Paranoia is a social defense mechanism. A reaction to betrayal and deceit.

Social defense mechanisms, when you scope out to view a larger population, are a lot like immune responses. And collectively, what we have is a social immune system.

Too strong an immune response across too many systems and you have an allergic reaction (crippled by fear uncertainty doubt demoralization) too weak of an immune response across enough systems and the contaminant survives to replicate and spread further infection.

The skeptics boards are an important system for its early and often strong immune response. It is also the system most vulnerable to allergic reaction. The best way to determine whether a reaction is too much is to figure out whether or not the response is good for the organism or bad or ineffective.

Only way to do that is to vigorously and dispassionately analyze the integrity and health of the systems reacting.

I think it is important to conceptualize this to see certain things clearly in the bigger picture. Things like Freemasonry, Catholicism, Mormons, Jews, etc could easily be devices to dial up reaction to a point where the system is too reactive, and so made less effective. There's enough truth to suspicions, because all of these groups have a dominant subcultural mafia that the larger culture has misplaced affinity for. Similar to how Italians like their mafioso subculture.

I think all of those groups are much more innocent of corruption than what the skeptics system thinks. Simply because I see the deliberate campaign, and the effect of that campaign as not serving the health of the system overall.

By forgiving being a generally forgiving person, you will forgive generally grouped people, and you can deprive the actual villains the ability to hide behind the innocent -- Which is absolutely something that they do -- and diminish the value of this tactic greatly, overall.

This is a far more effective thinking. As an immune system, we want to attack dangerous contaminants with always greater efficiency and always with improving accuracy. Always improving.

Cheers. (I swear I THOUGHT this was going to be a short reply when I started typing.)

Paranoia is a social defense mechanism. A reaction to betrayal and deceit.

Social defense mechanisms, when you scope out to view a larger population, are a lot like immune responses. And collectively, what we have is a social immune system.

Too strong an immune response across too many systems and you have an allergic reaction, too weak of an immune response across enough systems and the contaminant survives to replicate and spread further infection.

The skeptics boards are an important system for its early and often strong immune response. It is also the system most vulnerable to allergic reaction. The best way to determine whether a reaction is too much is to figure out whether or not the response is good for the organism or bad or ineffective.

Only way to do that is to vigorously and dispassionately analyze the integrity and health of the systems reacting.

I think it is important to conceptualize this to see certain things clearly in the bigger picture. Things like Freemasonry, Catholicism, Mormons, Jews, etc could easily be devices to dial up reaction to a point where the system is too reactive, and so made less effective. There's enough truth to suspicions, because all of these groups have a dominant subcultural mafia that the larger culture has misplaced affinity for. Similar to how Italians like their mafioso subculture.

I think all of those groups are much more innocent of corruption than what the skeptics system thinks. Simply because I see the deliberate campaign, and the effect of that campaign as not serving the health of the system overall.

By forgiving being a generally forgiving person, you will forgive generally grouped people, and you can deprive the actual villains the ability to hide behind the innocent -- Which is absolutely something that they do -- and diminish the value of this tactic greatly, overall.

This is a far more effective thinking. As an immune system, we want to attack dangerous contaminants with always greater efficiency and always with improving accuracy. Always improving.

Cheers. (I swear I THOUGHT this was going to be a short reply when I started typing.)

Paranoia is a social defense mechanism. A reaction to betrayal and deceit.

Social defense mechanisms, when you scope out to view a larger population, are a lot like immune responses. And collectively, what we have is a social immune system.

Too strong an immune response across too many systems and you have an allergic reaction, too weak of an immune response across enough systems and the contaminant survives to replicate and spread further infection.

The skeptics boards are an important system for its early and often strong immune response. It is also the system most vulnerable to allergic reaction. The best way to determine whether a reaction is too much is to figure out whether or not the response is good for the organism or bad or ineffective.

Only way to do that is to vigorously and dispassionately analyze the integrity and health of the systems reacting.

I think this an important to conceptualize this to see certain things clearly in the bigger picture. Things like Freemasonry, Catholicism, Mormons, Jews, etc could easily be devices to dial up reaction to a point where the system is too reactive, and so made less effective.

I think all of those groups are much more innocent of corruption than what the skeptics system thinks. Simply because I see the deliberate campaign, and the effect of that campaign as not serving the health of the system overall.

By forgiving being a generally forgiving person, you will forgive generally grouped people, and you can deprive the actual villains the ability to hide behind the innocent -- Which is absolutely something that they do -- and diminish the value of this tactic greatly, overall.

This is a far more effective thinking. As an immune system, we want to attack dangerous contaminants with always greater efficiency and always with improving accuracy. Always improving.

Cheers. (I swear I THOUGHT this was going to be a short reply when I started typing.)