Robertson: It’s nature and nurture. Twin studies, for example, suggest that intelligence is .80 heritable. Similarly, the “big five” personality traits including extroversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness are not only highly heritable, but are predictive of voting patterns. Sex is 99.7% heritable if we define sex by one’s genitalia. In identical twin studies, 52% of gays whose twin was gay were also gay. Gender is not heritable by definition if we view gender as learned behaviour distinct from sex. Sex linked characteristics are heritable and may vary with individuals. We build our gender identities to accommodate our biology from a menu provided by society. That menu is changing.

4. Jacobsen: To take a historical perspective, what are some of the oldest substantiated cases of transgender and transsexual identities known in the anthropological records?

Linde: Here I have to plead lack of time at this moment to get into detail. There are numerous web sites treating this subject. Historians and even archeologists have and are reporting presumed evidence for trans people through out history, either as individuals or segments of societies. I have just started listening to an Audible book Transgender History by Susan Stryker. It canvases the history from colonial USA to present.

Robertson: Cultures indigenous to North America often had a category of “two-spirited” people who dressed and took on many of the roles of the other sex, but also had special roles assigned to them. The role of male “two-spirited” people among the Cree, for example, was to break up fights and negotiate peaceful behaviours. Here we have the example of people of the male sex, dressing like women, taking on female roles such as making pemmican, but also doing more dangerous work as peace officers. This could be interpreted as a third gender and supports the idea that transsexual people probably existed in Neolithic societies prior to recorded history.

5. Jacobsen: To set a tone for expectations of some interpretations and misinterpretations of the responses, even the questions, for the interview with the two of you, what is the current social and political context (or are the current social and political contexts) for Canadian society now? 

Linde: Again, I feel the need to refer to the extensive existing opinion on this. It depends on who you ask. SJWs thinks the future looks great, despite the continuing struggle to get there. Gender critical feminists (TERFs) see unmitigated disaster. Take your pick.

Having said that, it is a mugs game trying to make any statement about how “regular” citizens of Canada think. Mainstream media bias has kept what little is reported almost exclusively supportive of the SJW warriors. It is my sense that the majority of Canadians, for instance, do not agree with the idea of trans women (men to most) in protected women’s spaces.

Robertson: I think Canada is a tolerant society compared to most in recorded history. We have encouraged people from minority cultures to maintain their cultures and languages, we have enshrined aboriginal rights in our constitution, we have even taken down statues of the founding father of the country because his memory offended some people. These accommodations are rare in human history and have only occurred during the modern era. I think overwhelmingly most Canadians support social justice, but we may have differences on what that means. 

When Carey is talking about social justice warriors, in this context, he must be talking about the activists in the transgender movement who attempt to prevent people whose opinions they abhor from speaking in universities and libraries. But what he misses, I think, is that the gender critical feminists are also social justice warriors. They are directly descended from the radical feminists who were and continue to be almost androphobic in their fear of men as oppressors of women. We are asking these women to share their safe spaces in bathrooms to women’s shelters to people who have penises.

I agree with the transactivists who say this fear is often overblown. Most men define their gender role as protecting women, not oppressing them. Further men who identify as women would be expected to be less likely to assault those that they wish to emulate. Having said that, some men are a threat to women, and the subjective and fluid nature of gender allows such men to declare themselves to be women so as to gain predatory access.

I agree with Carey that most Canadians do not want men or women with penises in protected women’s spaces. I see a coalition forming that would have been unthinkable just ten years ago. The radical feminists and the traditional women represented by organizations such as Real Women agree on this issue. This coalition could spell disaster for some of the people I care about deeply.

6. Jacobsen: How does this social and political context (or do these social and political contexts) impact the conversations on transgender identities and transsexual identities?

Linde: If by “conversations” you mean two or more people in rational polite discourse, there is none, zero, squat. No one is talking to any one of the opposite belief. The gender critical feminists regularly invite participation from the trans warriors. None accept.

A further unknown is to what extent can it be said the ANTIFA led demonstrators who show up to shut down the symposiums of gender critical feminists represent anyone other than themselves?

Robertson: I love my cousin. I watched her battle recurrent major depression for decades and since he transitioned he has been depression-free. He was able to transition, and thousands like him, because we live in a relatively tolerant society with people who see the social justice of it. But in an outright battle between a feminist-traditionalist alliance and the transactivists, I can see many of these gains being lost. I agree with Carey that no one is talking to each other, but we need to begin this dialogue, and soon.

For my contribution to this dialogue, I would like to propose we discard the language of transgenderism. In the first place, the idea of transgender is binary, and this restricts us from considering the possibility that there may be three, four, or even more genders. Second, the idea of gender is subjective. Cross-dressers, female impersonators and people who simply prefer what they see as the normative behaviours of the opposite sex can call themselves transgender. I see nothing wrong with that except gender cannot be allowed to trump sex. In Vancouver, we have seen a transwoman complain to a human rights tribunal that a gynecologist refused to examine zer male genitals. If you believe the precept of genderism that male and femaleness is a matter of cultural preference, you can see the logic of this, except that gynecologists have no training in working on male genitalia. But the structure of transgender ideology is rife with such contradictions.

I prefer the concept of transsexualism. If a person believes that they were born into the wrong body, then it is therapeutic that they change their body. Once a person has transitioned to the body of their preferred sex, then they should have no problem occupying the spaces of that sex. We can negotiate special protections for those in the process of transitioning. What of the people who have no interest in changing their sex? Well, in a tolerant society you can live as a man or a woman in any way you desire as long as you do not pose a threat to others. I think by focussing on transsexualism we can reach compromises in the interests of all sides.

7. Jacobsen: In question 1’s response, Dr. Robertson references a case by you, Mr. Linde. He was impressed by the courageous position taken on a father of a 16-year-old child. He could not comment on it. You could comment on it. What were the details of this case, Mr. Linde? Dr. Robertson, what was the more impressive position taken by Mr. Linde?

Linde: The client had a 14-year-old child identified as female at birth. In grade 7 the school gave the child a male name without telling the father. He found when reading the year book and found a male name under the photo of his child.  I grade 8 the school moved the child along the treadmill leading to a trans pro psychologist and to the Gender Clinic at a local hospital. The clinic advised the parents the child was going to receive puberty blockers and opposite-sex hormones. The father objected and the matter ended up in court.

The 2 lower court judgments and the decision on the appeal of those 2 judgments can be seen at

https://divorce-for-men.com/resources/social-justice-identity-politics/vancouver-14-yr-old-trans-gendering/

Robertson: I think I said that the father, in this case, wanted his progeny to wait until ze was 16 to commence her biological sex change, but he lost the case. There are potential arguments on both sides of such cases. On the one hand, adolescence is a time of exploration with respect to sexuality. Given this, the request of the father seems prudent; however, an alternate conclusion could reasonably be reached where the child is suicidal. Unfortunately, there are websites coaching children of 12 or 13, or even younger, on how to appear suicidal so as to convince professionals and courts that a sex change is necessary. Complicating the issue is the fact that post-transition youth also have a higher than average suicide rate. There are psychological reasons why a child might make the determination that they were “born in the wrong body,” and if I understand this case correctly, the father’s fear was once his daughter began to transition into his son through hormonal blockers, the transition would be a fait accompli. We need a societal conversation on these issues, but, to date, the conversation has been rather one-sided with people who question transactivist orthodoxy “deplatformed” or silenced. What I appreciated about Carey’s stand is that he presented an unpopular position on an issue where discussion has been repressed. I do not know what the professional fall-out has been for him, if any, but I imagine the pressure was immense.

8. Jacobsen: Dr. Robertson, you mentioned the confusion of the public in terminology. What confusions were present in this case? Mr. Linde, what sparked original interest in the aforementioned case? Also, to the two of you, did the case come to a resolution?

Linde: I came aboard on the case because I felt the father had not been treated fairly in the whole mishmash. Also, I objected to the manner in which the court was denying the father freedom of expression.

The appeal court allowed the hormone treatment to remain but broke open speech freedom a little bit. Most importantly it established that misuse of pronouns and name could not be family violence. The court ducked the issue of the best interest of the child stating that was up to the doctors. It strongly implied the doctor had to look at a lot more than merely the child’s felt gender wish.

Robertson: I think the term “transgender” is the source of much of this confusion. The federal legislation giving human rights protection to “gender identity” was ill-thought out and added to the confusion. As we have seen, gender is learned behaviours associated with sex-roles. Identity is how we choose to define ourselves, and that can change over time. But much public policy conflates this with the assumption that gender is somehow innate. For some purposes in the public arena, gender is learned; for others, it is a synonym for sex, and which rule is applied seems arbitrary. This confusion leads to poor decision making.

9. Jacobsen: Dr. Robertson, how does the psychological science definition of the self link to the issues here on transsexuality and transgenderism?

Linde: Above my pay grade.

Robertson: As I said in response to a previous question, the psychological consensus is that we are a product of both nature and nurture.  In my academic writing, I have argued that the self is a culturally evolved structure that has come to give definition to our species. The very name we give ourselves “homo sapiens” suggests we are rational and volitional. But to exercise these potentialities, we need to have them embedded in our self.

The self is not entirely a cognitivist structure. Years ago Demasio suggested there existed an emotive “feeling of me.” Further research has identified differences between the male and female brain, and such research supports the idea that at least some transsexuals were indeed “born in the wrong body,” with regard to the structure of their brains. We also need to recognize, however, that there are other possible routes to transsexuality. A further complication is that homosexuals also often exhibit this cerebral variation as do some heterosexuals.

