Not only is the confirmation bias at new heights; the leftist mantra of plugging your ears and saying "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la" followed by insults such as doomer, shill, etc are also at new heights. Apparently there are a sizable number of people who come here to find truth who simultaneously do not want to hear the truth.
It's really disappointing, to see how many people are downvoting your responses and comments.
Even if people had a different opinion, the quality of your comments speaks for themselves, imo. Clearly stated, seem to be evidence and fact based, instead of rhetorical flourishes.
I quite agree with you about the Brunson thing. It's a particular kind of mental virus that seems to infect certain segments of the population, whether they are neo-Marxist activists, social justice worryers, or truthers. It's a mixture of an inability to take the position of reflecting on your own internal programming that's at work, an inability to acknowledge or recognize your own biases, and an inability to be aware of what emotional and intellectual forces are pulling you along a certain path.
It manifests in a certain type of bravado and yes, a willingness to denigrate and accuse and attack the one who represents the viewpoint you deeply and profoundly wish to reject, due to aforementioned emotional and intellectual forces (programming) that recognizing the other viewpoint would require you to ALSO recognize. So, people ending up wanting to denigrate and reject B at all costs because accepting or even respectfully considering B would inherently entail considering A, and A is what they wish to not see, not hear, not think about and reject AT ALL COSTS.
It's a sort of mass formation psychosis, triggered by the need to lock away any cognitive dissonance. Must avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs, so people will go to uncharacteristic, unreasonable and frequently immoral lengths to do so.
It's a way of existing that is deeply tinged by fear and desperation.
And, sadly, too many people are willing to choose that way, all the while believing that they are "right".
Truthers, and members of the Great Awakening are not immune to that innate human flaw. It's primal fear working at the basest of levels.
That flaw is activated when a person willing accepts the proposition that there can be truth out there they can recognize but that it's not directly tied to and connected to awareness of the truth within me, about who I am, what my flaws and faults are, what my programming might be, and that true freedom only comes with personal, internal awakening. Aka integrity. Both external and internal integrity.
For example, some people simply do NOT want to consider the viewpoint that the Great Hope (e.g. the Brunson case) is perhaps not what they imagine or think or have been told it is. Because doing so would simultaneously require looking inside and reflecting on the LACK of hope there, the LACK of responsible understanding that drives real optimism even in the most difficult and bleakest of situations. Because doing so would expose a lack of faith.
Some people, believing themselves to be people of great faith, have, unfortunately, no faith deep down, not real or substantial faith. They have NOT reconciled internal faith in one's own true nature with external faith in God, the Creator, or Christ, for example.
If one examines all the above issues, stringing from the behavior of professing to seek for truth while denigrating those who challenge one's programming or false beliefs, down to the psychological condition of wanting to reject anything that hints of being able to raise cognitive dissonance, at the end of the day, all those issues are tied to a deep fractice between the inner and the outer dimensions, between what I imagine or think I am and the world is and what I truly and and what the world truly is.
This is the fundamental condition plaguing humanity since the start of history. The only way of resolving it is the path of restoring ourselves to our Creator, to unite the outer man (the human) and the inner man (the divine, God).
I digress, but my point is, all the above are minsfestions of a particular condition that we, as humans, must consistently strive to overcome, in order to be better people. For otherwise, can we even be worthy of the truth or the freedom we seek?
I am just as prone to clinging to my internal biases as anyone else. But perhaps there is a difference in that I am aware that this occurs. And I always seek to step away from that when trying to reason through something. Sometimes I am better at it than other times.
Just as stereotyping serves a function, so does your internal confirmation bias. It helps parse through complex reasoning in an expedient and efficient fashion. And it is mostly reliable. But in this climate, "mostly" isn't close to reliable enough. You have to do your best to discard assumptions and only work with what you can demonstrably prove - either through direct evidence, or deductive reasoning.
The older I get, the more I am willing to accept things I do not like. And much of this I would credit to the last 5-6 years of eye opening revelations. I come from a place where I am tired of being lied to, and sick of living in make believe magic world of larps and bullshit. I want to know reality; even if it sucks. This has made me extremely reluctant to just "accept" things without evidence. Which is why I delved into this Brunson case.
To me, it appears to be an obvious grift. It should cause all of these more prominent figures who are promoting it to lose credibility. After all, if one could read his complaint in the entirety and come away with the thought that there is viability here, what amount of complete bs won't you accept? The alternative is that they never bothered to read it at all. Either way, its a problem.
Most concerning to me is the behavior of this guy after Tracy Beanz wrote that piece on how bad the case is. He actually responded with a statement essentially saying that questioning this case is treason...really? People like that should be ignored immediately and no time spent on hearing their thoughts. That is insane and should alarm everyone.
Would wholeheartedly agree on restoring ourselves to our Creator. Easier said than done. Sometimes I feel these earthly truth pursuits are in conflict with this need.
Good post here, fren. Hope your new year goes great!
Much, if not all, of what you write resonates. including: acknowledging biases but also working to balance or account for them; recognizing the positive functions of stereotyping and confirmation biases, while also recognizing the potential pitfalls or limitations; the issue of the griftiness of the matter at hand, whether deliberate or deluded, not to mention the issues it raises with commentators in the truth sphere who are NOT applying, deliberately or through negligence, due diligence; the nature of the response given to Tracy Beanz's article by the complainant; and certain things being easier said than done.
You also write in very notable style / manner, which to me indicates a certain clarity of thinking, and both of these things are something I truly enjoy!
Thanks for your very good, if not entirely or broadly enough appreciated, contributions.
Yup. DOA, my fren. DOA. The confirmation bias here is strong and revealed with every post on this case.
