I agree that the "Left/Right" division is now meaningless.
To me, the division is between those who see life as fundamentally complex, and strive to find truth using a version of the Socratic method or even Popper's falsifiability principle, and those for whom everything is black and white.
The mainstream media has evolved from the former to the latter.
Many decent people, including most of my family, adhere to the latter.
I suspect most conservatives by nature appreciate complexity and nuance.
I think you make a good point that a lot of those caught up in binary thinking are in fact decent people - which is why I'm inclined to start from a place of compassion. I also agree to a point that conservatives by nature may be more willing to interface with facts if they are (hugely stereotyping) more interested in data than emotions. But on this side of the aisle I see a more extreme element that is very prone to binary thinking, where there are only good guys and bad guys, anyone who disagrees with them is 'woke,' and so on.
Low verbal intelligence as in an inability to articulate one's own thoughts/feelings/point of view? If so, that makes sense to me when you consider it alongside Hannah Arendt's observation that lack of independent thought (and therefore, lack of articulate independent speech) is a condition in which the banality of evil can take hold.
”The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think; that is, to think from the standpoint of somebody else.”
A strongly held belief plus an inability to articulate or verbally defend that position leads to authoritarianism- censorship, "defriending", the desire to lock up "antivaxxers".
Sadly many of the psychopaths on the left are very intelligent. Just listen to to Novak Harari talking about taking the soul out of humans so they can be one with the the world- like Cyborgs.
The VAST majority of humanity sees life in 'black/white' terms and anyone who wants to make a living as a political youtuber (for instance) is aware of this and therefore sets out to produce simple, one-sided messages. Simple messages for simpletons.
>>I suspect most conservatives by nature appreciate complexity and nuance.<< You seem to have ended by shooting yourself in the foot.:):):)
First, a lot of comments online these days are AI Chatbots. They are not real people. You can even argue with them, but they’re not people. The web is FILLED with them. One great place to find them is in Yahoo article comment sections, as well as MSN article comments. Even YouTube is getting filled with them.
Second is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. That says the ignorant are the loudest and boast with the most confidence. The more you become aware, the more one realizes they don’t know much, and the quieter they get. Once you start finding the deeper truths in our world, it gets creepy and people get quiet.
Lastly, the truths of our world are not what they say they are. From Pearl Harbor to the Titanic (or should I say the Olympic; when you know you know). One crazy truth is that objects left in moonlight get colder than objects in the shade (it’s true, try it yourself). But we’re told moonlight is reflected sunlight, but it can’t be if moonlight makes things colder. So what is moonlight? That is a reality, it’s readily provable, and no one wants to talk about it because it messes up people’s paradigms.
To close, the public has been fed massive lies over the years. Paradigms are formed, and breaking them is too extreme and difficult to process for most people… so they don’t broach to the topic/discussion.
“Flat earth” is a funny construct… although, the Earth definitely isn’t a “spinning ball of rock in the dead of space”. I prefer the construct of a Biblical Earth, for that actually fits and makes sense (seems Werner Von Braun prefers it, too, based on the Bible verse written on his gravestone). Although, water does lay flat. That’s been proven time and time again.
BTW, I’ve always wondered why anyone believes the heliocentric model? Just because we’re told that’s the way things are? That novel theory was only introduced in 1543. It’s never been proven. The Biblical Earth was introduced before the Bible was compiled. Maybe, just maybe, so much of what we are told of our world is done to dispel the Bible, to dispel creation, and to dispel our Creator. (Hint: that is EXACTLY why so much of what we are fed as narrative is what it is, from “evolution” to our world. When you find out who is behind all the deception in the world, you’ll know it’s true)
Ha! There’s a foolish statement. What do you think “proof” is? How is anything truly “proven”? Correlation makes for causation?
Part of proof comes in that you live it every day. It’s proven to you daily, repeatedly. Some people are just too desensitized to recognize it. The Bible gets proven true daily.
That’s a great question; from everything I’ve found, I think the answer is “nobody really knows”. People seem to see different aspects and create constructs around them: round Earth, flat earth, toroidal Earth, disc Earth. All are interesting, but all have shortcomings. Seems the theories that get the funding are most promoted/accepted.
-I have never really worried if the earth is round, flat or square! Every now and again we see people squabbling over it etc so maybe my photographs shall add to the debate that should answer things rather than squabbling!? As said, I come from Anstruther and looking out at Isle of May it looked a lot higher than what it shows in the photograph here! I have sailed past both and in my mind they both have high cliffs etc and the bass rock is higher. I am not saying the world is flat or round. I shall say that the world is not like the round of a table tennis ball but could be more like a 'dimply battered golf ball'!? Take a look at the photograph and going by that you would think that the Bass Rock is say four times higher than the Isle of May!? From North Berwick the Isle of May is approx 3 times further away than the Bass Rock. So what is the cause of the Isle of May being so low or the Bass Rock so high. Could it be the distance, curve of the earth or the Isle of May sitting in one of the 'dimples'!?
I think people that repudiate 'facts' with insults are actually the victims of indoctrination and mind-control (irrespective of their shade of politics). It is almost impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who is programmed to attack anyone with a differing world view.
Have you come across the field of cognitive inoculation, Rebekah? I encountered it personally when I did a course in "debunking" "climate deniers" (ie, before the pandemonium when I was a useful idiot for the climate emergency brigade) by John Cook, originator of the "Cranky Uncle" app (used to make sure our children and young people don't believe those nutters who don't believe in the climate "97% consensus", which Cook had "proven" in his PhD thesis).
such as "misinformation" about the "vaccines", as well as GMOs, etc. With the hubris that seems to be proliferating these days, cognitive inoculators like Cook seem to think that they "know the Truth, The Science" (or else they are cynical social engineers for governments, or both).
That's actually one of the discoveries that woke me up: if he was lying about the transfection injections now, what else had he lied about?
My point is that much of the inability of people to even tolerate information that conflicts with their beliefs about "vaccines" or "climate change" may be due to the cognitive inoculation now proliferating in mass media. The public (or even students of immunology/vaccinology in a recent example) are warned that they "may encounter people who say....", and not to believe them, in fact, they are best just ignored rather than engaged with.
The problem most people have is that they are never taught to think for themselves; but always to surrender their own viewpoints in favour of those promoted by self styled experts - who invariably turn out to be nothing of the sort, except in their own academic echo chambers.
But it's difficult for most people to stand apart from the crowd - we all have an ongoing conflict within ourselves between conformity ( which is safe ) and unorthodoxy, ( which is scary, and exposes one to constant attack. )
My own personal experience is that nothing I have ever been taught is even remotely true.
That's an exhilarating, but at the same time, an isolating, experience.