In the end, however, we develop a kind of mental map of who we are, and we act as though the self-identifiers in that map are true. I present the self-map of a transwoman in a book that will be published by University of Ottawa Press this fall. Not unsurprisingly, the self-map includes two clusters – male and female. The memes ze placed in the male cluster were all things ze did not like about herself including being bald, mortal, old, depressed and self-defeating as well as being male. The memes in the feminine cluster included being creative, sensual, hopeful, intellectual and a writer. Ze pictured a war going on within this self between masculine and feminine sides; however, this is surely wrong. The male side had no consciousness capable of making war, it was merely the repository of unwanted characteristics. For example, “self-defeating” referred to the subject’s habit of ensuring failure when on the brink of success. Ze said, “no testacles will benefit from my success.” The essential components of our evolved self including volition, uniqueness, productivity and social interest were all on the female side. It was a war like a person is making war on nature when he, she or ze mows the lawn. In keeping with that metaphor, ze had zer testes removed during the course of our interviews.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Founder, Divorce for Men (Law Offices of Carey Linde). Founder, Hawkeye Associates.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Carey Linde and Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson on Transgender Identities, Transsexual Identities, Current and Historical Orientations, and Psychological Science Definition of the Self (Part One) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/linde-robertson-one.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,940

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Matthew Scillitani, member of The Glia Society and The Giga Society, is a web developer and SEO specialist living in North Carolina. He is of Italian and British lineage, and is predominantly English-speaking. He earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology at East Carolina University, with a focus on neurobiology and a minor in business marketing. He’s previously worked as a research psychologist, data analyst, and writer, publishing over three hundred papers on topics such as nutrition, fitness, psychology, neuroscience, free will, and Greek history. You may contact him via e-mail at mattscil@gmail.com. He discusses: the American Left; status of the Right in America; status of the Left in America; 2020 fault lines between the Left and the Right; strengths and weaknesses of the Trump Administration and President Trump; social media and American values; social media and negative American stereotypes; dirty tactics used by the Left; dirty tactics used by the Right; strengths and weaknesses of the Left and the Right in America; and bridging the gulf between the American Left and Right.

Keywords: America, Giga Society, Glia Society, Left, Matthew Scillitani, politics, Right, Trump.

An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States: Member, Giga Society; Member, Glia Society (Part Three)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There exists a left-right polarity in the United States. Its ideals becoming split by demographics, by states, by age, even by sex and gender. When the polarity, like a rubber band, stretches beyond a particular capacity of the public’s tolerance, there can be flare-ups. Let’s talk about politics, you hold no particular bias in political affiliation or too much emotional attachment to political philosophies. This can give a basis for reasoned considerations on the political dynamics of the United States. “Left” and “Right” used as simplifiers for the purposes of Part Three’s interview. What is the status of the Left in America? 

Matthew Scillitani: The Left is not doing too well in the United States right now. This is mostly because of a growing number of extremists in addition to a divide between the media and ordinary party members. These extremists, which are largely made up of young adults, make the most noise and have greater media coverage from both the Right and Left news outlets. Because of their actions much damage is being done to the Left’s public image. This problem is made even worse from the media blurring the line between the beliefs of a few extremists and the moderate Left.

The pendulum will swing back in the Left’s favour soon though. I think Trump will probably win the 2020 election and then we’ll see a Democrat take office in 2024.

2. Jacobsen: What is the status of the Right in America?  

Scillitani: The Right is doing better than the Left in terms of governmental control but ordinary party members aren’t doing too well. This is because the media has convinced leftists that the Right is comprised of racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots. This is largely untrue, and there is probably no more of those people in either party, but the harm this causes the Right is enormous. Many rightists are afraid of revealing their party affiliation out of fear of being called a Nazi or some other such term that would get them fired from their jobs and ostracized from their social groups.

This treatment by the media has made some rightists so resentful that they’ve adopted the same beliefs that the media said they had from the offset.

3. Jacobsen: What are the main fault lines between the Left and the Right in 2020 America?

Scillitani: There are many fault lines between the Left and Right in America today. The main ones being related to immigration, economics, governmental involvement, social order, morality, healthcare, and general human rights. The Right mostly advocates for individualism, nationalism, and capitalism with the Left mostly advocating for collectivism, egalitarianism, and socialism.

4. Jacobsen: With President Trump and the Trump Administration as a whole, what seems like the strengths and weaknesses of the leadership of the former, in particular, and the latter, in general?

Scillitani: Trump’s strengths lie in his assertiveness and business acumen while his weaknesses are social immaturity and inclination for bullying. The former two qualities are good for rightists since Trump and his administration have gotten quite a lot done this current presidential term. The latter two qualities are not so good since it harms America’s image to much of the Western world. Some of the Eastern world seems to view Trump as a cultural icon in spite of those qualities though.

5. Jacobsen: How are social media helping to promote positive American values?

Scillitani: That’s a tricky question to answer because I’m not sure if social media does that. Social media lowers social accountability, which leads to bullying, and lets people with rare and extreme beliefs find others with shared interests and live in a ‘bubble’ with them. I’m convinced that if there were no social media then the divide between the Left and Right would be much narrower and we’d be better off for it.

6. Jacobsen: How are social media promoting negative American stereotypes? 

Scillitani: That it’s so easy to find uneducated, unintelligent, ignorant people with strong opinions and thousands of likes on their posts is not very good. This leads to a lot of young people thinking that these very poor opinions are factual. Many social media outlets are now censoring racist, sexist, or mean-spirited comments, which helps prevent some negative American stereotypes somewhat. However, it’s debatable whether or not it’s a good idea to remove those comments, and it may end up being a bad thing in the end. We will have to wait and see what happens.

7. Jacobsen: What are the dirty tactics used by the Left in political rhetoric and in political campaigns?

Scillitani: Bullying, fear mongering, suppressing certain groups while claiming that voting leftists into office will help the same groups they’re suppressing, and creating imaginary problems that voting leftist politicians into office would solve. Left-wing media and politicians make leftists afraid of rightists and their beliefs, even if it means inventing imaginary problems. One such example being blaming the Right for misogyny, something so incredibly rare in the Western world that all of the protests and riots being done by modern feminists ends up being both unnecessary and harmful.

The Left also convinces minorities that they need the government to take care of them and that the Right couldn’t care less about their welfare. This is untrue and, ironically, betrays that the leftist politicians and media are the abusers to these groups.

8. Jacobsen: What are the dirty tactics used by the Right in political rhetoric and in political campaigns? 

Scillitani: Also bullying, fear mongering, and creating imaginary problems that voting rightist politicians into office would solve. The bullying is of the same variety that the Left uses, which is mostly name-calling and shaming opposing party members. The Right’s flavor of fear mongering isn’t from fear of progression but from fear of cultural collapse. Rightists think that mass immigration, socialism, and egalitarianism in general would cause America’s culture to change for the worse. It’s unfortunate that those things would, in fact, cause major changes to American culture, and not in the direction they would prefer.

Some imaginary problems that right-wing politicians use to scare the Right into voting for them are usually related to socialism. Things like, ‘if we adopt a socialist economic system then nobody will want to work demanding jobs’ or ‘everybody is poor under socialism’. These claims aren’t true, and it seems that rightist politicians purposefully confound socialism with communism in order to demonize that economic system.

9. Jacobsen: What are the strengths and weaknesses and the Left and the Right, respectively, in America?

Scillitani: The Left’s biggest strengths lie in their collectivism and desire to help others. The latter strength also doubles as a weakness since having too much empathy makes it easy for the media and politicians to convince them to do unethical things under the guise that to do otherwise would cause harm to some other group. The Right’s biggest strengths lie in their assertiveness and desire for self-improvement. Their biggest weakness is being too individualistic and therefore losing any sense of community and ‘strength in numbers’ that the Left has.

10. Jacobsen: What may bridge some of the political divides in the United States for a healthier public discourse?

Scillitani: Probably staying off of social media and turning the news off from time to time, chatting with people who have different opinions, and reading some history books.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Member, Giga Society; Member, Glia Society. Bachelor’s Degree, Psychology, East Carolina University.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/. Image Credit: Matthew Scillitani.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Matthew Scillitani on Left-Right Polarity and Extremity in the United States (Part Three) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/scillitani-three.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 22, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,021

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios. His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students, and his love for history in general, mainly around the time period of the 19th century to the 20th century. Tor Arne works as a teacher at high school level with subjects as; History, Religion, and Social Studies. He discusses: family background; facets of the larger self; prescient moments in early formation; guardians and mentors of import; significant books and authors to him; pivotal educational moments; postsecondary education; HRT scores; participating in a like ability community; and main areas of intellectual interest.

Keywords: Arbeider parties, E.H. Carr, HRT, Mark Mazower, Peter Singer, Tor Arne Jørgensen, Winston Churchill, WWII.

An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is family background or lineage, e.g., surname(s) etymology (etymologies), geography, culture, language, religion/non-religion, political suasion, social outlook, scientific training, and the like?

Tor Arne Jørgensen: As my family background goes, my parents are from a small town further south from where I live today, called Lillesand a town in the south of Norway, my own hometown is called Grimstad. These small towns are very busy during the summer months, but very quiet during the winter months. My mother was a stay-at-home mom and was very caring. My father was active during WWII, and was awarded several medals for his bravery during the last part of the pacific war where he shot down two kamikaze pilots. As education goes, they were not highly educated, just primary school education. As religion goes none of my family is especially religious, even though we come from the so-called “bible belt” in the south of Norway. To the question of politics, then yes I was active in my younger days within AUF, the youth party of the Norwegian workers’ party (Arbeider partiet) short for Ap. I am no longer as active as I use to be, but I am still politically updated for my own personal interest and the fact that I teach within the fields of history and social studies at the high school level. In general, I keep myself very busy with first and foremost regards to my family, then my studies, work, and fitness, intelligence and more. The future endeavours for me are to finish my education and keep moving forward within the social structures of high intelligence. Also with the intent to further educate people about giftedness, and to address equality for all pupils and students alike of both sides of the intelligence scale.