Not only is the confirmation bias at new heights; the leftist mantra of plugging your ears and saying "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la" followed by insults such as doomer, shill, etc are also at new heights. Apparently there are a sizable number of people who come here to find truth who simultaneously do not want to hear the truth.
It's really disappointing, to see how many people are downvoting your responses and comments.
Even if people had a different opinion, the quality of your comments speaks for themselves, imo. Clearly stated, seem to be evidence and fact based, instead of rhetorical flourishes.
I quite agree with you about the Brunson thing. It's a particular kind of mental virus that seems to infect certain segments of the population, whether they are neo-Marxist activists, social justice worryers, or truthers. It's a mixture of an inability to take the position of reflecting on your own internal programming that's at work, an inability to acknowledge or recognize your own biases, and an inability to be aware of what emotional and intellectual forces are pulling you along a certain path.
It manifests in a certain type of bravado and yes, a willingness to denigrate and accuse and attack the one who represents the viewpoint you deeply and profoundly wish to reject, due to aforementioned emotional and intellectual forces (programming) that recognizing the other viewpoint would require you to ALSO recognize. So, people ending up wanting to denigrate and reject B at all costs because accepting or even respectfully considering B would inherently entail considering A, and A is what they wish to not see, not hear, not think about and reject AT ALL COSTS.
It's a sort of mass formation psychosis, triggered by the need to lock away any cognitive dissonance. Must avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs, so people will go to uncharacteristic, unreasonable and frequently immoral lengths to do so.
It's a way of existing that is deeply tinged by fear and desperation.
And, sadly, too many people are willing to choose that way, all the while believing that they are "right".
Truthers, and members of the Great Awakening are not immune to that innate human flaw. It's primal fear working at the basest of levels.
That flaw is activated when a person willing accepts the proposition that there can be truth out there they can recognize but that it's not directly tied to and connected to awareness of the truth within me, about who I am, what my flaws and faults are, what my programming might be, and that true freedom only comes with personal, internal awakening. Aka integrity. Both external and internal integrity.
For example, some people simply do NOT want to consider the viewpoint that the Great Hope (e.g. the Brunson case) is perhaps not what they imagine or think or have been told it is. Because doing so would simultaneously require looking inside and reflecting on the LACK of hope there, the LACK of responsible understanding that drives real optimism even in the most difficult and bleakest of situations. Because doing so would expose a lack of faith.
Some people, believing themselves to be people of great faith, have, unfortunately, no faith deep down, not real or substantial faith. They have NOT reconciled internal faith in one's own true nature with external faith in God, the Creator, or Christ, for example.
If one examines all the above issues, stringing from the behavior of professing to seek for truth while denigrating those who challenge one's programming or false beliefs, down to the psychological condition of wanting to reject anything that hints of being able to raise cognitive dissonance, at the end of the day, all those issues are tied to a deep fractice between the inner and the outer dimensions, between what I imagine or think I am and the world is and what I truly and and what the world truly is.
This is the fundamental condition plaguing humanity since the start of history. The only way of resolving it is the path of restoring ourselves to our Creator, to unite the outer man (the human) and the inner man (the divine, God).
I digress, but my point is, all the above are minsfestions of a particular condition that we, as humans, must consistently strive to overcome, in order to be better people. For otherwise, can we even be worthy of the truth or the freedom we seek?
I am just as prone to clinging to my internal biases as anyone else. But perhaps there is a difference in that I am aware that this occurs. And I always seek to step away from that when trying to reason through something. Sometimes I am better at it than other times.
Just as stereotyping serves a function, so does your internal confirmation bias. It helps parse through complex reasoning in an expedient and efficient fashion. And it is mostly reliable. But in this climate, "mostly" isn't close to reliable enough. You have to do your best to discard assumptions and only work with what you can demonstrably prove - either through direct evidence, or deductive reasoning.
The older I get, the more I am willing to accept things I do not like. And much of this I would credit to the last 5-6 years of eye opening revelations. I come from a place where I am tired of being lied to, and sick of living in make believe magic world of larps and bullshit. I want to know reality; even if it sucks. This has made me extremely reluctant to just "accept" things without evidence. Which is why I delved into this Brunson case.
To me, it appears to be an obvious grift. It should cause all of these more prominent figures who are promoting it to lose credibility. After all, if one could read his complaint in the entirety and come away with the thought that there is viability here, what amount of complete bs won't you accept? The alternative is that they never bothered to read it at all. Either way, its a problem.
Most concerning to me is the behavior of this guy after Tracy Beanz wrote that piece on how bad the case is. He actually responded with a statement essentially saying that questioning this case is treason...really? People like that should be ignored immediately and no time spent on hearing their thoughts. That is insane and should alarm everyone.
Would wholeheartedly agree on restoring ourselves to our Creator. Easier said than done. Sometimes I feel these earthly truth pursuits are in conflict with this need.
Good post here, fren. Hope your new year goes great!
Thanks for the response.
Much, if not all, of what you write resonates. including: acknowledging biases but also working to balance or account for them; recognizing the positive functions of stereotyping and confirmation biases, while also recognizing the potential pitfalls or limitations; the issue of the griftiness of the matter at hand, whether deliberate or deluded, not to mention the issues it raises with commentators in the truth sphere who are NOT applying, deliberately or through negligence, due diligence; the nature of the response given to Tracy Beanz's article by the complainant; and certain things being easier said than done.
You also write in very notable style / manner, which to me indicates a certain clarity of thinking, and both of these things are something I truly enjoy!
Thanks for your very good, if not entirely or broadly enough appreciated, contributions.