He has come out from the reductionistic tunnel that he was inside as an "academagician" at Pittsburg medical school, delved into the history of the prevailing blinkered biology genetech world view (DNA-RNA-Protein) and its eugenics/transhumanist associations, and is now exploring a more "sacred biology" of "pattern integrities" in which reverence, awe and respect for informed consent are integral. https://stream.gigaohm.bio/c/biology_101/
All these things are essential, especially the informed consent - which has been weaponized so you can only consent to what they want, not what you want.
The way forward with the DNA paradigm seems to be in recognizing the epigenetic component inherent in this system; which I think brings into view not the evolutionary model, but the immediate effect which environment has on an individual and its collective tribe; so for example, Darwin's finches do not have to wait around for generations for a random mutation in beak shape to spread to all of the other members of the collective.
Key in accepting this was the realization that genetic changes in somatic cells can be spread immediately to the germ line, and so the first generation in every member is affected and adapts to the new locatiion.
I suspect that this is what those pesky "viruses" they see are doing; ie not spreading disease, but spreading new epigenetically-modified information.
One is perfectly at liberty to disagree completely with somebody - this doesn't mean that you are against free speech.
Clearly, maths has a certain amount of truth attached to it - but when this same maths is perverted in the service of the various "models" a la Neil Ferguson's "modelling" of covid impacts, then it rapidly loses all simple common sense - as it also does when dragged into the service of various other political agendas, eg the "global warming" we are constantly told about, but which seems to have little relationship to the world we actually live in.
You can keep your consolation mark though, as something is either true or false; ie truth is an absolute, it does not exist in degrees.
As for maths, inferential statistics is problematic in a way that other branches are not. Garbage in, garbage out. If data points are dodgy to begin with then inferences drawn from the same will be dodgy.
And politicians have a way of taking advantage of lack of public numeracy.
Maths is generally rock solid, however ...the only part of academia that is.
To suggest otherwise is to declare one's ignorance of the subject and/or one's historical failure in the same.
You misunderstood my reference to Rebekah, meanwhile.
Given the manner in which I had reasoned my position it was beyond belief that she should have disagreed so comprehensively.
I can't see the problem with answering Y/N to your various data points about what I might be.
As for "inferential statistics," the fact that they are inferential tells us that they are somewhat speculative, so therefore not problematic.
You insert the word "dodgy" now, which isn't a word from the science of logic, which is what we are dealing with here.
Any statistical analysis using data which is wrong - rather than "dodgy" will always end up with an incorrect output.
Data in is always either right or wrong, and this then determines the validity of the output.
Maths is not the only part of academia which is rock solid - experimental physics is too, but if it gives up its place to theories which are derived from speculation rather than objective reality as seeable and doable, then it too becomes highly suspect - this is my basic point about things I have been taught which are based upon theory and wishful thinking rather than a clear-headed analysis of the seeable and provable facts.
I'm sure Rebekah had good reasoning behind what she said; whether that shows itself to be true or false ultimately is down to an epistemological analysis of your two positions.
The very fact she allows you to state your position, even though it might be diametrically opposed to her own, shows that she is interested in free speech too.
Mathematical generalisations are PROVABLE. Generalisations in the realm of science are not. This makes science and maths two different beasts. One is empirical (observation based) and the other is what is called 'apriori' (based on logic, alone). One is built on sand, the other on rock.
Dodgy/dubious/doubtful ... No problem here.
It is reasonable to claim that X is more conservative than Y but less conservative than Z ... or that P is more intelligent (on average) than Q but not as intelligent as R. Intelligence, conservatism and height are all continuous variable and people can be placed on a spectrum with respect to each.
It is a nonsense to say that X is tall bit Y is not. Placing people in convenient categories is not only logical nonsense but is also a source of division and conflict. Black/white thinking is a big human failing/shortcoming - one of many.
In statistics sampling is a big issue. Consider a survey of public sentiment on some issue, for example. The idea is often to get a representative sample but this is easier said than done. We might say that one sample is more representative than another and therefore that conclusion based on the same are MORE valid than those based on the other. The validity of conclusions can also be (and typically are) undermined by the ambiguity of the items put to the public. Ambiguity exists along a spectrum, just as does sample representability and validity. One piece of research can be more valid than another but not as valid as a third piece.
Your last two sentences represent little more than white knighting and are scarcely worth responding to, except to write that it is to Rebekah's credit that she seem to allow all comments to stand. Many conservative youtubers (C-teamers, supposedly supporters of free speech) will shadow ban folk whose comments offer serious pushback and which threaten to undermine their credibility in the eyes of their followers. That is just self defense, I suppose. They have to protect their income.
When I was studying naturopathic nutrition, I read a mainstream dietetics text book that had this idea planted in it. A whole chapter on how to debunk natural medicine.
Always easier to do when you know nothing whatsoever about it!
They get very upset when you mention things like the fact that cancer tends to kill via metastasis; and vitamin D at therapeutic levels reduces this by 800%.
They resolutely refuse to look at natural treatments for the condition, because of the Cancer Act of 1939, which states that no establishment doctor is even allowed to suggest anything other than the "burn, cut, and poison" model to his patients, lest he be removed from the "medical register."
The whole thing dates from the Flexner Report, which had the objective of completely demonizing and replacing natural treatments with lucrative pharmacological ones.
You can see the process in action when you look at what they ( ie, the MHRA ) did to Dr David Noakes, who promoted GcMAF as a first-line treatment for the condition.
He ended up in prison, his business destroyed, and his reputation savaged, despite the empirical evidence that he could cure people with cancers so advanced that the medical fraternity had given up and sent them home to die.
But like most radical ideas, his treatment can be boiled down to something very simple, ie in this case, "Kefir plus vitamin D."
He initially made a lot of money from his protocol, but it can be replaced with the above very cheaply - you can even make your own kefir, and then just go out and do some sunbathing!
- Yes I have noticed the same thing - people will commit any sort of mental gymnsatics or insult to avoid addressing facts.
- Some very good answers to all your questions lie in books like 'The Indocrinated Brain', Michael Nehls, or in some insights into the implications of, say, Flouride reducing IQ.
- Further good answers lie in the budget and successes of Information Warfare - See Matthew Crawford for good exploration here. Perhaps in such an environment, seeking facts is a ridiculous notion fit only for the naieve? Perhaps those who refuse to look up, who are mouthing the words of the cult, or refusing to discuss the emperors clothes at all, the only truly wise ones among us?
- You may also want to review history and note the particular parts we are rhyming with right now. Eg. Does the persecution of intellectuals described in Stalinist or Kmer Rouge times remind you of Australia now?
- Do the death counts of Denis Rancourt and Co. remind you of similar?