2. Jacobsen: With all these facets of the larger self, how did these become the familial ecosystem to form identity and a sense of a self extended through time?    

Jørgensen: As forming my self extended, I found that serving the people around me to be an intent in the degree of the further foundation for a greater purpose in life. My childhood has shaped me to focus about what does now matter most for me in regards to helping others in achieving their goals in their lives. As to identity of self-awareness, I had a tough childhood that forced me into making adult decisions at an early age regards to the choices that I had to make for myself and that have guided me ever since.

3. Jacobsen: Of those aforementioned influences, what ones seem the most prescient for early formation?  

Jørgensen: The ability to see past my own boundaries, thus shaping the surrounding elements in early childhood. This has always been and still is my foremost ability as the ground of early formation regards to past, present, and future.

4. Jacobsen: What adults, mentors, or guardians became, in hindsight, the most influential on you?  

Jørgensen: The role models in my life are not many, I like to look at myself as my own role model. I set the standards very high for myself and have always done so. The people around me have that, in some way looked to me for guidance. But there is one person I will bring forward and this person is Winston Churchill, the reason for this is his efforts in bringing about the perceptions about mental determination in regards to the war efforts during WWII. He has by that fact set the standard for the mental mindset to be followed by others myself included.

5. Jacobsen: As a young reader, in childhood and adolescence, what authors and books were significant, meaningful, to worldview formation? 

Jørgensen: Books that have been a big influence in my life is mostly based on facts, I was never a big lover of books about fiction but rather books about facts caught my attention. I started reading at an early age on my own around age 7 and upwards, but I never had a fixed focus I just read everything I could get my hands on at that time. I now read books like; Mark Mazower – Governing The World: The history of an idea, E.H. Carr – The Twenty Years Crises 1919 – 1939, Peter Singer – Practical Ethics, just to name a few. I now would like to dive into world politics, global history, educational systems in a national/global sense, and the world beyond!

6. Jacobsen: What were pivotal educational – as in, in school or autodidacticism – moments from childhood to young adulthood?  

Jørgensen: As to education, the most important learning factor was my intuitive mindset with regards to self-awareness.  What does this entail, well my primary school was fine as normal learning curve goes, but what when the school can not provide beyond that fact. Then the self-education comes into play, people with high intelligence can in many ways tap into this self-learning ability in order to compensate for the lack of skills within external learning environments, such as the ordinary school system. This has in many ways been my lifeline as education goes.

7. Jacobsen: For formal postsecondary education, what were the areas of deepest interest? What were some with a passion but not pursued? Why not pursue them?

Jørgensen: As postsecondary education goes, my interest in history and the time period around the founding of our country in 1814, and the start of democracy, has for me been the biggest interest within this particular field. I have since taken a bachelor’s degree in history involved; 1814 and the start of our constitution. I will pursue a master’s degree later on, also directed toward the same topic sometime in the future. As passions not pursued further, I would like to have pursued educational language in a much bigger sense, to be able to learn more about languages has always been of interest, but not followed through educational wise. Why not now then, lack of time, just that lack of time. 

8. Jacobsen: What have been some of the intelligence tests taken and the scores earned over time – with standard deviations too, please?

Jørgensen: I have taken many HR-tests; the test scores vary from low 140+ sd15 up to high 172 sd15. I did many mistakes in my past with regards to early tests as I scored low by the fact of rushing these tests and thus hurting my end score. I have found out later I need to take my time and not stress myself with quick response to the tests themselves. I am a deep analyst. Also, I feel I have not peeked yet, I know in time I will score 175+. Here is some of the test I have tried out so far; Asterix of Jason Betts-153 sd15, World IQ Challenge of Brennan Martin-140 sd15, Gift verbal 1-4 of Iakovos Koukas average score around 164+ sd15, and Lexiq of Soulios 172 sd15. 

9. Jacobsen: What has been the participation in the high-IQ community for you?

Jørgensen: Get to meet new people that share the same interest as me, and to be able to compete against some of the most brilliant minds in the world to solve HR-tests, also to be able to discuss topics such as education, art, science, math and more…

10. Jacobsen: What are the main areas of intellectual and reading interest for you?  

Jørgensen: I will address this last question in the manner of intellectual interest and right of equal education for all.

Last year (2019) I was awarded the WGD – Genius Of The Year – Europe, (GOTY). As an ambassador for the high IQ community, it was a great honour for me to receive this prestigious award. With it, I got to address the Norwegian media about the high IQ community, and I also spoke about the need for equal education for both the gifted pupils as the non-gifted pupils in regards to Norwegian schools and their educational quality thereof. This is for me now the main focus as to my further endeavours, with it I hope to bring about the attention as to what can be done to make sure that the gifted pupils can maximize their true intellectual potential at primary school level and beyond.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Child and Youth Worker.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Background, Identity, Mentors, Education, and Interests (Part One) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jørgensen-one.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 22, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,168

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Dr. Giuseppe Corrente is a Computer Science teacher at Torino University. He earned a Ph.D. in Science and High Technology – Computer Science in 2013 at Torino University. He has contributed to the World Intelligence Network’s publication Phenomenon. He discusses: interest in giftedness and the developmental trajectory of the gifted child compared to the non-gifted child; traumatic upbringing as an influence on the personal perspective of the needs of the gifted; recognized levels and labels of gifted children; differential needs of gifted children of different levels; 

Keywords: exceptionally gifted, giftedness, Giuseppe Corrente, highly gifted, profoundly gifted.

An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for the Part One to provide an insight into the developments of the personal story.  As you have an interest in gifted education, how does the developmental trajectory of a gifted child differ from a non-gifted child?

Dr. Giuseppe Corrente: This is not my field properly, but from a couple of years, being a teacher and a temporary university professor, I have an interest in all education theories. In particular, I have since 2017 been a member of a High IQ Society, and since that time I understand better, also rewinding my personal history from this point of view, that high IQ people need particular attention in a psychological and educational way. One commonplace is that if one is clever than others he is stronger, this is not true! He has some stronger points but he also may present some critical points. Indeed, the interaction between him and the surrounding environment can cause different contrasts and misunderstandings to both.

2. Jacobsen: How does the traumatic upbringing, for you, influence the personal perspective on the needs of the gifted?

Corrente: My personal history is full of psychological violence in the family and in the company, above all the first company for which I worked. The situation, in that case, was not clear because the fact that I was contrasted it was because the education style of my father was excessively strong and people around him did not know the real reason for that. There were two main reasons; first of all, as recently proved, he was not my natural father; secondary he was invidious of my intelligence. Some people thought that he was not confident about me for something about me of wrong; and so, this abstract supposition originated also as an environmental and job mobbing.

However very clever people very often have problems like this; not ever in the same manner, or not ever for the same reasons, or not with the same path, but there are different possibilities that a high IQ person can empower some contrast or difficulty already existent, without awareness of the whole situation.

3. Jacobsen: What are the recognized labels and levels (with standard deviations and IQ scores) for gifted children? 

Corrente: The good tests for measuring high IQ do not give only a final index, IQ, but also different components, for example verbal, numeric, spatial, etc.  It is also the difference between a component and another and not only the total IQ, that can give an idea of if this can be also heavy and not only a vantage.

One of the most recognized high IQ tests for gifted educational purpose is WISC IV, as I have said before, it takes into account the different components of intelligence, for example: full-scale IQ (it is the final total result), verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.

I think a good classification may be: 125-129 superior intelligence, 130-144 gifted, 145-159 highly gifted, 160-174 exceptionally gifted, more than 175 profoundly gifted; all in standard deviation 15.

Take into account that while 1 over about 100 persons is gifted, only 1 over about 25,000 is exceptionally gifted, and almost none is profoundly gifted.

4. Jacobsen: What are the differential needs of children at each level? 

Corrente: For superior intelligent and gifted, I think it is possible using few special didactic methods in the class if it is not too numerous, without the need of special classes for gifted; for example, using cooperative learning stimulating socialization but also giving the gifted more difficult objectives and encouraging him to expose his results to others.

For exceptionally and profoundly gifted the question is fully different in my opinion, and would be necessary special classes for them, or simply to admit that a great part of them has no need for schools.

Anyway, it is very important to note that one gifted over three is an underachiever, so the study of gifted education is very useful both for the whole society.

A gifted, comprising highly, exceptional, and profound gifted, has a high probability to become an underachiever if the components of is IQ differ sensibly each other.

I think that for a lot of them it is very important also correct psychological support.

In my experience, it is very difficult to find psychologists specialized in this. If one gifted has also contrasts of different nature, above all some years ago but also now, it is very probable that the psychologist makes many errors if does not understand he is a high IQ person and how this fact interacts with others.

5. Jacobsen: What are the true signs and true proxies of the different labels of gifted children? 

Corrente: For gifted children, I do not know, for gifted in general I suppose is as follows.

For a superior intelligent person, he can learn faster than the mean person and this gives him a vantage among others in almost all careers, and also other life affairs. When if he becomes aware of this he will be ambitious or not, second of his character.

For a gifted and highly gifted, it is almost the same as gifted, but if he is a particular passion for a matter, and he has the possibility to dedicate himself to it, he can become a genius in that discipline. Moreover, he does not see the things as absolute or in a dogmatic way, but he thinks critically and he notes before than others if something is wrong above all in the matter subjects of his competence but also in other or more general questions. His critical way of thinking may give him some problems or not depending on the context and society in which he lives, above all if he does not manage his intuitions and criticism well. This interval is simple for me to analyze because it is the mine. Maybe, he is not a genius, but only a very skilled professional. He also can switch from his competence domain to others and become skilled in more disciplines without many difficulties. If in their childhood they have some integration contrast they will become easily underachiever, so it is possible also that his great potential remains unused.

