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.
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.