- Perhaps the fault does lie with you (and I), in that our expectations seek a reality that never was, and never will be. Ie. there can be no post truth era if there never was a truth era can there? Steven Patterson and a host of others make incredibly robust arguments that we have been in a Dark Age for decades (except Engineering).
I hear your last point, and I think was edging up to something like this with the idea that that Tower of Babel story may be expressed in human civilisation in cycles...
I love your incorporation of that ancient biblical story into your article.....I have thought often over the past 5 years of this story and the huberous of those making those perilous decisions infuriates me no end .....I think of the moronic behaviour of those who in spite of all that has transpired , cannot bring themselves to face , let alone discuss what has transpired ....the same ignorance prevails in the understanding of the politics of the Ukraine Nato proxy war that has taken the lives of more than a million Ukrainian conscripts , or the disgusting genocide taking place in Gaza against innocent civillians .....the public believe the propagandistic bullshit being pedalled by the government and MSM , yet you'd think after their Covid experience , they would have worked it out ....apparrently not , yet I take heart in the " tower of Babel" fabel ......God destroyed that tower , and all those men who thought they had a plan , were dismissed by God .....I trust God is watching over us now , with the same level of bewilderment and disdain as he had in ancient times ..... 🙏🏾🙏
People are more interested in finding ‘facts’ to justify their own position rather than listen, consider and then state an opinion. Dogma seems more prevalent than a considered opinion.
I think the confusion, and propaganda are all by design, this quote from Gustave Le Bon rings true - "The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will."
Great, though-provoking article, thanks Rebekah. We now know, and the enemy always knew, that people sufficiently scared lose the ability to think critically. Especially in the case of the vaxxed, I wonder if the refusal to look at facts is a self protection measure because the truth is so unpalatable? Perhaps the same for those who were/are being horrid to family members & friends and those who have advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome.
A story from an Australian journalist appeared in my feed this morning decrying Trump for 'yelling' at the coke head and for being unable to control his temper.
It has been pointed out by others that the only unusual thing about this interaction was that it took place in front of the press instead of in a back room.
One version of events on that is that Trump/Vance knew that Zelensky was not not going to co-operate from the previous 10 days of negotiations as told by Rubio in a very good interview - but they wanted the world to see firsthand - because they knew if not nobody was going to believe them - the behaviour of Zelensky.
..... this is merely one of the problems - Zalensky is NOT a world leader.
Captain Teeshirt was was chosen and jemmied into place by the WEF.
Why him?
Actors have immense hubris and usually are, by nature, extremely (often overly)confident, they love attention, are used to and enjoy cameras in their face, can easily remember their lines and deliver with precision..... cue also Trudeau who was a drama teacher.
Also Zalensky bypassed Ukraines's last election when it was due - therefore currently, he is not a bona fide President since that time.
With all the grandstanding this imposter has done since being "s/elected" - he is intoxicated on his own sense of self importance and proxy power.
World Leader? No he is not........ nor are many of the others, who were groomed into place.
WEFer gtaduates / affilliates, posing as "Leaders" merely take orders and deliver — Zalensky is no different.
Oh goodness, I can't believe that people even consider Zelensky a great leader! Yet only tonight I was in a group where we were asked to pick a great leader from history, and one woman said Zelensky, then went on (with downcast face) to talk about how shameful Trump was to to talk him down, in the Oval Office what's more! TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is contagious.
Any topic has shown to be just another vehicle down the same road. Global Warming, The Environment, Affirmative Action, Violent Crime, FATCA/FBAR/CBT, Taxation, The US Federal Budget, Education, LGBTQWTFO, all of it and more; the conversations, the emotionally charged arguments and rebuttals devoid of facts all fit the same pattern as if a form letter.
Absolutely correct! It’s the playbook. It’s devilishly crafty, deceitful, and manipulative… and when you trace it all back to who is doing it, it truly is devilish.
So many people point at all the different framework these wicked people have created and work within (the Club of Rome, Masons, Bilderberg, Jesuits, “the Jews”, WEF and more), but that’s just the construct, not the “who”. The “who” is simple. It’s the fully corrupted ‘tares’ of the world that follow Lucifer the Light-bearer in search of esoteric knowledge and power in order to control, steal, manipulate, self-indulge, and enhance every other sin. That’s it. That’s the “them” behind it all. And “they” span generations and seek out the corruptable to do their dirty work.
I whole heartedly agree with your premise. You’ve got on a theme that is so central, so critically important but rarely recognised. Communication is becoming incredibly difficult, I think the average person these days (perhaps ever?) isn’t all that good at properly comprehending written or verbal content. I come across this daily in peoples posts reacting to events or other peoples content. But alas, even as hard as this is it’s really only the beginning of the problem. The Information pool is wide and deep and incredibly muddy. One can read different versions of the same event depending on the source and the average person isn’t great at applying weighting to the various sources, and it doesn’t help when MSM uses pejorative terms to manipulate people into steering clear of some actually very credible sources. Then there’s the tribe effect where people feel constrained to stay within the safety of approved narratives, and there’s biases of all kinds that are normally submerged in the sub conscious that don’t allow for objectivity. On top of this is that whatever our western culture has for finding & transmitting wisdom. And finally there’s the stress of everyday living trying to make ends meet and stay healthy when so much in our environment (both economically and environmentally) are warring against us…
I often wonder how we can recover from this as a civilisation…
I always come back to being patient, living as simply as you’re able to, speaking the truth in love. Barring some kind of staunch divine intervention it’s can only be this way. People are being confronted with a lot right now, and we process things in a fairly linear kind of way. Best to accelerate the linear process by not overloading but facilitating understanding in whatever way possible. If a person can feel they’re safe enough to gather their thoughts and have some power to decide and act then this can be built upon. Those that are awake need to provide that solid basis, the global parasitic class and the corrupt and incompetent ones causing all this chaos in the world are doing all they can to not allow this. People waking up, finding their power and each other is the only way out of this.
Thanks for writing a powerful observation and inviting us to comment.
"The average person isn’t great at applying weighting to the various sources" - that's a good point. Many people I know eschew publications altogether if they publish one thing not 'on narrative,' and swallow everything whole from their preferred publications. I think you have to learn what certain journos/outlets do well, what are their blindspots, and weave it together with your own judgement.
Agree with your premise... I sense a lot has to do with our broken education system, for decades now we have taught kids what to think and not how to think. Logic has gone out the proverbial window.
People have chosen to swallow what the media tells them and refuse to even accommodate the idea that the media and politicians could be wrong. We must continue to engage with people one on one that's the only way forward
I think that fundamentally people would rather stay in their comfy echo chamber than even consider that they may be wrong. Not questioning and not discussing keeps them comfortable. I agree, it's more than a shame or sad. This lack of flexibility in thoughts ultimately means that people can easily be shepherded and controlled.