For exceptionally or profoundly gifted we are speaking of persons so much different from mean people that is not correct to do generalizations; in my opinion, we can only study their way of reasoning individually. We are thinking of persons with a unique way of thinking.

6. Jacobsen: Who are some examples of the most gifted young people in the 19th through the early 21st centuries? Some mention John Stuart Mill in centuries past as a forced into extraordinary giftedness child.

Corrente: As already said for extremely gifted people we cannot trace in my opinion easily common traits. Someone of them has a very stable character and someone other has serious psychological or also legal problems.

A very clear example of this fact are two very different as characters, chess world champions: Kasparov and Fisher. Both were profoundly gifted. However, the first is a very squared man, and in spite of his political contestation against Russia’s Putin, can be considered a very equilibrated and successful man. In my opinion, he cannot suffer some things that are wrong in his social context, but he manages his ideas and his contrasts in a very high awareness and mature way. Fisher instead was a semi-asocial person that had a great passion for chess that dominated all his life. Perhaps he was Asperger, surely he had some features of this mental illness, not unusual for gifted or profoundly gifted. He had a lot of contrast with USA government and probably not for important questions, if he had a better character, or, as I suppose, if he would have managed better his criticism, or second someone his paranoid suspicious and suppositions, surely he spent a better life.

If I rethink the question they lived in periods successive to Stuart Mill, anyway thinking to his times I want to cite Gauss and Galois, more near to my interests than Mill. All they were almost surely profoundly gifted. Gauss was the most affirmed and brilliant math genius of his time, well balanced in his life. Galois was not famous, but he was very brilliant, he developed all alone a fully new math branch that also today is the base of many important math theories. All this in a few years because of his premature death. As Gauss was balanced, he was a strongly political revolutionary and at same time was a very deeply women lover. He was killed in a duel for this reason.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Ph.D. (2013), Science and High Technology – Computer Science, Torino University.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Giuseppe Corrente on Interest in Gifted Children and Gifted Education, and the Needs of the Gifted, Highly Gifted, Exceptionally Gifted, and Profoundly Gifted (Part Two) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/corrente-two.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Against Women Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 3,340

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Zara Kay is the Founder of Faithless Hijabi. She discusses: the why of founding Faithless Hijabi and its developments; statistics on violence against women; developments in backlash against fundamentalism; and the building of bridges, or not.

Keywords: Faithless Hijabi, Islam, ex-Muslim, religion, questioning, rights, violence, Zara Kay.

An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges: Founder, Faithless Hijabi (Part Two)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why found Faithless Hijabi, and what have been some of the developments since its founding?

Zara Kay: I only became a public atheist when – my first webcast was in September – so, recently. Before I even started it, on my Facebook – I knew I was going to start Faithless Hijabi. I realized there was a gap that was not being addressed. We have LGBT groups. We have women in data analytics groups, that I am proud of. We have specific groups for transgender people. They have Muslim women groups. Where are the ex-Muslim women groups?

We have forums on Reddit where people anonymously stage their questions or their dismay with religion, but there was not a one-on-one response. There was not a support group as such. There was not somebody who would go like, “I know what you are saying,” or “I have been through that.” There was not a library of stories that people could relate to.

Now that I look at all the stories. These have come from hundreds of different women, but there is so much overlap. It is like you are reading the same stories in different intensity from different people. There has been a common theme with the stories. It all starts up with abuse. It all starts with hijab. It starts with the mistreatment of women in the religion. It starts with Muslim women not getting their rights or forced marriages or ostracism or women wanting to come out bolder as compared to men.

On my news.com article, I also said that it is always different when women come out, versus when men come out. For women, if they are going to come out in public, or even to their families, they do not want to wear the hijab. They do not want to be subjugated any more. They want equal rights. They want to go to universities.

We have always had to fight for our rights, especially when you are fighting against a book, or especially when you are fighting against something that has been set in stone for you. You must come out bolder.

For men, a lot of their questions were to do with philosophy. For them, too, it was the misogyny. They are like, “Why are women treated like that?” But it is not unheard of that there are still misogynistic ex-Muslim men. It is not unheard of. I have had ex-Muslim men who I would think, that coming out of religion. We are not in that religion, but it has damaged, or has enabled that mindset already. The mindset has remained even after they have left religion, of not taking women as equals.

Misogyny and sexism are not an Islamic problem. It is not a religious problem. It is a world problem. It is every person’s problem.

2. Jacobsen: Two statistics come to mind for me, from relatively unassailable sources. One from the World Health Organization, or the United Nations. 35% of women, in their lifetime, will experience, as we know, sexual or physical intimate partner violence, or male sexual partner violence. “Intimate partner” is not a fancy term. It means husband or male sexual partner.

That is a little over one-third of the world population. It is going to vary between 20% and 40%, depending upon the region. Of course, the Middle East, we do not have the precise data, so it could be much worse there.

The second data point is from the FBI. It is also, apparently, the same number that came out of the Home Office of the UK in the mid-2000s when they were looking into thousands of rape cases. One of the worst crimes, apart from murder or something, that would fall under the category of violence against women.

According to this research of, again, not fringe sources, mainstream, reliable creators of information, they found that only 8% were unfounded cases. In other words, after an investigation, only 8% of rape cases were found to be false. In other words, the vast majority are not. These not only have to be taken seriously as a baseline, as a moral issue, given the weight of the claim, but also must be given the strong benefit of the doubt.

You are right. There is a firm empirical basis to back that claim, in multiple domains, not those two statistics from the-

Kay: There is a good article on it is called “The Lily”, on this 21-year-old Indian girl who went to the jails in India, interviewing rapists. She asked them, “Why did you rape?” Basically, the conclusion was these men did not even know they were raping them. These men were like, “But that is their role, right?”

Going back to Islam, marital rape is not recognized because you cannot say no to your husband for sex. Unless, you are on your period. You have a Hadith that says that angels curse you when you say, “No,” to your husband.

There have not been any explicit verses or Hadith that talk about the men saying, “No.” It has been known that men are the ones who crave sex more than the women, or that it is a woman’s role to say, “Yes.” The idea is what man would say, “No,” to sex, right?

It is so interesting that a lot of times, nobody ever looks into all of this, because when you tell Muslim women or Muslim men, “Did this verse exist?” I am happy for women to go like, “Hey, that is not fair,” or, “Yes. This hasn’t been my experience. I have not come across it.”

But for women to then go and defend it and say, “This is your right. Why would you get married then?” I am like, “Are you drawing down the value of your marriage only to have sex? Is that all your value as a married woman is to your husband?”

It feels like the misogyny and the sexism is not only imposed by the men. It is also imposed by women. Women are big enablers. There is surely a market for that. I am thinking of it in terms of business. It is like buying and selling a thing. If there weren’t any buyers for that idea, nobody would sell it. If there was nobody selling that idea, there would not be any buyers. It is a demand, supply chain.

It seems to me that there have been women who have accepted this. There have been women who have accepted that this is how they should be treated. Like you said, these are practices passed on from sisters, mothers, and parents.

Sex was a taboo topic in my family, so we never spoke about it, even when we had a group chat in my family. Even when I spoke about a surgery that I had, a cervical cancer surgery, my sister’s like, “Can you do it in an only women’s group?” I am like, “Why? It is biology. My brother has a wife and a daughter. He needs to know this.”

My brother and I, in a separate chat, talk about sex. I will tell him about my dates and everything. It is so funny how the sisters are the ones to tell you, “No,” when my brother is not uncomfortable with it. My brother does not want to take sides, so he lets the women deal with it. He was like, “I am going to stay silent.”

When you enable things like this, when you enable the idea that men shouldn’t know about women’s private parts, or men shouldn’t know about women’s transgressions. I guess, you are enabling that culture of one, the segregation, and two, putting women in a vulnerable position where they cannot talk about things.

I was not allowed to wear shorts at home. Even now, as I go back home. I had a big argument with my family. My mom is like, “You shouldn’t be wearing shorts.” I am like, “Why? It is my dad.” They are like, “Yes, it is your dad, but you are a girl and you shouldn’t be wearing shorts.”

I am like, “When you say these things in front of my dad, you are basically telling him that I am an object that can be seen in a sexual form, despite me being his daughter. You are putting the ideas in that head. You are enabling men to see me in that form. Had you not ever put it there…”

When I came to Australia, and I saw families where the daughters would wear shorts, I am like, “The dad allows it? How?” Then I realized, it is because they have not been raised to treat their daughters as properties or objects or tools for sexual gratification. That was what surprised me.

This is where I was having a chat. I am like, “If there was an apple there, and you tell the child not to ever eat it because it will hurt them, they are never going to eat it. If you raised them that way, they are never going to eat it. But if you tell them, ‘You see an apple you, go eat it, whether it is yours or not, you go eat it,’ they are going to do it.”

If you are raising men to treat women as sexual objects, they will. It was a bit disgusting to me because I was in that position, and my dad was there, and then my dad yelled at me for wearing shorts and told me I had no self-respect. Then I had this argument with him. “Why can you wear shorts, and why cannot I wear shorts?” He was like, “Because you are a woman.” That was so strange to me, hearing him say that.

It was because either early on, I did not recognize it because I had never worn shorts, and I am now becoming more aware of it, or that I was complying to it. I did not even realize it. I thought that way as well. That I should cover myself up, even in front of my dad because I could possibly turn him on. It is such a disgusting position to be in.

