adoption, adoption reunions, birth/adoptive families, browbeating people over adoption, bullying, change your life, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, doing the right thing, Forbidden Family a book of lies, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds
Joan Wheeler finally caved in, to the pressures from birth siblings and others, to remove certain references about us, from one of her web sites…but there’s more, much more, to be done…
You all have heard the saying…liar, liar, pants on fire…well there’s more to that, it appears to be in the brain! I’ll show some evidence, to that, in this post.
Notice is presented here of a major development in our quest to have our family honor restore; that Joan Wheeler stole from us.
During one of our routine monitoring checks, of the continued hate-speech sites and activities, of and by Joan, both Ruth and I found, that around 16 May, 2012 Joan made some changes to the web site Forbidden Family.
On May 16 she made changes and modifications on her contact tab. She took down the pages about and buy of the book; there is no mention of the book on the front page AND she used to have a little blurb on the right hand menu about the cyberbullying page; and that’s gone.
May 16, 2012 was at the height of our battle with her and her imaginary friend Pilgrim/Champ, reporting everything Joan said under her various ‘personalities’. Upon a close look at our stats, during that time, we find something interesting; from May 1 to May 16 we had an upswing of hits, because we were exposing Joan on the forum for familycircle, a pro-adoption forum, and on our blogs.
It was that last bit of utter nonsense, which Joan pulled, with her fighting us on a pro-adoption site and then bringing in her imaginary friend, Pilgrim, who also admitted to being Champ and Brian, to attack us. That nonsense must have caused everyone to take notice of Joan’s behavior and have a word with her! We guess that somebody, or several somebodies, told her to separate her adoption reform site and activities from her birth sisters; and under pressure she updated her website…we have been telling her for years, she can talk all she wants about adoption reform BUT she can’t talk about us let alone lie about us.
I do think it is important that we acknowledge this development…for… we have gotten Joan to do the right thing by our relentless pressure of showing her, and the world, just what she has done and how to deal with her lies and her bullying us. By acknowledging this, we are giving her a positive re-enforcement to continue on with doing the right thing. We know that, that concept may be foreign to Joan, but she can learn to change her behavior, with a little bit of pressure.
We shall keep going on with the pressure…until she removes the cyberbullying blog and the defendingjoanwheeler blog, which are aimed at us, and THEN she has to admit her wrongdoings and apology for them. Doing the right thing is easy ONCE you get the idea and start to do it. We have been telling Joan Wheeler to do the right thing for over two years (since we have been refuting the lying libelous book she wrote and got it pulled from publication. How long will it take for her to complete the task? That may depend on her brain function, for lying maybe hard-wired in her. I’m presenting an article of interest here.
If Joan has any ideas, for any kind of a rewrite, she best be on alert…for we shall be! She really better NOT write anything that is a lie for we shall be right there watching all the time.
Now while I am presenting an article referencing a political figure I am not concerned with that person…only the science of the issue of ‘doing the right’ thing. But I do point out that, in a Buffalo News internet news article, someone once suggested that they wished Joan Wheeler had ‘political clout’ to which I proceeded to present some of her dishonorable behavior, similar as to what this and other articles have done to the political individuals spoken of.
My local newspaper had this headline…Liar, liar, brain on fire: a look inside the minds of the dishonest, with a subtitle of: What was John Edwards thinking? A landmark study shows what happens in our brains when we’re given the chance to lie. For some, doing the correct, difficult thing seems natural — a trait worth cultivating.
June 03, 2012 By Robert M. Sapolsky
Is John Edwards a criminal or merely a sleazebag of breathtaking proportions? The jury couldn’t quite make up its mind. But various reasonable questions come to mind in the wake of the mistrial. For example: Whoa, close call, can you believe that this guy might have been president? What exactly was he thinking? And then there’s: Why didn’t he have a shred of willpower when it comes to honesty and doing the right thing?
The spectacle reminds me of something moving about honesty I read recently, in, of all places, a scientific journal. In a 2010 report in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Harvard psychologists Joshua Greene and Joseph Paxton asked a great question: When people are confronted with the opportunity to lie, what differs in the brains of people who succumb to the temptation and those who don’t?
For the study, each subject was placed in an MRI machine, a brain scanner that indicates the ongoing levels of activity in different brain regions. The volunteers had a simple task. There’d be a series of virtual coin tosses by a computer, and before each one, the subject had to predict the outcome. Guess right, and there’d be a financial reward.