I have had too many discussions closed by a person who disagreed wholeheartedly with me over something I believe in and have supporting factual information for. So, I ask them to show me where I am wrong, give better evidence and that I am happy to adjust my perspective on light of better evidence.. Nobody ever has, instead they just shut me out. If their belief was based on sound information they would have no reason not to show me, surely they would be keen to share. I am happy to change my mind given better information and they know it - but they simply don't have any information to back up their belief let alone better information.
Ultimately it's down to laziness and the wish for comfort. Seeking knowledge and questioning things is time consuming and can be more than uncomfortable when one realises new truths.
Thanks for the analysis, Rebekah. I share your pain. I’m not sure that people are less concerned with facts than they used to be, as much as it seems to have become harder to unearth them. (In fact, I would take some convincing that most people in the past were doggedly determined to get the facts about contentious matters - rather I think events of recent years have highlighted the problem.) Like most of us, I was appalled at Trump’s notion of ‘facts’ vs ‘alternative facts’ a few years ago, but now I wonder … It seems to me that facts are often created (probably consciously) by the media and so it becomes harder to appraise them. Thinking of the press conference, I was not surprised that almost all the media chose similar tiny chunks to show, demonstrating the angry conversations at the end. I checked about a dozen sources, locally and internationally, and reached my conclusion. None of them made clear in any way that the angry outbursts were at the end of a lengthy meeting (about 46 minutes), and the reports almost all gave the impression that the entire meeting was like that. (It wasn’t). The ‘facts’ were constructed, telecast and headlined. Is it just lousy journalism (constrained by time, pick the juicy bits …) or is it conscious massaging of a message? Who knows? But the end-product is that it is again hard to know what we should believe as factual. We cannot just take for granted that previously trusted organs are doing their job. And it is hard, sometimes very hard, to do it for ourselves - to listen to the whole interview, to fact-check comments (as you did), to dig deeper (such as finding out about, accessing, appraising the meeting Zelenskyy had with the anti-Trump people just prior to the press conference), etc. Sometimes, our only alternative is to take on faith what we’re told: we don’t have time to probe it. When all the sources say the same thing, like ‘safe and effective’, the ‘fact’ becomes a truth by repetition. Frankly, I have now reached the point where I assume a uniform message in the media is an alarm bell, rather than a factual account. But it’s not just previously trusted institutions like media and government that are problematic. It’s worse than that. I used to trust published peer-reviewed research in respectable journals as incubators of facts. But the Covid years have shaken that trust too. There have been lots of examples of dodgy research being published and good research being rejected in recent years, and that’s even harder to deal with than mass media. Now we need to check for COI declarations (sometimes hidden), suspicious affiliations, or key findings buried deep in appendices or supplementary materials. We need to read the whole paper, too, as the conclusions don’t always match the data or its analysis. Bad editing, or conscious construction of alternative facts? Who knows? Etc … it has become exceedingly harder than it used to be to determine what is factual. (Or I might have rose-coloured glasses about how easy it used to be.) And hence probably many people take the easy way out and assume that whatever their tribe, or their echo-chamber, says must of course be true, so it’s unnecessary to question it or consider any alternatives. To say the least, it is exhausting and discouraging …
Good point that it's not just people disregarding facts we have to contend with, but facts being really hard to find and nail down. Matt Taibbi wrote about that recently, about how news outlets used to link to the thing they were writing about (a speech, a paper, etc) but these days tend not to - so all readers get is commentary about the thing, without being able to link to the thing to check it out for themselves. Terrible.
This is an interesting question, for which I have not yet found an answer. Perhaps it lies in the difference between systems and linear thinking.
"At its core, Systems Thinking focuses on the interconnectedness and interactions among different components within a system, recognizing that they cannot be understood in isolation. By taking a holistic view, this approach helps identify underlying patterns and root causes of problems, ultimately leading to more effective solutions.
On the other hand, Linear Thinking prioritizes a step-by-step, cause-and-effect mentality, relying on past data and existing solutions to form a singular, direct path to problem-solving."
Systems thinking is hard work and can lead to massive cognitive dissonance, which is probably why a lot of folk prefer linear thinking. Orange man bad, ergo, I can go back to watching MAFS ....
Both of these systems of thought have the same basic weakness; ie they are not centred anywhere.
So each can lead you anywhere, and where they lead you might not be the best place to go.
What people really need is some objective central point from which either of these modalities you mention can extend outwards.
My thesis then would be to base everything upon the simple bedrock of what "God hath said," because that saying will be objectively true, and thus other lesser ways of thinking can be anchored upon it.
Note that, Biblically speaking, we all began to veer off the straight and narrow once Eve succumbed to the devil's suggestion to her, "Hath God said?"
ie that we would die if we ate that particular fruit; which it turns out, was having sexual relations with angels.
True. The existence of absolute truth has to be admitted, else we end up wallowing in Pontius Pilate's tragic position of "what is truth?". Once absolute truth has been admitted, the tricky bit (to put it mildly) is discerning where absolute truth is to be found.
Excellent article Rebekah.
I agree that the "Left/Right" division is now meaningless.
To me, the division is between those who see life as fundamentally complex, and strive to find truth using a version of the Socratic method or even Popper's falsifiability principle, and those for whom everything is black and white.
The mainstream media has evolved from the former to the latter.
Many decent people, including most of my family, adhere to the latter.
I suspect most conservatives by nature appreciate complexity and nuance.
I think you make a good point that a lot of those caught up in binary thinking are in fact decent people - which is why I'm inclined to start from a place of compassion. I also agree to a point that conservatives by nature may be more willing to interface with facts if they are (hugely stereotyping) more interested in data than emotions. But on this side of the aisle I see a more extreme element that is very prone to binary thinking, where there are only good guys and bad guys, anyone who disagrees with them is 'woke,' and so on.
As I'm not on social media, I haven't seen that.
I do see binary thinking has multiple causes including fear.
According to Jordan Peterson, the biggest predictor of "Left Wing" authoritarianism is low verbal intelligence.
Low verbal intelligence as in an inability to articulate one's own thoughts/feelings/point of view? If so, that makes sense to me when you consider it alongside Hannah Arendt's observation that lack of independent thought (and therefore, lack of articulate independent speech) is a condition in which the banality of evil can take hold.
”The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think; that is, to think from the standpoint of somebody else.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1963/02/16/eichmann-in-jerusalem-i
I have observed this amongst my most NPC friends (ex-friends at this stage unfortunately). They speak in cliches.
I think that's exactly the point.
A strongly held belief plus an inability to articulate or verbally defend that position leads to authoritarianism- censorship, "defriending", the desire to lock up "antivaxxers".
