So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.
“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”
He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.
What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.
He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.
As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.
But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.
There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”
The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.
Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.
This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”
That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.
Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?
Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?
Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?
Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.
In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.
I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.
It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.
I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.
Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.
I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
The world used to have ZERO logic in it because of the lack of a system with logical gates and values.
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
Communist. Satanist. How many fucking times do we have to tell you this?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?
So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.
“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”
He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.
What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.
He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.
As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.
But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.
There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”
The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.
Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.
This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”
That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.
Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?
Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?
Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?
Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.
In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.
I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.
It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.
I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.
Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.
I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.
You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:
You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.
THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.
Q has convinced you that this is research.
I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.
Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.
But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."
As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.
Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?
I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.
"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"
Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?
I think that the world is immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational.
I don’t see this as a violation of the laws of reality. As nice as it would be to have a Unifying Theory of Human Evil and we could find that in Q, I instead just believe the world is far, far more complicated than the movie-like logic that Q describes.
I see the world as a result of humans being immensely complicated, confusing, and often irrational. And there is a fuck ton of us, all out, doing complicated, confusing, and irrational things, all in service to different motivations and drives.
I don’t think it’s magic. I simply accept that we will never have access to the information we need to connect every single dot, because the vast majority of information goes unobserved and unrecorded.
It doesn’t stop me from learning and pursuing knowledge, but it does make me incredibly skeptical of people like Q, who both claim to know the absolute truth, but “reveal” it in a non-falsifiable manner that makes it useless for prediction and useful only for after-the-fact explanation.
Which, I say lightly, is difficult to differentiate from what a religion does.
I don’t like non-scientific theories, and Q supporters say that I can’t use any of the usual ways I would make Q scientific, because “plausible deniability is necessary” and therefore Q cannot directly confirm any of the theories he has you chase down without risking The Plan.
Do you see why that would be frustrating? I ask this honestly. Can you see how, even if I really, really invested myself into proving Q’s message correct, I could never actually do so in a scientific manner? I would always have a “wait and see that I’m right eventually” request somewhere in my pitch?
I get that you believe that. I get that Q as a “primer” implies this.
Can you please help me find the primary source evidence that Q researchers uncovered after Q led them down this rabbit hole? Can you please show me specific cases where a proven Satanic or Communist therapist manipulated a patient into some criminal mischief?