Some good statements there. Dealing with "cognitive dissonance". It is still concerning that even now Thousands of brainwashed individuals are still wearing masks and in fear of the next scamdemic.
Do I expect you to apply critical analysis and be aware of both my and your own conditioning and social media targeting when reading my post about applying critical analysis and being aware of conditioning and social media targeting?
If the first comment shows the “goggles”, the question is WHY? The pre-existing conditioning is only a small part of the problem.
The reason may be the inability to handle all information available and cross-check all its aspects accordingly. The overflow of data, published articles, podcasts, interviews, and what not is such that no-one can examine everything at face value (i.e. with actual reading and reviewing). As a result, we scan several initial messages, filter in what sounds acceptable to our pre-determined views, and filter out the rest. Misunderstandings will result.
The chart example is a great way to understand that we do not know what we are looking at. In good faith. We apply our interpretations without detailed examination of the subject matter. Maybe we didn’t have source data or skills to analyze them, maybe we don’t have time or patience. Misunderstandings will result.
Both cases show that we have to change the way we present information to the reader. (If we want to be understood in line with our intentions, of course.)
Texts should be written with the question in the mind of the writer: “What am I looking at?” What is it? What does it mean? And answers to these questions should be provided in the text. It’s only a sentence or two more, no burden, no effort. But the reader will be given the context of the interpretation.
I mean: what you have written here as an explanation should have been included in the original articles.
Why is it crucial?
Because the first impression of the writing will determine the lifespan of the material, its reliability and the potential to attract more attention.
Does it mean that readers are too prejudiced / dumb / impatient / … to understand what we are writing? No. They simply have too much work to do with the tsunami of (sound or not) information out there. We, as authors, need to help them swim across and take advantage of what we are giving.
I am not referring to your example. Just trying to find the answer to why readers are so willing to give up looking at other (new/fresh) information with the intention to be enriched by it.
It’s all courtesy of anti-social media. These platforms have introduced blanket immunity for rude behavior and corrupting civil discourse. And they continue this practice.
When you are free to be anti-social, you no longer care about your benefits. Instead, you sink into attacking others. Because you can and because you will get away with it. Why bother about customer care when you can simply slander your competitor?
This attitude may take over the mind. Why should I care about my benefits when I can destroy toys of others?
You know that brainwashing by MKULTRA CIA controlled, operation mockingbird media, the 15,000 hour indoctrination called school, and the criminal, lying churches, have done a great job of controlling thoughts of the blinded and brainwashed public. Maybe, there's your trouble.
Some good statements there. Dealing with "cognitive dissonance". It is still concerning that even now Thousands of brainwashed individuals are still wearing masks and in fear of the next scamdemic.
This rule must apply to YOUR post too, right?
D'ah! I worry about YOU Tomas.
Do I expect you to apply critical analysis and be aware of both my and your own conditioning and social media targeting when reading my post about applying critical analysis and being aware of conditioning and social media targeting?
If the first comment shows the “goggles”, the question is WHY? The pre-existing conditioning is only a small part of the problem.
The reason may be the inability to handle all information available and cross-check all its aspects accordingly. The overflow of data, published articles, podcasts, interviews, and what not is such that no-one can examine everything at face value (i.e. with actual reading and reviewing). As a result, we scan several initial messages, filter in what sounds acceptable to our pre-determined views, and filter out the rest. Misunderstandings will result.
The chart example is a great way to understand that we do not know what we are looking at. In good faith. We apply our interpretations without detailed examination of the subject matter. Maybe we didn’t have source data or skills to analyze them, maybe we don’t have time or patience. Misunderstandings will result.
Both cases show that we have to change the way we present information to the reader. (If we want to be understood in line with our intentions, of course.)
Texts should be written with the question in the mind of the writer: “What am I looking at?” What is it? What does it mean? And answers to these questions should be provided in the text. It’s only a sentence or two more, no burden, no effort. But the reader will be given the context of the interpretation.
I mean: what you have written here as an explanation should have been included in the original articles.
Why is it crucial?
Because the first impression of the writing will determine the lifespan of the material, its reliability and the potential to attract more attention.
Does it mean that readers are too prejudiced / dumb / impatient / … to understand what we are writing? No. They simply have too much work to do with the tsunami of (sound or not) information out there. We, as authors, need to help them swim across and take advantage of what we are giving.
My example was not an overflow of data but rather a wilful misunderstanding of one particular graph due to a conditioned belief in a globalist agenda.
I am not referring to your example. Just trying to find the answer to why readers are so willing to give up looking at other (new/fresh) information with the intention to be enriched by it.
Ah I see! Yes. It's a big mystery to me too. I've given up trying to understand it.
It’s all courtesy of anti-social media. These platforms have introduced blanket immunity for rude behavior and corrupting civil discourse. And they continue this practice.
When you are free to be anti-social, you no longer care about your benefits. Instead, you sink into attacking others. Because you can and because you will get away with it. Why bother about customer care when you can simply slander your competitor?
This attitude may take over the mind. Why should I care about my benefits when I can destroy toys of others?
Just a rough draft :-)
Understand yourself! You yearn to believe the propaganda of the rich and powerful.
You know that brainwashing by MKULTRA CIA controlled, operation mockingbird media, the 15,000 hour indoctrination called school, and the criminal, lying churches, have done a great job of controlling thoughts of the blinded and brainwashed public. Maybe, there's your trouble.