Sadly many of the psychopaths on the left are very intelligent. Just listen to to Novak Harari talking about taking the soul out of humans so they can be one with the the world- like Cyborgs.
mrna
Pretty much - watch interviews with Dr. Bryan Artis and Mike Adams on Brighteon .com.
The VAST majority of humanity sees life in 'black/white' terms and anyone who wants to make a living as a political youtuber (for instance) is aware of this and therefore sets out to produce simple, one-sided messages. Simple messages for simpletons.
>>I suspect most conservatives by nature appreciate complexity and nuance.<< You seem to have ended by shooting yourself in the foot.:):):)
There is so much to address in what you wrote!
First, a lot of comments online these days are AI Chatbots. They are not real people. You can even argue with them, but they’re not people. The web is FILLED with them. One great place to find them is in Yahoo article comment sections, as well as MSN article comments. Even YouTube is getting filled with them.
Second is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. That says the ignorant are the loudest and boast with the most confidence. The more you become aware, the more one realizes they don’t know much, and the quieter they get. Once you start finding the deeper truths in our world, it gets creepy and people get quiet.
Lastly, the truths of our world are not what they say they are. From Pearl Harbor to the Titanic (or should I say the Olympic; when you know you know). One crazy truth is that objects left in moonlight get colder than objects in the shade (it’s true, try it yourself). But we’re told moonlight is reflected sunlight, but it can’t be if moonlight makes things colder. So what is moonlight? That is a reality, it’s readily provable, and no one wants to talk about it because it messes up people’s paradigms.
To close, the public has been fed massive lies over the years. Paradigms are formed, and breaking them is too extreme and difficult to process for most people… so they don’t broach to the topic/discussion.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a flat earther yesterday.
“Flat earth” is a funny construct… although, the Earth definitely isn’t a “spinning ball of rock in the dead of space”. I prefer the construct of a Biblical Earth, for that actually fits and makes sense (seems Werner Von Braun prefers it, too, based on the Bible verse written on his gravestone). Although, water does lay flat. That’s been proven time and time again.
BTW, I’ve always wondered why anyone believes the heliocentric model? Just because we’re told that’s the way things are? That novel theory was only introduced in 1543. It’s never been proven. The Biblical Earth was introduced before the Bible was compiled. Maybe, just maybe, so much of what we are told of our world is done to dispel the Bible, to dispel creation, and to dispel our Creator. (Hint: that is EXACTLY why so much of what we are fed as narrative is what it is, from “evolution” to our world. When you find out who is behind all the deception in the world, you’ll know it’s true)
'Bible' and 'proof' don't belong in the same sentence.
Ha! There’s a foolish statement. What do you think “proof” is? How is anything truly “proven”? Correlation makes for causation?
Part of proof comes in that you live it every day. It’s proven to you daily, repeatedly. Some people are just too desensitized to recognize it. The Bible gets proven true daily.
If it's not a spinning ball of rock in dead of space then what is it? Turtles all the way down?
That’s a great question; from everything I’ve found, I think the answer is “nobody really knows”. People seem to see different aspects and create constructs around them: round Earth, flat earth, toroidal Earth, disc Earth. All are interesting, but all have shortcomings. Seems the theories that get the funding are most promoted/accepted.
-I have never really worried if the earth is round, flat or square! Every now and again we see people squabbling over it etc so maybe my photographs shall add to the debate that should answer things rather than squabbling!? As said, I come from Anstruther and looking out at Isle of May it looked a lot higher than what it shows in the photograph here! I have sailed past both and in my mind they both have high cliffs etc and the bass rock is higher. I am not saying the world is flat or round. I shall say that the world is not like the round of a table tennis ball but could be more like a 'dimply battered golf ball'!? Take a look at the photograph and going by that you would think that the Bass Rock is say four times higher than the Isle of May!? From North Berwick the Isle of May is approx 3 times further away than the Bass Rock. So what is the cause of the Isle of May being so low or the Bass Rock so high. Could it be the distance, curve of the earth or the Isle of May sitting in one of the 'dimples'!?
ghosts
I think people that repudiate 'facts' with insults are actually the victims of indoctrination and mind-control (irrespective of their shade of politics). It is almost impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who is programmed to attack anyone with a differing world view.
Indeed, such conditions are not conducive to a productive conversation.
Have you come across the field of cognitive inoculation, Rebekah? I encountered it personally when I did a course in "debunking" "climate deniers" (ie, before the pandemonium when I was a useful idiot for the climate emergency brigade) by John Cook, originator of the "Cranky Uncle" app (used to make sure our children and young people don't believe those nutters who don't believe in the climate "97% consensus", which Cook had "proven" in his PhD thesis).
During the Covid debacle I suddenly noticed John Cook had become an aspiring "pre bunker" of all manner of other topics (https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/344861133/338159045_oa.pdf),
such as "misinformation" about the "vaccines", as well as GMOs, etc. With the hubris that seems to be proliferating these days, cognitive inoculators like Cook seem to think that they "know the Truth, The Science" (or else they are cynical social engineers for governments, or both).
That's actually one of the discoveries that woke me up: if he was lying about the transfection injections now, what else had he lied about?
My point is that much of the inability of people to even tolerate information that conflicts with their beliefs about "vaccines" or "climate change" may be due to the cognitive inoculation now proliferating in mass media. The public (or even students of immunology/vaccinology in a recent example) are warned that they "may encounter people who say....", and not to believe them, in fact, they are best just ignored rather than engaged with.
Thanks Rosemary, I am familiar but not as in depth as you from the sounds of it. I will read that paper you've linked with interest.
Great, I have plenty more links if you want them.
The problem most people have is that they are never taught to think for themselves; but always to surrender their own viewpoints in favour of those promoted by self styled experts - who invariably turn out to be nothing of the sort, except in their own academic echo chambers.
But it's difficult for most people to stand apart from the crowd - we all have an ongoing conflict within ourselves between conformity ( which is safe ) and unorthodoxy, ( which is scary, and exposes one to constant attack. )
My own personal experience is that nothing I have ever been taught is even remotely true.
That's an exhilarating, but at the same time, an isolating, experience.
But I wouldn't change it for anything.
I empathise. As a former biologist I find JJ Couey's rediscovery of biology refreshing - have you come across Gigaohm Biological?
Can you epitomize what he says?
He has come out from the reductionistic tunnel that he was inside as an "academagician" at Pittsburg medical school, delved into the history of the prevailing blinkered biology genetech world view (DNA-RNA-Protein) and its eugenics/transhumanist associations, and is now exploring a more "sacred biology" of "pattern integrities" in which reverence, awe and respect for informed consent are integral. https://stream.gigaohm.bio/c/biology_101/
All these things are essential, especially the informed consent - which has been weaponized so you can only consent to what they want, not what you want.
