I have grown increasingly amazed at the inability of so many to see trends that are so clear and obvious to us here.
I'm definitely claiming any kind of superior intelligence--I was a steady B- student throughout all of college. I agree 100% with the statement "I can't be smart enough for there to be so many people dumber than me!" (I can't remember who said that).
Yet, we have been brought to a new understanding of our reality in the past 2 years-- that the vast majority of people get their beliefs and understanding of the truths based on what they are told--not by what they see.
We have seen a number of mysterious vaccine deaths and injuries. Of course the vaxxed have seen and experienced it even more. Instead of gaining an immediate sense of concern and suspicion, they just consider what they've seen around them as a coincidence or bad luck until they hear CNN say otherwise.
The "believe what you are told, not what you see" group tends to lean left, but there is certainly no shortage of those on the right also--just look at Patriot.win.
How many "q proofs" convinced you Q was real?
After seeing one q proof, I thought "whatever". After 2 Q proofs I thought "interesting!" After seeing my third Q proof I thought "Wait a minute...is something going here? I'm going to pay close attention from now on to determine if these are just coincidences or if POTUS and the military are nodding "yes, it is real! yes, it is real." Sure enough, in a month of careful observation, I was 100% convinced it was real.
Yet, we all know other conservatives that have been exposed to dozens and dozens of q proofs, and it never intrigues their interest in the least.
Any how, this is my rant for the day. Anyone else feel the same?
Pattern recognition is basic to human survival, it also requires work and experience to hone the instincts, and also adequate dopamine levels in the frontal lobe (many ways this can be sabotaged including abusing technology and staying disconnected from nature).
However the Catch-22 is the phenomenon of indulging in pattern recognitions which are actually inaccurate or distorted caricatures of events and items of perception. One must be careful. The Dunning Kruger effect is very real and no particular ideological bias is immune from its blinders. Confirmation biases, selective information sources, psy ops, disinfo, etc all of that can create the convincing sensation of patterns out of selective data points, and artificial cause/effect explanations easily fill in the gaps in convincing ways.
No easy answers as to know when one is recognizing legit patterns or being led down a predetermined path which some other entity wishes to present the semblance of patterns. Case by case issue. But off the top of my head, one really good guiding principle is to make sure whether you or your source of "data points" meant to be making connections are clear on the difference between speculation, hypothesis, and theory.