While I never faced any of that, women in Faithless Hijabi have been molested by their uncles, even their dads, or their stepdads. It is a common theme. I am sure it happens a lot in the West anyway, regardless of religion, but this seems to be more prevalent in societies where women are treated a degree below men.

3. Jacobsen: As we are moving more into 2019, what are you seeing as some of the reasons for fear and reasons for hope in terms of a growing ex-Muslim movement, much of it online, in addition to stronger backlash by more fundamentalist homes or theocratic governments?

Kay: In 2019, I only became an activist last year. Years before, I did not even know ex-Muslims existed. Now that I have become an activist, a lot of people are like, “Be safe. Be careful.” I did not realize what they were saying. To me, I was like, “I am fine. I live in Australia. It is fine. Nothing has ever happened to me.”

But I did receive a lot of online harassment pushback. Personally, it only helped me grow. It only helped me become stronger than all of that, but I can imagine it takes a mental toll on you. I failed to actively recognize it. I do not think even people who say, “Be safe,” or “Be careful,” think about it. They only perceive the backlash to be physical in nature, acid attacks, or being jailed, or raped. A lot of people forget the mental strain that it takes.

However, because the ex-Muslim movement is growing, like Faithless Hijabi, other ex-Muslim activists, more women talking out, I am trying to do quite a bit to normalize conversations. Last year, the no hijab movement did not have a lot of people posting it up. This year, a lot of people did. It is growing. I see 2019 and the future years to only keep growing regardless of the backlash.

I emailed a few Islamic scholars for a debate. Nobody responded. I want to open conversations. I want to see where the differences are. We have chosen this path. The best thing we can do is bridge that.

How can we stop people from being ostracized by their family, especially in countries like Australia? There are parents who have kicked out their daughters or sons for being ex-Muslims. We do not want that. In Australia, it is still not being recognized. They still think it is a family problem versus, “This is a country problem as well. We need to support these people. We need to find out ways on getting the right psychologists to them.”

When I started seeing the psychiatrist, I had anxiety. When I was going through major generalized anxiety disorder, I started seeing a psychiatrist. He was a Muslim. I did not realize, initially, that this would hurt me in the long term. Initially, we got along. Then he started questioning my identity crisis. He was possibly correct. I was ignoring it because I did not want to confront it.

His being a Muslim. I started telling him about my thoughts, about how I thought Islam was not right for me, how I did not appreciate the Prophet, how I thought he was a rapist. During Ramadan, he was talking something about blasphemy, and the punishments. He said, “Touch wood.” I freaked out. I freaked out, not because of my physical safety. I freaked out because of my mental safety. I was not safe around him, mentally.

Jacobsen: I understand.

Kay: Now I must be careful because he is a Muslim and I cannot say what I want to. He is not my therapist anymore; he is a Muslim man. I obviously did not report him because it would go nowhere, or he would lose his job for nothing. I am sure he is doing great work with other people. That means that he is not the right therapist for me.

That means that Australia needs to come up with better therapists, or therapist sessions, or more education on how to work with people who have left religion. There are questioning God and they are in between. I have seen the pattern where they are like, “We are spiritual.” I am like, “Sure, but I do not believe in God, and science makes more sense to me.” That was my path to atheism, as well, and to rejecting God.

For religious people, I do not think they recognize this, that these people are leaving religion. A lot of times, these psychologists can be detrimental, or the sessions can be detrimental to those figuring out their paths. It makes them even more confused. They can be like, “Maybe you will find your path back.”

I am not sure about this documentary, but somebody did mention it to me. It was by an Australian journalist, Patrick Abboud. In the end, he said, “Maybe they will learn to accept Islam the way it is.” Maybe as an outsider, I have not heard the documentary, but a friend of mine mentioned it. That got me mad, saying, “How would you like it if I said maybe Muslims will learn to accept that their religion is so misogynistic, and they still choose to be in it?” Is that a fair statement for me to say?

4. Jacobsen: Does this build bridges, in other words?

Kay: I do not know who Patrick Abboud is. I do not know what his background is. His last name sounds like he is Middle Eastern, maybe not Muslim. A lot of times, even people in the West were embracing the hijab or people are like, “Islam is not such a terrible religion once you take the spiritual side of it.” I am like, “Sure. There are spiritual sides to religion, and you can separate them, but that is not all there is to Islam.”

People go, “The foundations of Islam are love, peace, and compassion. I am like, “You are telling somebody.” I do not want to assume that she was not Muslim, but based on her name, she did not look like somebody who was raised with that religion. She may have converted into it, converted out, or knows about it, or has studied it extensively. I am like, “You are telling this to a person who has lived her life as a Muslim and has come out and is a public atheist who every day faces harassment or abuse. That Islam’s foundation is love, compassion, and peace, and that it has been hijacked by everybody else.” Who are these people hijacking the religion, if it is not everyone?

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Founder, Faithless Hijabi.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 22). An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Zara Kay on Faithless Hijabi, Global Violence Statistics, Leaving Fundamentalism, and Building Bridges (Part Two) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/kay-two.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 22.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Eighteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2020

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 8,234

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen contributed to this opening session to a series of discussion group responses to questions followed by responses, and so on, between March and May of this year. Total participants observable in [1]. They discuss: the near future (2020-2049), the middle future (2050-2074), the far future (2075-2099), and the indefinite future (22nd-century and beyond).

Keywords: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, Tor Jørgensen.

Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One)[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Out of the 5 possible topics, we voted with option 2 winning by 1 vote. This option, as follows:
 
Segmented exploration of the question, “What is going to happen in the near future (2020-2049), middle future (2050-2074), far future (2075-2099), and the indefinite future (22nd-century and beyond)?”  
 
The complete option set included the following, and in the order presented with the voted topic in bold:

1. General exploration of the question, “What is going to happen in the future?”

2. Segmented exploration of the question, “What is going to happen in the near future (2020-2049), middle future (2050-2074), far future (2075-2099), and the indefinite future (22nd-century and beyond)?”

3. An exploratory and critical examination of the potential end to human paradigmatic thinking and diminution of grand narratives in the light of the progress of human thought, e.g., sciences, philosophy, technological know-how, etc., and the development of societies.

4. The picking and choosing by individual discussion group members on select global issues relevant for some or all of the rest of the 21st century of some interest, or concern, to them, for commentary by them, including mass migration, artificial intelligence/superintelligence, nationalism/populism, human rights, social credit system(s), overpopulation, the global economy, and so on.

5. A segmented exploration of the future guided by the near, middle, far, and indefinite future timeline focused on the end, or not, of paradigmatic thinking with cases in global issues including mass migration, artificial intelligence/superintelligence, nationalism/populism, human rights, social credit system(s), overpopulation, the global economy, and so on.

Here, we will define the near future from 2020 to 2049, the middle future as 2050 to 2074, the far future to 2075 to 2099, and the indefinite future as 22nd-century and beyond. Obviously, we have about 3 decades in the first options with more ease in predictions for us. Let’s start with some softballs, what seems like the most probable to come true in the near future? Those things most easily, readily following from current trends, the laws of the natural world and within the laws of human societies without a sign of impediment from world events, e.g. natural or human-made catastrophes. When looking at this middle future when many things seeming potentially impossible will be commonplace, and others assumed as inevitable will have been shown impossible, what seems likely and unlikely to continue to happen around the world here? By the end of century, during the far future where many of us may not be alive, how will some of these advancements in science and technology, or changes to the political and social landscape, lead to a vastly different world compared to now, or not? While some things are within our extrapolations, others may be mere whimsical speculation about the future, here I am looking at the 22nd-century and beyond or the indefinite future. What will not happen in our lifetimes, but will happen in the indefinite future? Because this follows from reasonable trendlines at present or exists within the laws of nature while not existing in the current world at all.

 

Christian Sorenson: I have the impression that the nature of this question is due to a matter more of a predictive character than of a critical analysis in a logical, ontological or other sense. Being rigorous with the semantics of these concepts, “prediction” as such would belong to the field of science in a particular way, or failing that, to disciplines, whatever they may mean, since this will depend on the imagery that we display, but that ultimately they currently lack a scientific status.

I will approach the answer at the same time from two different depth levels, and both from a logical as well as an ontological perspective.

Indeed, in a phenomenological sense, it’s both possible on the one hand to delimit time in the near future, in the medium and long term, and in the indefinite future. And on the other side to contextualize it contingently with a certain historical moment. We could call this, “der zeit geist” or the spirit of time, since it implies a significance in terms of the directionality that follows our individual and collective action as a society towards a certain end, implicitly or explicitly predetermined; and the systemic consequences derived from these. In this regard, “the action” as such seems to me that it would admit two alternatives but nevertheless only one option between the two. That is, our actions individual or not, could be understood as “actions of human beings” or as “human actions”. The first ones for me would be any kind of conduct that can be carried out by a subject, while the second would be a deliberate action, that is to say relatively free and spontaneously carried out by someone. Both possibilities could not coexist simultaneously in the same event, since they are of a different nature. The former is more likely determined by phylogenetic factors, while the latter is more determined by factors of an ontogenical order. From this point of view parallel realities are appreciated, because as we achieve greater technological, sociocultural and spiritual development, we should be able to control, and benefit more successfully from our physical and non-physical environment, at the same time we are being able to live in better harmony and balance with it. However empirically speaking the opposite has occurred and paradoxically occurs. In this manner we can also verify until now that all the civilizations that have preceded us have had the same end since they have ended up disappearing. In that way what will essentially happen in the near, middle, far and indefinite future? In the near future, and in the medium and long term, for sure a significant change will probably come out with an ever-increasing speed towards chaos. This last as it would occur with the irregular trajectory of a double pendulum. The indefinite future, if understood more as “a beyond something” than an infinity, rather it would entail the closing of one cycle and the beginning of another. In that manner I believe that “nothing is more permanent than change” as long as we comprehend that the only thing that exists or that has the possibility of existing is “the one” as a point of origin and end that is identical in itself.