The way forward with the DNA paradigm seems to be in recognizing the epigenetic component inherent in this system; which I think brings into view not the evolutionary model, but the immediate effect which environment has on an individual and its collective tribe; so for example, Darwin's finches do not have to wait around for generations for a random mutation in beak shape to spread to all of the other members of the collective.
Key in accepting this was the realization that genetic changes in somatic cells can be spread immediately to the germ line, and so the first generation in every member is affected and adapts to the new locatiion.
I suspect that this is what those pesky "viruses" they see are doing; ie not spreading disease, but spreading new epigenetically-modified information.
Yep, exosomes.
"My own personal experience is that nothing I have ever been taught is even remotely true".
Did you ever have maths lessons?:)
It reminds me of Rebekah declaring (in respect of a discussion about free speech) that she couldn't disagree with me more.:)
I will give you a consolation mark for considering truth as existing in DEGREES.
One is perfectly at liberty to disagree completely with somebody - this doesn't mean that you are against free speech.
Clearly, maths has a certain amount of truth attached to it - but when this same maths is perverted in the service of the various "models" a la Neil Ferguson's "modelling" of covid impacts, then it rapidly loses all simple common sense - as it also does when dragged into the service of various other political agendas, eg the "global warming" we are constantly told about, but which seems to have little relationship to the world we actually live in.
You can keep your consolation mark though, as something is either true or false; ie truth is an absolute, it does not exist in degrees.
This is proving to be a WAR of words.:)
Okay, so something is either true or false? Mmm.
Consider the following statements:
Tim Webb is intelligent.
Tim Webb is patriotic.
Tim Webb is a conservative.
Tim Webb is obese.
Time Webb is tall.
🤣🤣🤣
See the problem with black/white thinking.
As for maths, inferential statistics is problematic in a way that other branches are not. Garbage in, garbage out. If data points are dodgy to begin with then inferences drawn from the same will be dodgy.
And politicians have a way of taking advantage of lack of public numeracy.
Maths is generally rock solid, however ...the only part of academia that is.
To suggest otherwise is to declare one's ignorance of the subject and/or one's historical failure in the same.
You misunderstood my reference to Rebekah, meanwhile.
Given the manner in which I had reasoned my position it was beyond belief that she should have disagreed so comprehensively.
Needless to say, she did not illustrated why.
Not a war - just an exchange of ideas.
I can't see the problem with answering Y/N to your various data points about what I might be.
As for "inferential statistics," the fact that they are inferential tells us that they are somewhat speculative, so therefore not problematic.
You insert the word "dodgy" now, which isn't a word from the science of logic, which is what we are dealing with here.
Any statistical analysis using data which is wrong - rather than "dodgy" will always end up with an incorrect output.
Data in is always either right or wrong, and this then determines the validity of the output.
Maths is not the only part of academia which is rock solid - experimental physics is too, but if it gives up its place to theories which are derived from speculation rather than objective reality as seeable and doable, then it too becomes highly suspect - this is my basic point about things I have been taught which are based upon theory and wishful thinking rather than a clear-headed analysis of the seeable and provable facts.
I'm sure Rebekah had good reasoning behind what she said; whether that shows itself to be true or false ultimately is down to an epistemological analysis of your two positions.
The very fact she allows you to state your position, even though it might be diametrically opposed to her own, shows that she is interested in free speech too.
Mathematical generalisations are PROVABLE. Generalisations in the realm of science are not. This makes science and maths two different beasts. One is empirical (observation based) and the other is what is called 'apriori' (based on logic, alone). One is built on sand, the other on rock.
Dodgy/dubious/doubtful ... No problem here.
It is reasonable to claim that X is more conservative than Y but less conservative than Z ... or that P is more intelligent (on average) than Q but not as intelligent as R. Intelligence, conservatism and height are all continuous variable and people can be placed on a spectrum with respect to each.
It is a nonsense to say that X is tall bit Y is not. Placing people in convenient categories is not only logical nonsense but is also a source of division and conflict. Black/white thinking is a big human failing/shortcoming - one of many.
In statistics sampling is a big issue. Consider a survey of public sentiment on some issue, for example. The idea is often to get a representative sample but this is easier said than done. We might say that one sample is more representative than another and therefore that conclusion based on the same are MORE valid than those based on the other. The validity of conclusions can also be (and typically are) undermined by the ambiguity of the items put to the public. Ambiguity exists along a spectrum, just as does sample representability and validity. One piece of research can be more valid than another but not as valid as a third piece.
Your last two sentences represent little more than white knighting and are scarcely worth responding to, except to write that it is to Rebekah's credit that she seem to allow all comments to stand. Many conservative youtubers (C-teamers, supposedly supporters of free speech) will shadow ban folk whose comments offer serious pushback and which threaten to undermine their credibility in the eyes of their followers. That is just self defense, I suppose. They have to protect their income.
When I was studying naturopathic nutrition, I read a mainstream dietetics text book that had this idea planted in it. A whole chapter on how to debunk natural medicine.
Always easier to do when you know nothing whatsoever about it!
They get very upset when you mention things like the fact that cancer tends to kill via metastasis; and vitamin D at therapeutic levels reduces this by 800%.
They resolutely refuse to look at natural treatments for the condition, because of the Cancer Act of 1939, which states that no establishment doctor is even allowed to suggest anything other than the "burn, cut, and poison" model to his patients, lest he be removed from the "medical register."
The whole thing dates from the Flexner Report, which had the objective of completely demonizing and replacing natural treatments with lucrative pharmacological ones.
You can see the process in action when you look at what they ( ie, the MHRA ) did to Dr David Noakes, who promoted GcMAF as a first-line treatment for the condition.
He ended up in prison, his business destroyed, and his reputation savaged, despite the empirical evidence that he could cure people with cancers so advanced that the medical fraternity had given up and sent them home to die.
But like most radical ideas, his treatment can be boiled down to something very simple, ie in this case, "Kefir plus vitamin D."
He initially made a lot of money from his protocol, but it can be replaced with the above very cheaply - you can even make your own kefir, and then just go out and do some sunbathing!
As a homeopath, I'm acutely aware of the Flexnor Report.
wow, "fact checking" on steroids!
Always better to disengage rather than engage, if your thesis is demonstrably weak or non existent.
I think that was the BBC strategy when dealing with these pesky "climate deniers" you mention.
They wouldn't even allow their viewpoint to be aired.
They simply, and by implication, try to associate them with that most evil of all denials, ie the one relating to the "holohoax".
- Yes I have noticed the same thing - people will commit any sort of mental gymnsatics or insult to avoid addressing facts.
