Intelligence ought be highly correlated to a mind inquiring enough to test the veracity in what they are being told, the reputation of the teller and what their history of being honest or dishonest is, evaluate the likelihoods of the outcomes that the tellers insist are the risks that justify extreme responses, look for motivations that might be leading people to deceive based on profit or blackmail, and all the rest of the standard intellectual set of tools.
If they cant do this, or dont have the time, or whatever excuse they come up with, I dont accept they have the gifts they claim to. Regardless of whatever tenure or professorship they hold.
I agree 100%. Some would argue people like us overthink everything. They are wrong. We think down all the logical paths that look to be possible for the issue at hand. We don't stop when we find the answer that suits us, we continue to think until we come up with the most likely correct answer as well as multiple less likely outcomes.
The problem with the masses, they don't even look for the first outcome, they simply think, why would they lie about this. Except to them this is a rhetorical question. While a thinking man dissects this "rhetorical" question.
I may put this up as a post, would be a good meme if done right.
At this point I’m wondering if the masses think at all. It looks to me like many have been told what to think - in other words they just parrot out what they’ve been told.
When you catch them in a logic fallacy, they freeze up (as their matrix glitches). You can see it in their eyes and then you get angry dismissal, emotional condescension and the end of the conversation.
They don’t want to actually think or to know actual truth; they want to “be right” and feel “safe”. Even if that means a divergence from the truth.
I have seen that matrix glitch look, you are right, they get emotional, will either get angry or try to make a stupid/funny comment to change the subject.
Here is my go to example of the matrix glitch look. In the movie "Passengers" start at the 13:00 mark when Jim walks into the bar and has a conversation with the android bar-tender Arthur. It's a great awake / normie conversation. At the 14:08 mark Jim says "well I woke up early". And then at the 14:20 mark Jim asks Arthur "how is it that I'm sitting here with you with 90 years to go?". You have to see Arthur's matrix glitch facial response and then he says "it's not possible for you to be here". Now every time I watch or hear a normie deny all logic and reality my mind sees Arthur's matrix glitch.
Depending on the person I'm talking with, I'm learning to really enjoy that moment, it used to drive me nuts, feels like progress now though. When they pause in that moment of mental venerability slip in another good-sized redpill for added effect.
Hey Qasar. I thought you might enjoy my response to patriot_legend since we are all on the same page with the matrix glitch response. If you get a chance to see the part of the movie I referenced I think that may be your go-to matrix glitch example too.
In my own personal experience, i’ve found it hard to believe that anyone would lie to me, probably because thats not how i think. I don’t think the average human mind is wired to understand lies, or the concept of lying, or the idea that what they are being told is the opposite of the truth. Its kind-of a next-level way of thinking, to be able to lie, or to be able to tell that someone else is lying.
Evolutionary pressures imposes these things for people whose ancestors grew up and lived in places where trust and honesty within the tribal or societal group was paramount. Where liars were driven out or exiled because one dishonest person threatens the life and wellbeing of the entire group. So there is a natural selection for trust.
Cue today with migration from other entirely foreign groups who developed very differently and lie constantly about everything, even to each other... when mixed into a high-trust society, the damage is impossible to understate.
Intelligence ought be highly correlated to a mind inquiring enough to test the veracity in what they are being told, the reputation of the teller and what their history of being honest or dishonest is, evaluate the likelihoods of the outcomes that the tellers insist are the risks that justify extreme responses, look for motivations that might be leading people to deceive based on profit or blackmail, and all the rest of the standard intellectual set of tools.
If they cant do this, or dont have the time, or whatever excuse they come up with, I dont accept they have the gifts they claim to. Regardless of whatever tenure or professorship they hold.
I agree 100%. Some would argue people like us overthink everything. They are wrong. We think down all the logical paths that look to be possible for the issue at hand. We don't stop when we find the answer that suits us, we continue to think until we come up with the most likely correct answer as well as multiple less likely outcomes.
The problem with the masses, they don't even look for the first outcome, they simply think, why would they lie about this. Except to them this is a rhetorical question. While a thinking man dissects this "rhetorical" question.
I may put this up as a post, would be a good meme if done right.
At this point I’m wondering if the masses think at all. It looks to me like many have been told what to think - in other words they just parrot out what they’ve been told.
When you catch them in a logic fallacy, they freeze up (as their matrix glitches). You can see it in their eyes and then you get angry dismissal, emotional condescension and the end of the conversation.
They don’t want to actually think or to know actual truth; they want to “be right” and feel “safe”. Even if that means a divergence from the truth.
I have seen that matrix glitch look, you are right, they get emotional, will either get angry or try to make a stupid/funny comment to change the subject.
Here is my go to example of the matrix glitch look. In the movie "Passengers" start at the 13:00 mark when Jim walks into the bar and has a conversation with the android bar-tender Arthur. It's a great awake / normie conversation. At the 14:08 mark Jim says "well I woke up early". And then at the 14:20 mark Jim asks Arthur "how is it that I'm sitting here with you with 90 years to go?". You have to see Arthur's matrix glitch facial response and then he says "it's not possible for you to be here". Now every time I watch or hear a normie deny all logic and reality my mind sees Arthur's matrix glitch.
I've seen that look. For me they go silent and blank. They don't reactivate until you change topics.
Depending on the person I'm talking with, I'm learning to really enjoy that moment, it used to drive me nuts, feels like progress now though. When they pause in that moment of mental venerability slip in another good-sized redpill for added effect.
Hey Qasar. I thought you might enjoy my response to patriot_legend since we are all on the same page with the matrix glitch response. If you get a chance to see the part of the movie I referenced I think that may be your go-to matrix glitch example too.
Took a while, but I think this is the scene you’re referring to. (And thank you for the reference).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pcFBFMV30EQ
Tenure and professorship have nothing to do with intelligence anyways. It’s all politics, much of it identity driven.
In my own personal experience, i’ve found it hard to believe that anyone would lie to me, probably because thats not how i think. I don’t think the average human mind is wired to understand lies, or the concept of lying, or the idea that what they are being told is the opposite of the truth. Its kind-of a next-level way of thinking, to be able to lie, or to be able to tell that someone else is lying.
Evolutionary pressures imposes these things for people whose ancestors grew up and lived in places where trust and honesty within the tribal or societal group was paramount. Where liars were driven out or exiled because one dishonest person threatens the life and wellbeing of the entire group. So there is a natural selection for trust.
Cue today with migration from other entirely foreign groups who developed very differently and lie constantly about everything, even to each other... when mixed into a high-trust society, the damage is impossible to understate.