On a second level I will aboard “the becoming” as such, as a function of time as absolute but linking it with what I exposed above. In a light way it could be affirmed that “time” beyond its relativity and its questionability in relation to its existence or not, would have only a semantic character and therefore a didactic function when segmenting it. If what exists is an identical point for the beginning and end of everything, then logically we would be talking about a systemic cyclicality, that from my point of view, is additionally reverberant, and in consequence I could consider it as equivalent to an eternal return of everything.

Symbolically, what seems to be configured as one or several ring units interconnected with each other, it seems to me rather a figure in the form of something that travels an infinite space, and that it has three registries. Thereby the first one of them would represent a symbolic registry, while the second and third ones would be represented in an imaginary and real registries respectively. For this reason the end of a certain cycle does not exist as such, but rather it would be a place at the turning point in each of the turns of “a spiral” that unfolds with a variable distance in between, and rotating indefinitely in somewhat that could be called “vacuum space”.

Claus Volko: History as it is taught at schools is usually a history of wars. From such a perspective one might ask oneself which wars will be fought in the long-term future. However, there is also an alternative view of history as the history of technology. The 20th century has been especially interesting not because of the wars fought during this century but because of the technological advances made. Likewise, we should, in my opinion, ask ourselves what future technologies are going to arrive, and how they are going to shape the world. The Internet has made communication between individuals far easier than in the past and in addition has opened new opportunities for many of us to get our thoughts and ideas published. Mobile telephony has brought us the freedom to move around the surface of the planet and be able to communicate with everybody in real time. Will artificial intelligence be the next big thing? Probably not in the same way because it is more obscure. Applications of artificial intelligence are already around us but they are not so easily visible. We should also ask ourselves if social policy will shape society and change it dramatically. The idea of a universal basic income has gained some notability in the past few years and if it is implemented one day, it might be a disruptive advance in social and economic issues. We should also not forget about education – will educational institutions change to prepare the youth better for the modern world than traditional education?

All of this said, we should also think about climate change. It is possible that man-made emissions will lead to catastrophe within the next hundred years. Perhaps the earth will become uninhabitable. This poses a problem to us which we have to solve if we want to survive as a species. Is man capable of mastering the problem of climate change? How will institutions cooperate on resolving technological and scientific issues?

At least, with the Internet, we have communication means to discuss these issues on a high level. The participation of ordinary people in the debates is possible and it will be vital for these debates to bring fruitful success. If climate change cannot be stopped, the future of mankind will be gloomy. So, this is the first and foremost challenge. Big history will measure the human civilization by its means to fight climate change.

Either man will succeed or perish.

Erik Hæreid: [Ed. “N” means “near future.” “M” means “middle future.” “F” means “far future.” “I” means “indefinite future.” Combinations of the letters imply the range of the aforementioned times.]

AI:

N: ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence). Increasingly effectuation and automation of traffic and industry. Businesses have to adapt more quickly. No problem with unemployment, we just change business products. Humans will always produce and create; there will always be need for much. As long as we are able to produce enough supplies for everyone, the problem is reduced to distribution. Challenge: Polarization; some own too much and others too little.

Within the near future, I think AI will develop in a convenient, human-assisted way, to improve communication and general human activities. Since the idea with AI is to develop without human assistance, we don’t know when or if it will expand and explode into a technological singularity.

M: After 2049 we will have a mix of AI-devices everywhere, and we are kind of waiting for the best or worst scenario. Will the AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) appear?

I: A massive change regarding our mentality. How will we react and act on these new technical devices and features that we used as toys a couple of decades ago? Maybe, we can control it. Maybe, it evolves further and develops into the superintelligence-status ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence). If so, it or they become much more intelligent than we are. Unless we have created and constructed more intelligent and adaptable humans than the normal evolution would manage, we become slaves, or pets. Maybe servants. Maybe extinct. Or: The human develops ASI as part of the evolution of humans. Humanity has reached its peak, and one way to evolve further is through ASI. It’s not a threat, it’s the next step.

Epidemics and severe diseases:

N: We build up effective routines handling pandemics, which will be a more frequent phenomenon; as we see today but more professional routines concerning isolation procedures and making new vaccines.

N-M: Humans will overcome severe diseases like cancer and dementia, and other diseases will take place. We will develop better methods, technology and defense mechanisms to control it.

I: We will control diseases completely, and control lifespans. I don’t believe in natural extinction. Maybe ASI-related, though.

Environment:

N: People will adapt to a more critical situation, actualized through more migration, and building new homes and construct environments that fit the new weather conditions. Businesses have to build more equity and being more adaptable for handling and survive the turbulence which will appear. Instability is a word for the next many decades.

N-M: Increased sea level and temperatures, more extreme weather conditions in general. Possibly mass migration. The world will adapt by creating new temporary migrant cities or camps, with a better infrastructure than today. The world community will rent land from nations with areal; everyone will contribute in one way or the other. Control of immigration will be done because of potential dangerous political consequences. A better control with businesses that destroy the environment.

F: A possibly natural reduction of the world’s population as a consequence of environmental changes. A population suited to more harsh weather conditions. An expanding use of technology to reduce negative effects on climate change, and with good and stabilizing results.

I: A balanced earth of people, and possibly a transhuman mix of humans, cyborgs and AI-devices at same level or more probably above concerning intelligence. Other man-/AI-made objects in Space where humans live, and where there probably is nature and almost the same conditions as on earth; adapted to the new generations.

Wars:

N-M: I think humans will gather and find common solutions more than fighting each other in the future. It will be situations where humans are stressed and conflicts arise, but also a common awareness of problems that gather more than separates us. The major problems will unite us because they hit all of us; it becomes a common destiny.

Local conflicts and small wars. Religious based, mainly. A raising awareness of alternatives and better solutions reduces conflicts in this period. Still some small conflicts and terrorism, but much less.

F: No more major conflicts. Somehow humans have managed to control devastating aggression.

I: Peace; a smooth cooperation between humans and its extension. Harmonization. We have learned/adapted to live together with and not against nature, the Universe and technology.

Moral:

N: Morality is a crucial part of civilizations, and a lot of difficult situations will occur in the near future because of the rapid changes. This will influence how we build humans in the future. In this period, I think we become more conscious in the sense of empathic concerning moral issues like racism and polarization.

M-F: It will be easier to adapt and be part of the more general group and society, among others using technology. The motivation to deviate and be better than others will be less important, and replaced by other needs that is adapted to the general population as a whole. Cooperation is crucial, and the opportunity and access to cooperate will be easier. This will increase from 2100.

The next generations of humanity:

N-M-F-I: Choice. We will construct humans (e.g., transhumanism), as we always have done, but more technically and with increasingly larger control and “almighty” power than through the basic natural evolution. People will increasingly be in the power of a decision of what and who they want to be. We won’t get imprisoned in our heritage, genes and environment; we can choose our identity to a much larger extent. This will, in the end, be a balanced product of individual needs and needs for the community, as today. I don’t believe humans will be ASIs pets or slaves. The pace of human evolution will continuously be a combination of safety and development/improvement.

Conquering Space/future habitats:

N-M-F-I: We will settle at other places outside our planet; at first temporarily on the moon, then on Mars, and in a distant future on our own gigantic vehicles, human-produced moving “planets” (maybe in cooperation with/as ASI-beings), that we will use to travel through interstellar and intergalactic space towards other star systems and planets.

James Gordon: Near future (2020-2049): The development of superior AI and robots; android-like machines that will be similar to humans but still quite distinguishable. High-fidelity VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) resulting in immersive and realistic games and technologically-assisted experiences. At least one successful mission to mars (human landing). Early methods to effectively connect the human brain to a computer interface. Improvements in medical technology in the form of more advanced and functional bionic limbs. The possibility of a cure to terminal diseases such as cancer or AIDS.

Middle future (2050-2074): More advanced AI and robots (less distinguishable from humans and taking on more companion-like roles). Advanced methods to connect brains to computers; VR and AR experiences almost indistinguishable from reality. The potential for more integrated and fully operational cyborg features in humans. Early colonization of Mars (temporary residents). Major breakthroughs in medical science and technology, in the forms of curing many harmful conditions, and also repairing and substituting damaged body parts, organs, and so on using bionic counterparts.

Far future (2075-2099): A great deal of occupations and professions will be conducted through VR computer interfaces (from physical home locations). Thus in-person interaction will be simulated more often than it will be actualized. Almost everything will be automated and mechanized for maximum efficiency. Permanent residents and colonizers on Mars, scientists working on the early stages of terraforming the red planet. Androids will be increasingly lifelike and approaching sentience. The ability to implant human memories and personalities into androids and create a lifelike copy of themselves.

Indefinite future (22nd century+): The possibility to terraform Mars more thoroughly and continue Earth-like civilization there. Ability to download subjective experiences into computer networks (e.g. to store accurately store and reproduce memories and dreams). Androids virtually indistinguishable from humans, capable of having jobs and living programmed lives. The human lifespan will be lengthened greatly due to medical technology and advancement in civilization (living past 100 will become normal). Almost all diseases will have cures, including AIDS and cancer. Advanced methods to extend lifespans, such as freezing life in stasis to be later reactivated, may be developed. Computer worlds and experiences entirely or almost indistinguishable from reality may exist or be in development. The possibility for neural implants and “instant learning” may be in production or on the horizon. The human body and brain will have cyborg options making the interconnectedness between man and machine nearly complete.