- Some very good answers to all your questions lie in books like 'The Indocrinated Brain', Michael Nehls, or in some insights into the implications of, say, Flouride reducing IQ.
- Further good answers lie in the budget and successes of Information Warfare - See Matthew Crawford for good exploration here. Perhaps in such an environment, seeking facts is a ridiculous notion fit only for the naieve? Perhaps those who refuse to look up, who are mouthing the words of the cult, or refusing to discuss the emperors clothes at all, the only truly wise ones among us?
- You may also want to review history and note the particular parts we are rhyming with right now. Eg. Does the persecution of intellectuals described in Stalinist or Kmer Rouge times remind you of Australia now?
- Do the death counts of Denis Rancourt and Co. remind you of similar?
- Perhaps the fault does lie with you (and I), in that our expectations seek a reality that never was, and never will be. Ie. there can be no post truth era if there never was a truth era can there? Steven Patterson and a host of others make incredibly robust arguments that we have been in a Dark Age for decades (except Engineering).
I hear your last point, and I think was edging up to something like this with the idea that that Tower of Babel story may be expressed in human civilisation in cycles...
I love your incorporation of that ancient biblical story into your article.....I have thought often over the past 5 years of this story and the huberous of those making those perilous decisions infuriates me no end .....I think of the moronic behaviour of those who in spite of all that has transpired , cannot bring themselves to face , let alone discuss what has transpired ....the same ignorance prevails in the understanding of the politics of the Ukraine Nato proxy war that has taken the lives of more than a million Ukrainian conscripts , or the disgusting genocide taking place in Gaza against innocent civillians .....the public believe the propagandistic bullshit being pedalled by the government and MSM , yet you'd think after their Covid experience , they would have worked it out ....apparrently not , yet I take heart in the " tower of Babel" fabel ......God destroyed that tower , and all those men who thought they had a plan , were dismissed by God .....I trust God is watching over us now , with the same level of bewilderment and disdain as he had in ancient times ..... 🙏🏾🙏
Ukraine is not and never has been a democratic country. Nor is Israel, even when partition occurred they called themselves a colonial settler country.
People are more interested in finding ‘facts’ to justify their own position rather than listen, consider and then state an opinion. Dogma seems more prevalent than a considered opinion.
Otherwise known as cherry picking, confirmation bias and selective observation.
I think the confusion, and propaganda are all by design, this quote from Gustave Le Bon rings true - "The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will."
Great, though-provoking article, thanks Rebekah. We now know, and the enemy always knew, that people sufficiently scared lose the ability to think critically. Especially in the case of the vaxxed, I wonder if the refusal to look at facts is a self protection measure because the truth is so unpalatable? Perhaps the same for those who were/are being horrid to family members & friends and those who have advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome.
A story from an Australian journalist appeared in my feed this morning decrying Trump for 'yelling' at the coke head and for being unable to control his temper.
It has been pointed out by others that the only unusual thing about this interaction was that it took place in front of the press instead of in a back room.
One version of events on that is that Trump/Vance knew that Zelensky was not not going to co-operate from the previous 10 days of negotiations as told by Rubio in a very good interview - but they wanted the world to see firsthand - because they knew if not nobody was going to believe them - the behaviour of Zelensky.
Yea, aside from wearing an OUN branded T-shirt, his body language was appalling for a 'world leader'.
..... this is merely one of the problems - Zalensky is NOT a world leader.
Captain Teeshirt was was chosen and jemmied into place by the WEF.
Why him?
Actors have immense hubris and usually are, by nature, extremely (often overly)confident, they love attention, are used to and enjoy cameras in their face, can easily remember their lines and deliver with precision..... cue also Trudeau who was a drama teacher.
Also Zalensky bypassed Ukraines's last election when it was due - therefore currently, he is not a bona fide President since that time.
With all the grandstanding this imposter has done since being "s/elected" - he is intoxicated on his own sense of self importance and proxy power.
World Leader? No he is not........ nor are many of the others, who were groomed into place.
WEFer gtaduates / affilliates, posing as "Leaders" merely take orders and deliver — Zalensky is no different.
Oh goodness, I can't believe that people even consider Zelensky a great leader! Yet only tonight I was in a group where we were asked to pick a great leader from history, and one woman said Zelensky, then went on (with downcast face) to talk about how shameful Trump was to to talk him down, in the Oval Office what's more! TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is contagious.
Yes, it has always been this way.
Any topic has shown to be just another vehicle down the same road. Global Warming, The Environment, Affirmative Action, Violent Crime, FATCA/FBAR/CBT, Taxation, The US Federal Budget, Education, LGBTQWTFO, all of it and more; the conversations, the emotionally charged arguments and rebuttals devoid of facts all fit the same pattern as if a form letter.
Absolutely correct! It’s the playbook. It’s devilishly crafty, deceitful, and manipulative… and when you trace it all back to who is doing it, it truly is devilish.
So many people point at all the different framework these wicked people have created and work within (the Club of Rome, Masons, Bilderberg, Jesuits, “the Jews”, WEF and more), but that’s just the construct, not the “who”. The “who” is simple. It’s the fully corrupted ‘tares’ of the world that follow Lucifer the Light-bearer in search of esoteric knowledge and power in order to control, steal, manipulate, self-indulge, and enhance every other sin. That’s it. That’s the “them” behind it all. And “they” span generations and seek out the corruptable to do their dirty work.
I whole heartedly agree with your premise. You’ve got on a theme that is so central, so critically important but rarely recognised. Communication is becoming incredibly difficult, I think the average person these days (perhaps ever?) isn’t all that good at properly comprehending written or verbal content. I come across this daily in peoples posts reacting to events or other peoples content. But alas, even as hard as this is it’s really only the beginning of the problem. The Information pool is wide and deep and incredibly muddy. One can read different versions of the same event depending on the source and the average person isn’t great at applying weighting to the various sources, and it doesn’t help when MSM uses pejorative terms to manipulate people into steering clear of some actually very credible sources. Then there’s the tribe effect where people feel constrained to stay within the safety of approved narratives, and there’s biases of all kinds that are normally submerged in the sub conscious that don’t allow for objectivity. On top of this is that whatever our western culture has for finding & transmitting wisdom. And finally there’s the stress of everyday living trying to make ends meet and stay healthy when so much in our environment (both economically and environmentally) are warring against us…
I often wonder how we can recover from this as a civilisation…
I always come back to being patient, living as simply as you’re able to, speaking the truth in love. Barring some kind of staunch divine intervention it’s can only be this way. People are being confronted with a lot right now, and we process things in a fairly linear kind of way. Best to accelerate the linear process by not overloading but facilitating understanding in whatever way possible. If a person can feel they’re safe enough to gather their thoughts and have some power to decide and act then this can be built upon. Those that are awake need to provide that solid basis, the global parasitic class and the corrupt and incompetent ones causing all this chaos in the world are doing all they can to not allow this. People waking up, finding their power and each other is the only way out of this.
