Where or from whom did you first pickup the psychological technique of making people fool themselves by leaving logical gaps in the main narrative? It went something like this:
You deliberately leave bits of illogic in the main narrative thus creating logical gaps. Any individual who then decides to believe in the main narrative must then fill in the logical gaps with their own thoughts and beliefs, and when that happens they know they've got you, because no one can fool you like you can fool yourself.
This is why the main narrative is purposely engineered to always be something slightly unreasonable (in fact, it may even be counter productive if it was too reasonable) e.g. 19 Arabs on a plane causing the world trade center to collapse, or that we're on a spinning ball despite Polaris always staying in the same spot - go on the internet and you'll find everyone has their own thoughts and beliefs to the above, it's rarely ever just one thing when that's all that should really be needed; there is always a cosmos.
You mentioned this many years ago, and I always wanted to know. I agree with the observation in general. Thanks.
If you mean where did I learn it: I just noticed this pattern over time.
It is a very clever technique, and this framing of the debate within terms which assume one's own conclusions is something that I again found embedded within brand Islam's presentation of the Qur'an.
The old BBC documentary called “Power of nightmares” was surprisingly honest for BBC. Then there was “Loose Change”, even Popular Mechanics had to prepare a rebuttal. These documentaries were a wake-up call. The discussion of the events is probably suppressed because finding out the truth is traumatic and you’re never the same again. Aware but in permanent pain.
Where or from whom did you first pickup the psychological technique of making people fool themselves by leaving logical gaps in the main narrative? It went something like this:
You deliberately leave bits of illogic in the main narrative thus creating logical gaps. Any individual who then decides to believe in the main narrative must then fill in the logical gaps with their own thoughts and beliefs, and when that happens they know they've got you, because no one can fool you like you can fool yourself.
This is why the main narrative is purposely engineered to always be something slightly unreasonable (in fact, it may even be counter productive if it was too reasonable) e.g. 19 Arabs on a plane causing the world trade center to collapse, or that we're on a spinning ball despite Polaris always staying in the same spot - go on the internet and you'll find everyone has their own thoughts and beliefs to the above, it's rarely ever just one thing when that's all that should really be needed; there is always a cosmos.
You mentioned this many years ago, and I always wanted to know. I agree with the observation in general. Thanks.
If you mean where did I learn it: I just noticed this pattern over time.
It is a very clever technique, and this framing of the debate within terms which assume one's own conclusions is something that I again found embedded within brand Islam's presentation of the Qur'an.
Thanks Sam.
Listening to this I was reminded of that Bill Hicks joke:
'Let it go maan, it was just the taking over of democracy by a totalitarian government, let it go...it was a long time ago',
'Well, since we're talking about shelf life here, don't bring up Jesus to me'
Bill Hicks was ahead of his time in a lot of ways.
The old BBC documentary called “Power of nightmares” was surprisingly honest for BBC. Then there was “Loose Change”, even Popular Mechanics had to prepare a rebuttal. These documentaries were a wake-up call. The discussion of the events is probably suppressed because finding out the truth is traumatic and you’re never the same again. Aware but in permanent pain.