Matthew Scillitani: I’ll preface that my answers will mostly be regarding Western politics. Know that I’m neither a member of the political left nor right, and that my thoughts on modern and future political developments are from studying history and keeping up to date with current events.

In the near future, we continue to see a shift towards leftism in the media, education, and in young people. Tensions between the political right and left rise, causing more group polarization and extremism in both parties. This leads to much bullying, violence, and irrational thinking. Eventually, with a sudden flood of new voters, the left gains total power for an extended period and pushes for socialism.

Once socialism is adopted, general wellbeing and life satisfaction increase on average, but technological progress slows down. With little financial incentive, many tech moguls and would-be inventors are no longer inspired to push for new technology. This does not stop progress entirely, but we don’t see much new groundbreaking tech for some time.

Surprising to rightists is that people are still motivated to work in demanding fields despite lower wages. This is because people are inclined to do what they’re best at regardless of any potential extrinsic reward. Under socialism we see many more passionate and empathetic workers in healthcare and fields of law than before.

In the middle future, there is much rioting from the political right, with Western culture falling on a sharp decline. Eventually, both political parties are so polarized and resentful of each other that Western morality devolves by no less than two millennia. Rightists have become wholly racist and sexist while leftists have accepted pedophilia and children’s right to ‘transition’ via hormone replacement therapy.

Ultimately, the leftist government wins this battle by using cult-like bully tactics in media and legislation. What follows is several decades of extreme social regression masqueraded as progress.

In the far future, there are many protests calling for child protection (against pedophiles), free speech, human dignity, and men’s rights. After several decades, these protests lead to positive reform, and near the end of this period we see a higher standard of morality in Western culture.

In the indefinite future, leftist politicians try to suppress Caucasian men while simultaneously promising them more rights and privileges should they vote them into office. In order to save face, these same politicians claim that the atrocities committed over the latter half the 21st century were by rightists all along and continue to suppress certain groups of people in order to stay in power by promising to save them from the evils of the right.

And so, the cycle continues.

Rick Farrer: The near future from 2020 to 2049:

#1: Lab grown meat is going to be huge. Initially I had a lot of doubts, mostly about whether it would be appealing enough to carve out a sustainable market niche, but a lot of my earlier reservations have disappeared. And if it expands in volume and variety like I’m guessing, future generations will look back and consider it on a short list of things that have had the highest impact on human history.

#2: The use of an individual’s sequenced DNA data will become much more common in regular diagnostics and health care as opposed to being ordered as more of a specialty test. I am basing my prediction on the rapid growth of the body of knowledge that is being accumulated already in this area, its perceived potential, its decreasing costs, and increasing availability.

#3: The first human will step foot on Mars. I’m sticking my neck out on this prediction, and it might be more hope (and cheering for those that dare reach for the stars) than something realistic. It seems to me that both the technological and practical aspects of making this happen are entirely plausible in the next 30 years. But there are some other interesting dynamics going on in relation to this, and excuse me for going off on a tangent for a moment. Maybe this deserves its own discussion, because there are historical parallels. I’m speaking specifically about how some things are more likely to be accomplished by individuals with the means, drive, and ability to make them happen than by situations requiring group approvals, decisions, and power. But, regarding this specific prediction, the risk of not completing such things that are driven by capable individuals is that they will not happen without that person’s drive, and thus are dependent on both the continued availability and will of that person.

#4: We will see some new hybrid or different system of governance arise. I do not have a specific prediction as to what appearance this might take, but my sense is that there is a growing unhappiness and view of unfairness with existing systems, and something new needs to happen to provide more equitable distributions of wealth, risk, and opportunity.

The middle future from 2050 to 2074:

#1: Significant increases in average life spans will be achieved. This is agreeably something to celebrate, but I think it could potentially create a problematic consequence as well, and that is the effect of potentially creating long term persistent economic and power inequalities. (Consider the consequences of wealthy and/or influential people who never relinquish their holdings.) Obviously this could be solved. But certainly there are other potential benefits as well as dangers that would be associated with longer life spans.

#2: A major shift will occur in our value systems – I am going to leave this prediction nebulous. Assuming drastic changes ahead in humanity’s future and value systems being survival traits, changes will have to occur. Longer life spans, humanity making strides in growing beyond the planet, and essentially re-evaluating their place in the universe will dictate new rules for survival, and, arguably, values are part of survival.

The far future from 2075 to 2099:

#1: Space travel and usage will become much more widespread and common. I’m going to predict that finally during this time segment, more economic benefits will begin accruing from the expenses put into projects beyond earth’s orbit, and that will drive more activity. I’m thinking of perhaps mining activities, refining, or activities that have benefits from occurring in null gravity and/or vacuum, for example.

The indefinite future from 2100 onward:

#1: I’m going to predict the potential for humanity splitting into two populations at some point. Or perhaps it would be described best as 2 groups based on different value systems. One would be those that desire and choose a simple, old fashion, retrograde lifestyle and another set that has their values in pushing the limits. This prediction does not have much basis apart from an already observed polarization among individuals who prefer one or the other of these options.

Rick Rosner: People will be increasingly able to avoid being manipulated, probably. In America, the Republicans will be at an increasing demographic disadvantage. So, there may be some set of non-shitty politics in the next 10 years. Beyond that, if you look at Cory Doctorow, he writes a lot of near-future science fiction in which a lot of people form alliances independent of government.

They form their own alliances. You’ll see that kind of shit. The government will, I hope, repair itself and become less important. We’ll see increasing but not apocalyptic effects of climate change. It is already undeniable. It’ll get more undeniable. As an increasingly small minority of idiots will continue to deny that it is real, some technological solutions will arise. Some will be brute force things like sea walls around low-lying cities.

There will be some more elegant and ambitious efforts. Maybe, efforts to change the albedo of large parts of the Earth. Who knows, the shit will have varying success. But it will be clear that there is a lot of money in fixing climate change. We will see a lot of effort thrown at it. In parallel, we will see the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. All of this stuff driven not by government edict, but by the market. People will see the money it.

Old industries will continue to spew disinformation to hold onto their markets. The increasing efficacy of medicine and later in the 30-year period, anti-aging therapies that, in fact, work. More types of cancer will be addressable. Other diseases of old age, e.g., heart disease and strokes will be deal-with-able. Towards the next 30 years, we will have increasingly less expensive replacement organs.

We will see increasing lifespans. More and more people will make it to 100. As the technology gets really good, eventually, a majority of people will make it past 95. After that, the efforts will be to old age while remaining youthful. No one wants to be 97 and look and feel 87. You want to feel 57 or 47. So, you’ll see waves of medical technology. In America, there will be increasing dumb political shit about how to pay for it while other countries develop more effective ways to deal with what will be very expensive medical therapies.

As automation increasingly limits the job market, people will look at economic systems that have widths of what a-holes call socialism and reasonable people call guaranteed minimum wage. The necessities of life, besides dwellings, will continue to get cheaper. Different governments and, perhaps, other organizations will be able to provide people with most of the necessities of life for an increasingly reasonable set of costs. A-holes will continue to call this socialism.

Is it really socialism when it is super inexpensive to help people get by? What is coming out as a theme while I talk, advances will continue to be made and people who have an agenda will continue to try to manipulate people that these aren’t advances. The last thing and perhaps the biggest thing is the rise of A.I. in every walk of life. I think, by now, most people realize A.I. doesn’t mean semi-human robots all over the place.

It means everything will be wired with sensors and connected to the cloud and the internet. Everything will be exchanging data. That data will be analyzed to make shit better, more efficient. The people who are best at exploiting A.I. will have a big advantage over people who are bad at it.

Then, eventually, but not within the next 30 years, you will have A.I. and the replication of consciousness becoming good enough that people will really be mentally merging with advanced artificial information processing systems and, maybe, merging with each other. That is probably beyond the next 30 years. In the next 30 years, things will be becoming increasingly smart.

The analysis of big data will yield a flood of information. Entertainment will continue to get ridiculously compelling and A.I.-generated imagery – visual and other presentation – will get more sophisticated. All sense and modalities becoming more compelling and realistic when it wants to be, even when it doesn’t want to be.

People will continue to voraciously consume information and will get better and better at consuming and processing information in combination with A.I. I think that’s pretty much it. There’s the browning of the world too. That whitey will own less and less, proportionately less and less, of the world’s wealth and technology.

Whitey won’t suffer. It is just that non-whitey and other parts of the world than the Western world will begin to gain an increasing share of the good stuff and will increasingly participate in Western world shit.

You’ll see the gay-ing and trans-ing of the world as people give less and less of a shit about gender and sexual orientation. The pussification of the world as the world decides that we don’t need to be tough guys, the gentling of the world so to speak.

We will have wars and crimes. But I believe that hyper-masculine belligerence that crept into our culture will lessen as systems to avoid encounters with violence arise and people realize that you don’t need to be hyper-masculine; that hyper-masculinity is as much drag as anything else.

That performative masculinity will become less predominant.

2050-2074, climate change effects will grow more severe with more extinctions, acidifications of the oceans becoming pretty dire, but with technologies to counter climate change and with more carbon neutral energy sources kicking in.

You’ll have violent storms. We see violent storms now. You will see even worse violent storms. I don’t know if any natural coral reefs will survive. But we will figure out a way to regenerate them, maybe not in the same places that they are now, but maybe in places where the changing temperature allows them.

You’ll see changing geographic demographics. People will move to where the changing temperatures and the changing coastlines, where people move to the new good places or away from the new bad places. Individual consciousness will be under assault by new technology as the technology for adding information processing abilities to natural brains and extending the lifespans of brains, and replicating thought and consciousness with initially low fidelity but with increasing fidelity.