Thanks for writing a powerful observation and inviting us to comment.
"The average person isn’t great at applying weighting to the various sources" - that's a good point. Many people I know eschew publications altogether if they publish one thing not 'on narrative,' and swallow everything whole from their preferred publications. I think you have to learn what certain journos/outlets do well, what are their blindspots, and weave it together with your own judgement.
Agree with your premise... I sense a lot has to do with our broken education system, for decades now we have taught kids what to think and not how to think. Logic has gone out the proverbial window.
People have chosen to swallow what the media tells them and refuse to even accommodate the idea that the media and politicians could be wrong. We must continue to engage with people one on one that's the only way forward
I think that fundamentally people would rather stay in their comfy echo chamber than even consider that they may be wrong. Not questioning and not discussing keeps them comfortable. I agree, it's more than a shame or sad. This lack of flexibility in thoughts ultimately means that people can easily be shepherded and controlled.
I have had too many discussions closed by a person who disagreed wholeheartedly with me over something I believe in and have supporting factual information for. So, I ask them to show me where I am wrong, give better evidence and that I am happy to adjust my perspective on light of better evidence.. Nobody ever has, instead they just shut me out. If their belief was based on sound information they would have no reason not to show me, surely they would be keen to share. I am happy to change my mind given better information and they know it - but they simply don't have any information to back up their belief let alone better information.
Ultimately it's down to laziness and the wish for comfort. Seeking knowledge and questioning things is time consuming and can be more than uncomfortable when one realises new truths.
Thanks for the analysis, Rebekah. I share your pain. I’m not sure that people are less concerned with facts than they used to be, as much as it seems to have become harder to unearth them. (In fact, I would take some convincing that most people in the past were doggedly determined to get the facts about contentious matters - rather I think events of recent years have highlighted the problem.) Like most of us, I was appalled at Trump’s notion of ‘facts’ vs ‘alternative facts’ a few years ago, but now I wonder … It seems to me that facts are often created (probably consciously) by the media and so it becomes harder to appraise them. Thinking of the press conference, I was not surprised that almost all the media chose similar tiny chunks to show, demonstrating the angry conversations at the end. I checked about a dozen sources, locally and internationally, and reached my conclusion. None of them made clear in any way that the angry outbursts were at the end of a lengthy meeting (about 46 minutes), and the reports almost all gave the impression that the entire meeting was like that. (It wasn’t). The ‘facts’ were constructed, telecast and headlined. Is it just lousy journalism (constrained by time, pick the juicy bits …) or is it conscious massaging of a message? Who knows? But the end-product is that it is again hard to know what we should believe as factual. We cannot just take for granted that previously trusted organs are doing their job. And it is hard, sometimes very hard, to do it for ourselves - to listen to the whole interview, to fact-check comments (as you did), to dig deeper (such as finding out about, accessing, appraising the meeting Zelenskyy had with the anti-Trump people just prior to the press conference), etc. Sometimes, our only alternative is to take on faith what we’re told: we don’t have time to probe it. When all the sources say the same thing, like ‘safe and effective’, the ‘fact’ becomes a truth by repetition. Frankly, I have now reached the point where I assume a uniform message in the media is an alarm bell, rather than a factual account. But it’s not just previously trusted institutions like media and government that are problematic. It’s worse than that. I used to trust published peer-reviewed research in respectable journals as incubators of facts. But the Covid years have shaken that trust too. There have been lots of examples of dodgy research being published and good research being rejected in recent years, and that’s even harder to deal with than mass media. Now we need to check for COI declarations (sometimes hidden), suspicious affiliations, or key findings buried deep in appendices or supplementary materials. We need to read the whole paper, too, as the conclusions don’t always match the data or its analysis. Bad editing, or conscious construction of alternative facts? Who knows? Etc … it has become exceedingly harder than it used to be to determine what is factual. (Or I might have rose-coloured glasses about how easy it used to be.) And hence probably many people take the easy way out and assume that whatever their tribe, or their echo-chamber, says must of course be true, so it’s unnecessary to question it or consider any alternatives. To say the least, it is exhausting and discouraging …
Good point that it's not just people disregarding facts we have to contend with, but facts being really hard to find and nail down. Matt Taibbi wrote about that recently, about how news outlets used to link to the thing they were writing about (a speech, a paper, etc) but these days tend not to - so all readers get is commentary about the thing, without being able to link to the thing to check it out for themselves. Terrible.
This is an interesting question, for which I have not yet found an answer. Perhaps it lies in the difference between systems and linear thinking.
"At its core, Systems Thinking focuses on the interconnectedness and interactions among different components within a system, recognizing that they cannot be understood in isolation. By taking a holistic view, this approach helps identify underlying patterns and root causes of problems, ultimately leading to more effective solutions.
On the other hand, Linear Thinking prioritizes a step-by-step, cause-and-effect mentality, relying on past data and existing solutions to form a singular, direct path to problem-solving."
https://criticalthinkingsecrets.com/systems-thinking-vs-linear-thinking-understanding-the-key-differences/
Systems thinking is hard work and can lead to massive cognitive dissonance, which is probably why a lot of folk prefer linear thinking. Orange man bad, ergo, I can go back to watching MAFS ....
You can take this approach further.
Both of these systems of thought have the same basic weakness; ie they are not centred anywhere.
So each can lead you anywhere, and where they lead you might not be the best place to go.
What people really need is some objective central point from which either of these modalities you mention can extend outwards.
My thesis then would be to base everything upon the simple bedrock of what "God hath said," because that saying will be objectively true, and thus other lesser ways of thinking can be anchored upon it.
Note that, Biblically speaking, we all began to veer off the straight and narrow once Eve succumbed to the devil's suggestion to her, "Hath God said?"
ie that we would die if we ate that particular fruit; which it turns out, was having sexual relations with angels.
True. The existence of absolute truth has to be admitted, else we end up wallowing in Pontius Pilate's tragic position of "what is truth?". Once absolute truth has been admitted, the tricky bit (to put it mildly) is discerning where absolute truth is to be found.
Most people seem to have at the least, a grudging acceptance that "what God has said" is that absolute truth.
Our entire system of jurisprudence is built upon it.
As I recall, Pilate's question is fascinating, inasmuch as that the letters it was built from can be rearranged to spell "He who is in front of you."
"Quid est veritas?" becomes therefore "Vir qui est adest."
Scripture openly affirms this, when He said "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life."