But there was a twist. Subjects were told a great piece of nonsense, namely that the purpose of the study was to determine whether people had better paranormal powers at predicting the future when the predictions were made in private. To examine this, scattered through the series of coin tosses would be the occasional instance where instead of a subject entering the prediction before the toss, he would privately make his prediction. Then, after the coin toss, he’d be asked: So, did you guess right? In other words, people were given the opportunity to lie, to claim that they had predicted correctly and then reap the financial reward.
How could Greene and Paxton tell if someone were lying? Coin tosses being what they are, across, say, 50 instances in which a subject had to register a prediction beforehand, he’d be correct roughly half the time — mere chance. If for the tosses where there was the opportunity to cheat the subject’s success rate skyrocketed, odds were that there was a liar in the brain scanner.
To start, here’s some demoralizing news — fewer than half of the people were in the clear-cut honest range, with success rates remaining around 50% when they had the chance to cheat. About a third seemed to be lying often enough that their success rates were well above 50% at those times. The remaining subjects had success rates that were somewhere in between, and thus hard to classify. (Remarkably, the cheaters included one doozy of a scoundrel who claimed something close to perfect accuracy when given the chance to lie.)
What went on in the brains of people when temptation beckoned? Let’s start with the “liars” — the people who lied with sufficient frequency that they could be detected statistically. Central to the results was a region called the prefrontal cortex, or the PFC. This is one interesting part of the brain — it’s all about self-discipline, gratification postponement, emotional regulation, control of impulsiveness. It’s the part of the brain that keeps you from being a serial murderer, that makes you a good dinner guest who proclaims the fare was delicious even when you’re about to sprint for the porcelain throne. It makes you do what’s hard to do when it is the right thing to do. It’s bigger and more complex in humans than in any other species, is our most recently evolved brain region and is the last part of our brains to fully mature.
So when the opportunity to cheat arose, the activity in the PFCs of liars shot up like crazy. The scans showed the trace of an epic moral battle — do it, don’t, yes do it, no don’t — that the liars lost. And the larger the percentage of lies told, the greater the overall PFC activity.
And what were levels of activity in the PFCs of those who, from a statistical standpoint, never lied? Greene and Paxton present two differing views in moral philosophy about honesty: Is honesty an act of will; does it require a person working hard to refrain from doing the wrong thing? Or is it an act of grace, effortless because temptation isn’t tempting? In the study’s paradigm, it was grace all the way — among the unequivocally honest, there was no increase in PFC activity when the chance to cheat arose. Their PFC neurons weren’t successfully wrestling Satan into submission. There was no wrestling. It was simple — you don’t do that, it’s wrong, period.
In the face of real life’s temptations, a majority of us are not going to get by on pure grace. We resist, but sometimes it takes work. Lots. Or perhaps we succumb and thereby shock ourselves with what we are capable of. We ooze our human frailties.
And yet there are those who glide through minefields of enticement, doing the difficult, rare, brave, correct thing as naturally as breathing. It can seem hard to believe that a person could really be this way. But a high-tech brain scanner documented that it’s possible. It’s an achievable goal. And should be. Even for someone who would be president. (end of article)
So Joan Wheeler…think about this…It is simple — you don’t do that, it’s wrong, period.
oh dear – Joan will be probably being saying “there they go again – trying to mold me into what they want in a little sister.”
HA! No, Joan, we aren’t trying to mold you into what WE want you to be – but what is good and right – to be a person who does not steal from people, a person who does not lie about people, a person who does not disrespect other people. Since you didn’t learn these values from your adoptive parents, perhaps now you need to learn them via behavioral modification through our blogs.
And NO, we didn’t try to mold her into anything when we first met her. We embraced her, took her into our hearts and lives. When she started the intefering with Gert’s parental authority with her minor children, when Joan started the trouble-making, when Joan started the lying, when Joan started the stealing – we didn’t try to mold her – we told her, just any other reasonable person does – that lying, stealing, interfering with our lives will simply not be tolerated. She wouldn’t listen to us. She kept up her rotten behavior. We did not try to mold her – we simply tried to cut her out of our lives.
Admit it – you would do the same to someone who lies to – and steals from – you.
That’s not trying to mold anybody to anything – that’s simply not allowing anybody to abuse you..