Governments will either get their shit together or be supplanted by extra-governmental organizations. If the U.S. continues to be a nation of yahoos, then the U.S. will fall away to yahooness or yahoodom. There is a chance the U.S. could fracture either entirely or in a de facto manner.

It is one nation while functioning as two or more nations. You can’t tell whether you will live to a 100 until 100 years pass. We will have this medical technology offering the prospect of super long lifespans.

We won’t know until people reach the super long ages. We will see some Boomers reaching their 120s. Then you’ve got the Gen Xers in their 90s to 100s, and Millennials and Gen Zs. The Gen Zs will be in their 60s.

By then, there may be sufficient medical technology for the gen Zs in their 60s and Millennials in their 70s may be able to pass for really weird looking 40-year-olds. The culture will continue to become more immersive and fantastic in its entertainment.

You will have shit like robot girlfriends with A.I. able to pass increasingly sophisticated Turing Tests. You could claim some A.I. are nearly as conscious as humans. We will all continue to become more Kumbaya in some more and a lot more less annoying ways.

There will be less pressure to conform to sex and gender norms. People will try different sex and gender stuff. Some experiments will work, most won’t, because most new social experiments will lack the stability of old social arrangements.

Couplehood has been tried and tested for 30,000 years or hundreds of millions of years if you look at the rest of animal kingdom. So, triads, quads, and what the heck else, will be less stable with more moving parts.

People will come up with different systems of arrangements that are workable for finances, partnerships, and child rearing. There may be new systems. There will be new systems that are not squarely on the communism-capitalism continuum because the necessities of life will continue to get cheaper because it is not socialism if it is free to give people the shit they need to live.

It is something else. There will be stratification among groups as people pick the levels of social and technological change that they are comfortable with. There will be a lot of mobility among those groups, but also oppressive and reactionary groups who hate what is going on and will try to fuck things up.

Parts of the world will be angry at the changes or that they are not getting the fruits of these changes. There will be some strife. Right now, we are at the beginning of a pandemic. It is unlikely that we won’t see some more large-scale disease outbreaks during the rest of the 21st-century. I don’t know what war will look like.

I doubt that we will have a 20th-century style world war. Certainly, the wars that we fight will be fought using the traditional methods of war now, including more modern cyberwarfare.

Tiberiu Sammak: Concerning the next three decades which would define the near future as stated in the topic, a lot of major changes and possible improvements are to be expected in almost every field of activity.

To have a clearer image of what could possibly follow, it stands to reason that we need to be up to date with the current trends in science, politics, economy, healthcare systems and in many other significant fields.

I guess that one sizeable change would be the transition from gas-based vehicles to fully electric ones which might become more commonplace in the next ten to thirty years. Electric car batteries will have higher charging rates, thus reducing the charging time and allowing the drivers to reach to their desired destinations much faster. A shift towards a green vehicle will be a beneficial step in reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and in stopping the degradation of air quality.

Screening and treating various underlying diseases and ailments will probably become much easier, leading to a higher survival rate among patients. More common neurodegenerative diseases, e.g. Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, may be totally curable in the near future.

As far as the middle future is concerned, I expect that technological unemployment will be more prevalent, rendering a lot of current jobs obsolete and redundant. Most manual labour will be replaced by highly intricate automatons, performing the required tasks with greater accuracy and speed than a human. The scarcity of careers or lack thereof demanding physical work will have to be tackled and a possible solution addressing this issue should be proposed.

Supercomputers may be able to simulate less complex brains, such as those of a pond snail or of a sea slug.

Life expectancy is most likely to rise thanks to the ongoing betterment of the healthcare systems – you will probably see much more centenarians and people in their mid-90s. Also, certain conditions which are currently always fatal, albeit really rare, such as some malignancies (DIPG) or all prionopathies, might become curable or at least have a higher five-year survival rate from their onset provided that adequate measures are taken in order to effectively fight off those illnesses.

Things are starting to get hazy as we are moving towards the far future which is represented by the last decades of the 21st century, as predictions become mere approximations and guesses based on previous models.

For example, I suspect that organ failure will be prevented by replacing many organs and parts of the human body with fully operational 3D-printed replicas. Basically, this technique will turn people into cyborgs.

Humans will live in a machine-based world, automation being the key mechanism behind every process.

I also believe that space travel will be more accessible and affordable for the individuals that wish to go into outer space.

I think it is safe to say that we can only speculate about the events and technologies that are going to occur in the indefinite future (22nd century and beyond).

A complete and exhaustive mapping of the human brain seems very probable. Only after we have understood how the brain works in its entirety and how consciousness is generated can we create an artificial brain having identical functions with a biological one.

Some truly intriguing concepts such as mind uploading to a virtual environment or hypercomputation can become realities.

The emergence of extremely complex technological systems could make interstellar travel achievable, granting humanity the capacity to easily move between remote planets and to thrive across the stars.

Definitely, exploring and analyzing all these potential outcomes is an exciting experience, knowing that some of the aforementioned ideas, however wild or quixotic they may sound, might actually come to fruition somewhere in the distant future.

Tor Jørgensen: First, I would like to say thanks for this opportunity to address these great topics with such fantastic participants that are in this group! I am humbled and honoured. Well, if one is to look at the first time span, the period of 2020 to 2049, I think we will start to see even bigger changes in structural engineering. Smart buildings with the capacity to form and adapt to the environment, even more than we, of course, see today. Cars, busses, and transport, in general, will be in a transition from the traditional man-operated vehicles we know and see today, over to self-driven vehicles. We are in this transition now, today. As to the medical situation where we directly consult the doctor, we will, I think, go over into a more interactive form. The time where we go to see the doctor face-to-face will in a big way fade away for many of us in the near future. We see today this transition is done with regards to banks, food-stores, and more. Direct interaction as to public services will start to be a thing of the past. So, will we all become citizens of a world where direct contact is no more, where the only way forward is through some sort of medium?! No, of course not, direct contact is still very crucial for numerous reasons, but we will be forced into a new way of living as we are today from where we were 30 years ago.

How about the pollution question, as we all know the problem today is growing as regards to ocean pollution, and landfills? The mountains of garbage in poor countries, where the authorities are in no state to handle these amounts. This is a problem that needs solving soon. Many good ideas have come along, though. But is it too little, too late? I hope within the next 20-30 years; these questions are answered more than today, and a solution is at hand. Does the future look grim regarding this question? Yes, but there is always hope! Tackling these issues will need a global effort, where the focus must be on the countries that may not see this as a big problem today, or do not see this as an immediate issue and unsolvable for various reasons. Education and politics with government grants are some of the possible ways to end this problem for the next 20+ years, as I see it. As to the need for food supply, the world will not have enough natural grown food, so the artificial grown food will play a much bigger role in the next 20-40 years compared to today. Water and food supply are the maybe biggest issues that the world will have to address in the next 20-50 years to feed this ever-expanding global population.

The planets in our own solar system will be explored, hopefully, in an ever growing manner. Mars will have started to be populated, at least, in an exploratory way, so as to establish a permanent settlement. On the possibility for a third world war, as I see, it will not be a war fought by traditional arms, guns and such, but by viral spread of viruses, as diseases go, and next by computer viruses. This in the intent to effect control over others in an armed conflict, a silent war, to put it simply. Natural disasters in the next 20+ years, the weather will change very much. We see today already some of the pattern that will grow exponentially in the next two decades. More severe weather, look at Australia with the fires that lasted so long, and effected so many over such a huge area! More earthquakes, more severe storms, more volcanic activity is, I think, clear in the near future.

These issues are some of the topics that will need to be addressed in the near future, so how will this effect be in the middle future? Well, if we have not solved some of these issues as to pollution and have gained some control over the heating of our planet, the effect will be worse in a big way, to the point, maybe, that we can not recover from: what then?! I hope we do get some control over some of the immediate problems. The middle future, I think, will be the development of AI in such a way that will affect us daily, as to interact in some way within the fields of IT, medicine, warfare, and more! We will see much more within the development of genetic mutation for the benefit of medicine, warfare, and exploration. Transport, as to be able to clear great distances in a short time, will also have been addressed. I saw that the hyper-loop transport of Tesla in the Nevada desert as one of the possible solutions to reduce travel time.

The far future will see even more of these effects, of what I have previously pointed out, but one thing I would like to bring forward is how we humans will look. If we go back 50-100 years back in time, we were shorter in height. We lived a shorter life. Our health was poorer. With the developments today, how will this affect us into the definite/indefinite future? Are we going to be a mirror image of the aliens that we see on TV?!

To the 22nd-century and beyond, I do not see the end of mankind in any indefinite future. I hope that we will adapt to the changes that come ahead. If we look away from the ‘End Times’ of the Bible, I think we will prosper and multiply on to new worlds in our own system at first, then beyond. This is, of course, from my utopian mindset, but only time will tell if I am wrong or not.

These are some of my initial thoughts about the possible future events that lay ahead for us all. I am not Nostradamus, but, still, I hope that we can dive into some of these issues with the rest of the group, cannot wait to hear what they have to say about these topics that we now address!

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Contributors for March 15, 2020 session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak,  and Tor Jørgensen. Total participants (Contributors and Observers for March 15, 2020 session): Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Erik Hæreid, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One) [Online].March 2020; 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 8). Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A, March. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 22.A (March 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 22.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 22.A (2020):March. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Group Discussion on the Near, Middle, Far, and Indefinite Future, First Responses Session: Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Erik Hæreid, James Gordon, Matthew Scillitani, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, and Tor Jørgensen (Part One) [Internet]. (2020, March 22(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hrt-one.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

%d bloggers like this: