As critical thinking expert, Jesse Richardson, states, the key to critical thinking isn't knowledge of logic and understanding of cognitive biases, it's intellectual humility
There's a lot to say about all that. It seems to me though that these sorts of people who bang on about 'critical thinking' are in fact just a bunch of gaslighters.
The clue is in the word 'humility'. If they can coerce people into thinking they should do 'humility' then essentially they are infantilising them and making them dependent on others to tell them what 'the truth' is (the 'epistemic authorities' that is). In other words, they are doing the opposite of empowering people to think for themselves. They are actively preventing individual thought.
And this term 'critical thinking' strikes me as yet another psychological attack on humanity, or an attack on psychology and philosophy.
See, there's no such thing as 'critical' thinking. There is only 'thinking'. All 'thinking' is 'critical', because it's simply 'analysing'.
What humans actually do is better described by Game Theory. Which is essentially the study of information and decision making. People make decisions based on the information they have available to them. (for 'making decisions' also read 'forming opinions'). The human brain doesn't distinguish between 'true' information and 'false' information. In Game Theory, a person makes a 'correct' decision if that decision was logically optimum based on the information available. A good example would be poker. If I have 3 aces and I know my opponent is on a flush draw for the last card, then if I go all in on the turn then I've made the correct decision, regardless of what the river comes up with. 5 times out of 6 I win, so it's a profit-making decision (positive expected value). If my opponent hits his flush on the river and I lose I have still made the correct decision, whereas he has made an incorrect decision, because he should've folded (that's why it's so difficult and annoying playing with stupid players, because they don't know when to fold and 1 time out of 6 they get lucky - they don't know how to calculate probabilities, let alone act on them).
Anyway - instead of 'critical' thinking, the real task of a thinker is to examine the information solely with a view of attempting to ascertain whether it is true or not. If it turns out to be false, then do not include it in your decision-making or opinion-forming. If it's true, include it. This, rather than 'critical thinking' is what needs to be taught in the education system. All the ways and methods to find out whether a piece of info is true or not.
As I said, all thinking is critical thinking. These gaslighters are attempting to convince people that 'any information which comes from the epistemic authorities is true' - thus 'gaming' the system, so to speak. And of course the great irony there, Watson, is that they are lying! Thus, let us disregard their information, Doctor, and continue as we were! Hand me my syringe, Watson, this calls for a cokefest!
I can see how "intellectual humility" can be used to gaslight, however, I'm not using it that way and that isn't the way intended. It simply means as stated in the article. The important thing about it is that it works as well for the goose as it does for the gander but the self-described critical thinking experts feel they are in the position to dish out ... and not have to defend their argument when it is challenged. It is simply gobsmacking.
I think there is a place for the term "critical thinking" if we take it to mean thinking that follows certain rules, eg, not engaging in logical fallacies and aiming to prove your hypothesis wrong by checking all arguments against it and trying to see if you can see anything wrong with it yourself. What is abundantly apparent on the ConspiracyTest site is that these two rules, especially the second one, have not been followed.
I'd say that Game Theory thinking applies where you do not have information that overwhelmingly favours one hypothesis with zero contradiction of it but where you do have that overwhelming evidence with no contradiction as in psyops or alternatively the moon landings (which as you know I recognise as really happening) then Game Theory thinking doesn't really apply - you don't have to think in terms of probability and this is what I say in my critique. What drew me to psyops even though I didn't realise that was a characteristic of them initially is that they TELL us the truth underneath the propaganda so Game Theory thinking doesn't really apply I don't think. Of course, you can still get things wrong with psyops because in some cases - especially 9/11 - there are so many layers of propaganda, however, the better you understand the MO, the more quickly you work them out. I would've worked out the basics of 9/11 in five minutes flat if it happened now knowing everything about psyops I know now.
One rule of critical thinking that seems to be not well understood is "burden of proof". It is up to those making the initial claim to prove what they say: in the case of button-pushing events breathlessly reported around the world, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the media reporting these events and because of the Revelation of the Method (RoM) rule those many breathlessly-reported events which happen to be psyops never meet that burden of proof. It's axiomatic: burden of proof is never met with psyops because it's deliberately not met. Not only do they always employ their RoM but they never put forward any compelling piece of evidence that someone believing their story can brandish to defend it. The purported evidence is always undermined in some way and expected evidence is often missing. They are scrupulous in that way ... more scrupulous than we are in analysing their events.
On the other hand, the burden of proof with the moon landings is on those challenging their reality. There is mountains of perfectly credible evidence presented for the moon landings which cannot be dismissed with claims of "could be faked". What disbelievers mean by "could be faked" is "could be faked WITHOUT DETECTION" which is a claim wildly in the realm of speculation. No such endeavour has ever been shown to be faked without detection even remotely and we don't need to understand arcane information about how rockets work in space we only need basic ability to detect the difference between extempore, improvised and scripted conversation, an appreciation of a brightly sunlit moonscape against a black sky, etc.
Intellectual Humility is not lying...to yourself and others. Its straight forward with nothing more than listening, asking questions, and making decisions based on your findings. Yet, all decisions can be modified with additional information.
"Yet, all decisions can be modified with additional information."
Exactly. The thing is people often seem to get over one hurdle to change their minds on something but then "plateau" so to speak on this new thought. You need an agile mind that will continue to keep changing as new information comes to light.
I think the propagandists perfectly understand our tendency to "plateau" and that's why in their big psyops they really multi-layer it ... when you know that's what they do though and you have practice at changing your mind quite a few times it's not so difficult.
I think the issue is that We are taught, generally, to assign "true" and "false" labels to data We encounter, and in that practice become emotionally attached to Our assignments, having used the data to construct what William Glasser calls the "quality world," that perspective We create that allows Us to feel most comfortable with the world We experience.
Changing that world is painful, and Most do not want to do that.
I was fortunate enough to have a father who taught Me to place probabilities of truth based on how well they explain what I see. To be willing to adjust My probabilities as new data come along that better explain what I see. To never give 100% or 0% because there is always the possibility there are data I don't have. This way I never attach to anything being true or false.
Interesting how your father taught you not to attach to what you believe and to base your thinking on how well the data explains what you see.
I don't remember how I was taught to think exactly but I do remember that I was taught to think for myself and not to feel intimidated or overly influenced by the authorities or peers in what I think. What I think interesting is that I have an identical twin and while we are both equally willing to disbelieve the authorities we still think completely differently and the one event that really shows how differently we think is the moon landings. I believe they happened, she doesn't ... I can see why her reasoning is so wrong but she won't listen. LOL. It's quite simple what she does wrong:
--- she makes false equivalences (she says computer programs never work first time so they couldn't have landed successfully first time - funnily enough the computer software did malfunction as they were landing and Neil Armstrong had to switch to manual)
--- she judges by things she's not expert in - how shadows should look
--- she does no investigation of "the other side" (as recommended by our experts who themselves don't properly look at the other side)
--- she puts forward absolute nonsense such as Buzz Aldrin saying "because we didn't go" in answer to a small girl's question about why astronauts haven't gone again when in the context you can see he clearly means "because we didn't go AGAIN". Besides, supposedly he is a 33 degree Freemason so perhaps he made that ambiguous statement deliberately as part of the moon-hoax psyop perpetuated by Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel, Bill Kaysing et al.
A bunch of agents pushing the moon landings as a hoax with ZERO argument that stands up to scrutiny is very, very difficult to shoehorn into the "we didn't go" hypothesis ... with the additional fact that they made Bill Kaysing, the first prominent moon-hoaxer, a complete buffoon.
Well... I give highest probability that what They showed Us of any "moon landing" was faked... But I'm not going to get into that. Were there landings that happened in black projects?" Could very well be. I know We had electrogravitic tech in the 1950's, so a secret space program could have easily gone there and back.
Anyway, when I have data that better explain those "moon landings" as being real, I will adjust My probabilities. (I believe NOTHING.)
"Humility" is a good term, though think a better term would be "humility-flexibility" because stubborn convictions are a huge barrier in critical thinking.
-I also think some knowledge of the typical tricks they use to bamboozle us is key, so that is part of the history.
-However, they also use double trickery. For example a whistleblower can indeed give some good and correct info, like say fake viruses, but then keep the conspiracy minded masses in this one truth corner making us talk only about viruses (and sacrificing that psyop to some degree), while hiding other parts of the story, like 5G, poisonous PCR swabs, air spraying, geoengineering, etc., and this is actually happening as we speak.
Oh yes, the tricks and double tricks - but you can't explain everything at once.
Those PCR swabs! I avoided them as much as possible but my mother was in a nursing home with dementia and sometimes they'd make sure you stuck the swab up your nose. I always tried to put it up as little as possible but even the tiniest bit I could feel it. My cousin, who's a nursing educator, tried to tell me that there was nothing on the swabs. You can sense it.
Yes, so many things going on, however, I wouldn't exactly call "no proof of viruses" a distraction because it's a very important truth and it takes awhile to get your head around it along with all the other related medical stuff. Lots of people are onto the geoengineering and the 5G.
There's a Skywatchers Australia FB page which is very active. Not so sure about 5G. We all live in our bubbles so sometimes an awareness is greater than you think it is (and perhaps sometimes the other way around).
That's great yes. I deal with dozens of people every week, the % of people who suspect anything is sadly.....very low, and some-mostly international people-get visibly irritated if you mention anything about the problems at hand. Most Japanese are polite, outwardly anyway, but they are not aware.
Stubborn convictions may be a huge barrier but what truly baffles me is people simply not responding to your argument. I can understand them continuing to argue what they believe but to simply not respond - I couldn't do it. Yesterday, I had quite a laugh listening to a chat between Aisling O'Loughlin and Iain Davis about the 2017 Manchester Bombing. Aisling was insisting the story was true while Iain kept trying to get through that there was no evidence for the alleged bombing - unlike most staged bombings where there's actually a bombing but it's evacuated for Manchester they didn't bother with anything at all. The alleged bomb sounded dastardly in its effects ... but as is their Revelation of the Method way there's no obvious signs of any injury or death at the alleged bomb site. It is simply incredible to hear Aisling repeat over and over her beliefs with no evidence.
Hi Petra, I hope you're well? I emailed you following an OffGuardian exchange in 2020 and often note your work around sites like PieceofMindful and Proton's Stack. I noted that you appear to take Aisling O'Loughlin at face value? Gemma O'Doherty pretty convincingly outed O'Loughlin as a mirror misdirection agent a couple of years back so caution might be in order.
Most interesting. Perhaps I'm settled into a too comfortable notion of what a controlled opposition agent looks like. The ones I'm familiar with wouldn't go where angels fear to tread and simply repeat over and over statements in clear contradiction of the evidence but, of course, it could be they've changed the way they operate. I shall have to take a closer look.
A mirror is a reflection of the target with distractions, misdirections (including competing campaigns) and publicity the target never gets. Having followed Gemma a long while I'd say she was correct, Johnny come lately O'Loughlin is that mirror, on the scamdemic and climate change for starters. I don't have a link.
No, she's genuine, she's just clueless - at least when it comes to the type of staged event Manchester was. She also had a chat with Miri French who also recognises the bombing was fake. Nothing sways her.
A test requires parameters, and given that those parameters are imposed limitations and are set ( by consensus), doesn't that defeat the purpose of the " test" if it is meant to prove something critically?
You mentioned that ignorance of conspiracy history as a factor and I agree. Everyone is compartmentalized to some degree so admitting one's own ignorance and the probability that they are wrong, or not correct over time may be far more important than claiming some sort of expert competancy... An expert in one's own ( and test subjects) delusional self justification of humility, mmm... Sounds like a bunch of wankers.
It appears that those who are keen to "help us" to "debunk" or "free ourselves" from "conspiracies" have the hubris to think they KNOW THE TRUTH from the conspiracy theories. Our own John Cook, professional cognitive inoculator/"pre bunker" on all manner of topics is a prime example: https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/344861133/338159045_oa.pdf
I see Sander van den Linden is one of the authors of that paper and he's also a member of the Conspiracy Test team. I'll have to send my article John et al too.
John was one of my heroes and I bought a book of his, I think it was the one he co-authored with Haydn Washington, Climate Change Denial. I thought it was great the way the site he founded, Skeptical Science, put up all the denial arguments with solid-seeming arguments against them and with a fair moderation policy on its comments.
That was until covid. It's only in the last year or so I've really come round to AGW being a scam and I must admit I'm still in cognitive dissonance over it.
LOL join the club! I did John's Denial 101 MOOC and went around cockily debunking climate deniers before the Covid scam woke me up. His teaching assistant Berbel was the one who put me onto Citizens' Climate Lobby and I have her to thank for my awakening when she started posting on FB about "inoculating" people against "misinformation" about the "vaccines". They were also responsible for the fake consensus meme (97%....) which has since been adapted to all sorts of The Science fakery. These people are so SURE they are RIGHT it's sickening. (or else they are just cognitive guns for hire). Cook's work was even quoted in the Climate Council's webinar last night on how to deal with the "misinformation" on climate as we approach the next election. I'm not a climate expert so I'm still agnostic, but boy I sure take the climate "deniers" very seriously now instead of knee-jerk assuming they are "paid by BigOil"!!
1. Redefine: Intellectual humility could also mean recognizing the limitations of this test and being open to other ways of assessing critical thinking, rather than relying solely on this specific framework.
2. Counterexample: There are many critical thinkers who may choose not to engage with this test for reasons unrelated to intellectual humility, such as time constraints or a lack of interest in the test's framing.
3. Consequences: If intellectual humility is judged solely by participation in this test, it might discourage diverse critical thinkers from engaging due to the overly narrow criteria.
4. Chunk Up: The broader purpose of intellectual humility is fostering productive dialogue, which might be better achieved through mutual respect and less adversarial approaches than this test implies.
5. Chunk Down: What specifically about not responding to this test demonstrates a lack of intellectual humility, rather than other factors such as disagreement with the premise or methodology?
6. Analogy: Asking critical thinkers to respond to this test as proof of intellectual humility is like demanding a chess player solve a single riddle to prove their mastery of strategy—one doesn’t necessarily validate the other.
7. Another Outcome: Not responding to the test could reflect a different kind of intellectual humility, such as acknowledging that engaging with the test may not be a constructive use of time or energy.
8. Intention: The intention behind this test may be to provoke engagement, but it risks alienating potential participants by setting up a false equivalency between response and intellectual humility.
9. Redefine Relationship: Participation in this test may demonstrate intellectual humility, but non-participation does not automatically indicate its absence, as intellectual humility is a broader and more nuanced quality.
10. Apply to Self: If the test itself is presented with the assumption that non-engagement proves a lack of intellectual humility, could this assumption reflect a lack of intellectual humility in its design?
11. Hierarchy of Criteria: Intellectual humility might be just one of many qualities of critical thinkers, and this test seems to overlook other crucial attributes like curiosity, evidence-based reasoning, and openness to alternative perspectives.
12. Change Frame: Instead of viewing non-participation as a failure of intellectual humility, it could be reframed as an opportunity to explore why some critical thinkers might disagree with the premise of the test.
13. Meta-Frame: The structure of this test creates a binary judgment that may not align with the complexity of intellectual humility or critical thinking as broader constructs.
14. Humor: So, intellectual humility boils down to whether someone responds to an invitation to take a test? That sounds less like a test of humility and more like a test of patience.
I forgot about this useful tool, Peter. I must keep it in mind.
1. I'm defining it the way one of the collaborators of the Conspiracy Test defines it and I think that definition works perfectly for this test.
2. False premise. I'm not addressing this test to critical thinkers generally but to those who wrote the Conspiracy Test.
3. I think the narrow criteria work perfectly fine for this test plus see 2.
4. I think by definition if you consider yourself a critical thinker then you are obliged to respond to critiques of your work if they make reasonable criticisms and are delivered in a perfectly civil way. I wouldn't exactly call it adversarial, I would call it more a challenge and these people are used to robust argument.
5. I'm only asking for a response. If those addressed disagree with the methodology that can be their response and I think a lack of response absolutely indicates a lack of intellectual humility. There are 10 people addressed. If one or two don't respond for whatever reason there's still a few who can respond.
6. I'm not saying that responding proves IH, I'm saying not responding proves lack of it and I stand by that claim.
7. No.
8. The connection is very clear.
9. Disagree. It is utterly inconceivable to me that if someone critiqued a serious piece of my work in a reasonable manner that I wouldn't respond to their criticism - especially on the subject of critical thinking. Seriously? If you're actually advising people on how to think and that advice is criticised you need to respond. End of.
10. If someone lets me know how it lacks intellectual humility in its design I will consider their argument.
11. It's not overlooking other qualities it is simply focusing on one - a very, very important one.
12. If people want to disagree with the premise of the test please go ahead.
13. If someone wants to explain that I'm very interested to hear it. Really, it's just so simple. All that is required is a response even a response saying "I will not engage with the test for reason X ..."
It doesn’t matter your existing knowledge, or training, or insight, all that matters is your feels, and from an expert no less! Where is the intellectual humility of that supposed expert revealed?
There's a lot to say about all that. It seems to me though that these sorts of people who bang on about 'critical thinking' are in fact just a bunch of gaslighters.
The clue is in the word 'humility'. If they can coerce people into thinking they should do 'humility' then essentially they are infantilising them and making them dependent on others to tell them what 'the truth' is (the 'epistemic authorities' that is). In other words, they are doing the opposite of empowering people to think for themselves. They are actively preventing individual thought.
And this term 'critical thinking' strikes me as yet another psychological attack on humanity, or an attack on psychology and philosophy.
See, there's no such thing as 'critical' thinking. There is only 'thinking'. All 'thinking' is 'critical', because it's simply 'analysing'.
What humans actually do is better described by Game Theory. Which is essentially the study of information and decision making. People make decisions based on the information they have available to them. (for 'making decisions' also read 'forming opinions'). The human brain doesn't distinguish between 'true' information and 'false' information. In Game Theory, a person makes a 'correct' decision if that decision was logically optimum based on the information available. A good example would be poker. If I have 3 aces and I know my opponent is on a flush draw for the last card, then if I go all in on the turn then I've made the correct decision, regardless of what the river comes up with. 5 times out of 6 I win, so it's a profit-making decision (positive expected value). If my opponent hits his flush on the river and I lose I have still made the correct decision, whereas he has made an incorrect decision, because he should've folded (that's why it's so difficult and annoying playing with stupid players, because they don't know when to fold and 1 time out of 6 they get lucky - they don't know how to calculate probabilities, let alone act on them).
Anyway - instead of 'critical' thinking, the real task of a thinker is to examine the information solely with a view of attempting to ascertain whether it is true or not. If it turns out to be false, then do not include it in your decision-making or opinion-forming. If it's true, include it. This, rather than 'critical thinking' is what needs to be taught in the education system. All the ways and methods to find out whether a piece of info is true or not.
As I said, all thinking is critical thinking. These gaslighters are attempting to convince people that 'any information which comes from the epistemic authorities is true' - thus 'gaming' the system, so to speak. And of course the great irony there, Watson, is that they are lying! Thus, let us disregard their information, Doctor, and continue as we were! Hand me my syringe, Watson, this calls for a cokefest!
I can see how "intellectual humility" can be used to gaslight, however, I'm not using it that way and that isn't the way intended. It simply means as stated in the article. The important thing about it is that it works as well for the goose as it does for the gander but the self-described critical thinking experts feel they are in the position to dish out ... and not have to defend their argument when it is challenged. It is simply gobsmacking.
I think there is a place for the term "critical thinking" if we take it to mean thinking that follows certain rules, eg, not engaging in logical fallacies and aiming to prove your hypothesis wrong by checking all arguments against it and trying to see if you can see anything wrong with it yourself. What is abundantly apparent on the ConspiracyTest site is that these two rules, especially the second one, have not been followed.
I'd say that Game Theory thinking applies where you do not have information that overwhelmingly favours one hypothesis with zero contradiction of it but where you do have that overwhelming evidence with no contradiction as in psyops or alternatively the moon landings (which as you know I recognise as really happening) then Game Theory thinking doesn't really apply - you don't have to think in terms of probability and this is what I say in my critique. What drew me to psyops even though I didn't realise that was a characteristic of them initially is that they TELL us the truth underneath the propaganda so Game Theory thinking doesn't really apply I don't think. Of course, you can still get things wrong with psyops because in some cases - especially 9/11 - there are so many layers of propaganda, however, the better you understand the MO, the more quickly you work them out. I would've worked out the basics of 9/11 in five minutes flat if it happened now knowing everything about psyops I know now.
One rule of critical thinking that seems to be not well understood is "burden of proof". It is up to those making the initial claim to prove what they say: in the case of button-pushing events breathlessly reported around the world, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the media reporting these events and because of the Revelation of the Method (RoM) rule those many breathlessly-reported events which happen to be psyops never meet that burden of proof. It's axiomatic: burden of proof is never met with psyops because it's deliberately not met. Not only do they always employ their RoM but they never put forward any compelling piece of evidence that someone believing their story can brandish to defend it. The purported evidence is always undermined in some way and expected evidence is often missing. They are scrupulous in that way ... more scrupulous than we are in analysing their events.
On the other hand, the burden of proof with the moon landings is on those challenging their reality. There is mountains of perfectly credible evidence presented for the moon landings which cannot be dismissed with claims of "could be faked". What disbelievers mean by "could be faked" is "could be faked WITHOUT DETECTION" which is a claim wildly in the realm of speculation. No such endeavour has ever been shown to be faked without detection even remotely and we don't need to understand arcane information about how rockets work in space we only need basic ability to detect the difference between extempore, improvised and scripted conversation, an appreciation of a brightly sunlit moonscape against a black sky, etc.
Intellectual Humility is not lying...to yourself and others. Its straight forward with nothing more than listening, asking questions, and making decisions based on your findings. Yet, all decisions can be modified with additional information.
"Yet, all decisions can be modified with additional information."
Exactly. The thing is people often seem to get over one hurdle to change their minds on something but then "plateau" so to speak on this new thought. You need an agile mind that will continue to keep changing as new information comes to light.
I think the propagandists perfectly understand our tendency to "plateau" and that's why in their big psyops they really multi-layer it ... when you know that's what they do though and you have practice at changing your mind quite a few times it's not so difficult.
I think the issue is that We are taught, generally, to assign "true" and "false" labels to data We encounter, and in that practice become emotionally attached to Our assignments, having used the data to construct what William Glasser calls the "quality world," that perspective We create that allows Us to feel most comfortable with the world We experience.
Changing that world is painful, and Most do not want to do that.
I was fortunate enough to have a father who taught Me to place probabilities of truth based on how well they explain what I see. To be willing to adjust My probabilities as new data come along that better explain what I see. To never give 100% or 0% because there is always the possibility there are data I don't have. This way I never attach to anything being true or false.
I did an article on this:
Adjusting the Truth Probabilities (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/adjusting-the-truth-probabilities
Interesting how your father taught you not to attach to what you believe and to base your thinking on how well the data explains what you see.
I don't remember how I was taught to think exactly but I do remember that I was taught to think for myself and not to feel intimidated or overly influenced by the authorities or peers in what I think. What I think interesting is that I have an identical twin and while we are both equally willing to disbelieve the authorities we still think completely differently and the one event that really shows how differently we think is the moon landings. I believe they happened, she doesn't ... I can see why her reasoning is so wrong but she won't listen. LOL. It's quite simple what she does wrong:
--- she makes false equivalences (she says computer programs never work first time so they couldn't have landed successfully first time - funnily enough the computer software did malfunction as they were landing and Neil Armstrong had to switch to manual)
--- she judges by things she's not expert in - how shadows should look
--- she does no investigation of "the other side" (as recommended by our experts who themselves don't properly look at the other side)
--- she puts forward absolute nonsense such as Buzz Aldrin saying "because we didn't go" in answer to a small girl's question about why astronauts haven't gone again when in the context you can see he clearly means "because we didn't go AGAIN". Besides, supposedly he is a 33 degree Freemason so perhaps he made that ambiguous statement deliberately as part of the moon-hoax psyop perpetuated by Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel, Bill Kaysing et al.
A bunch of agents pushing the moon landings as a hoax with ZERO argument that stands up to scrutiny is very, very difficult to shoehorn into the "we didn't go" hypothesis ... with the additional fact that they made Bill Kaysing, the first prominent moon-hoaxer, a complete buffoon.
Well... I give highest probability that what They showed Us of any "moon landing" was faked... But I'm not going to get into that. Were there landings that happened in black projects?" Could very well be. I know We had electrogravitic tech in the 1950's, so a secret space program could have easily gone there and back.
Anyway, when I have data that better explain those "moon landings" as being real, I will adjust My probabilities. (I believe NOTHING.)
Not My best video, but,,,
Never Believe ANYTHING! (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/never-believe-anything:5
"Humility" is a good term, though think a better term would be "humility-flexibility" because stubborn convictions are a huge barrier in critical thinking.
-I also think some knowledge of the typical tricks they use to bamboozle us is key, so that is part of the history.
-However, they also use double trickery. For example a whistleblower can indeed give some good and correct info, like say fake viruses, but then keep the conspiracy minded masses in this one truth corner making us talk only about viruses (and sacrificing that psyop to some degree), while hiding other parts of the story, like 5G, poisonous PCR swabs, air spraying, geoengineering, etc., and this is actually happening as we speak.
Oh yes, the tricks and double tricks - but you can't explain everything at once.
Those PCR swabs! I avoided them as much as possible but my mother was in a nursing home with dementia and sometimes they'd make sure you stuck the swab up your nose. I always tried to put it up as little as possible but even the tiniest bit I could feel it. My cousin, who's a nursing educator, tried to tell me that there was nothing on the swabs. You can sense it.
Yes, so many things going on, however, I wouldn't exactly call "no proof of viruses" a distraction because it's a very important truth and it takes awhile to get your head around it along with all the other related medical stuff. Lots of people are onto the geoengineering and the 5G.
Maybe distraction is not the right word, it is important but being used as a sink hole by the you-know-whos for those engrossed in it.
Is geoeng and 5G taking off down under? Impressive. Not my experience with people in Japan, whether local or international....unfortunately.
There's a Skywatchers Australia FB page which is very active. Not so sure about 5G. We all live in our bubbles so sometimes an awareness is greater than you think it is (and perhaps sometimes the other way around).
That's great yes. I deal with dozens of people every week, the % of people who suspect anything is sadly.....very low, and some-mostly international people-get visibly irritated if you mention anything about the problems at hand. Most Japanese are polite, outwardly anyway, but they are not aware.
Stubborn convictions may be a huge barrier but what truly baffles me is people simply not responding to your argument. I can understand them continuing to argue what they believe but to simply not respond - I couldn't do it. Yesterday, I had quite a laugh listening to a chat between Aisling O'Loughlin and Iain Davis about the 2017 Manchester Bombing. Aisling was insisting the story was true while Iain kept trying to get through that there was no evidence for the alleged bombing - unlike most staged bombings where there's actually a bombing but it's evacuated for Manchester they didn't bother with anything at all. The alleged bomb sounded dastardly in its effects ... but as is their Revelation of the Method way there's no obvious signs of any injury or death at the alleged bomb site. It is simply incredible to hear Aisling repeat over and over her beliefs with no evidence.
https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/the-iain-davis-interview-on-the-manchester
Hi Petra, I hope you're well? I emailed you following an OffGuardian exchange in 2020 and often note your work around sites like PieceofMindful and Proton's Stack. I noted that you appear to take Aisling O'Loughlin at face value? Gemma O'Doherty pretty convincingly outed O'Loughlin as a mirror misdirection agent a couple of years back so caution might be in order.
Most interesting. Perhaps I'm settled into a too comfortable notion of what a controlled opposition agent looks like. The ones I'm familiar with wouldn't go where angels fear to tread and simply repeat over and over statements in clear contradiction of the evidence but, of course, it could be they've changed the way they operate. I shall have to take a closer look.
Do you have a link?
A mirror is a reflection of the target with distractions, misdirections (including competing campaigns) and publicity the target never gets. Having followed Gemma a long while I'd say she was correct, Johnny come lately O'Loughlin is that mirror, on the scamdemic and climate change for starters. I don't have a link.
Sound like Aisling is part of the fakery?
No, she's genuine, she's just clueless - at least when it comes to the type of staged event Manchester was. She also had a chat with Miri French who also recognises the bombing was fake. Nothing sways her.
https://miri.substack.com/p/miri-af-meets-aisling-oloughlin
A test requires parameters, and given that those parameters are imposed limitations and are set ( by consensus), doesn't that defeat the purpose of the " test" if it is meant to prove something critically?
You mentioned that ignorance of conspiracy history as a factor and I agree. Everyone is compartmentalized to some degree so admitting one's own ignorance and the probability that they are wrong, or not correct over time may be far more important than claiming some sort of expert competancy... An expert in one's own ( and test subjects) delusional self justification of humility, mmm... Sounds like a bunch of wankers.
Weinberg will fail. Guaranteed.
Actually, he has ALREADY failed before even taking the test.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/duckduckgo-censorship-destroys-brand/
Intellectual humility is wasted on those too ignorant to make use of it.
It appears that those who are keen to "help us" to "debunk" or "free ourselves" from "conspiracies" have the hubris to think they KNOW THE TRUTH from the conspiracy theories. Our own John Cook, professional cognitive inoculator/"pre bunker" on all manner of topics is a prime example: https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/344861133/338159045_oa.pdf
I see Sander van den Linden is one of the authors of that paper and he's also a member of the Conspiracy Test team. I'll have to send my article John et al too.
John was one of my heroes and I bought a book of his, I think it was the one he co-authored with Haydn Washington, Climate Change Denial. I thought it was great the way the site he founded, Skeptical Science, put up all the denial arguments with solid-seeming arguments against them and with a fair moderation policy on its comments.
That was until covid. It's only in the last year or so I've really come round to AGW being a scam and I must admit I'm still in cognitive dissonance over it.
LOL join the club! I did John's Denial 101 MOOC and went around cockily debunking climate deniers before the Covid scam woke me up. His teaching assistant Berbel was the one who put me onto Citizens' Climate Lobby and I have her to thank for my awakening when she started posting on FB about "inoculating" people against "misinformation" about the "vaccines". They were also responsible for the fake consensus meme (97%....) which has since been adapted to all sorts of The Science fakery. These people are so SURE they are RIGHT it's sickening. (or else they are just cognitive guns for hire). Cook's work was even quoted in the Climate Council's webinar last night on how to deal with the "misinformation" on climate as we approach the next election. I'm not a climate expert so I'm still agnostic, but boy I sure take the climate "deniers" very seriously now instead of knee-jerk assuming they are "paid by BigOil"!!
PS. I went to Macquarie with Haydn - nice fellow. Wonder what he made of the plandemic...
Sadly, Haydn died in December 2022. Yes, it would be interesting to know. He seemed like a very nice guy.
Wow, I hadn't heard. That's bad news.
1. Redefine: Intellectual humility could also mean recognizing the limitations of this test and being open to other ways of assessing critical thinking, rather than relying solely on this specific framework.
2. Counterexample: There are many critical thinkers who may choose not to engage with this test for reasons unrelated to intellectual humility, such as time constraints or a lack of interest in the test's framing.
3. Consequences: If intellectual humility is judged solely by participation in this test, it might discourage diverse critical thinkers from engaging due to the overly narrow criteria.
4. Chunk Up: The broader purpose of intellectual humility is fostering productive dialogue, which might be better achieved through mutual respect and less adversarial approaches than this test implies.
5. Chunk Down: What specifically about not responding to this test demonstrates a lack of intellectual humility, rather than other factors such as disagreement with the premise or methodology?
6. Analogy: Asking critical thinkers to respond to this test as proof of intellectual humility is like demanding a chess player solve a single riddle to prove their mastery of strategy—one doesn’t necessarily validate the other.
7. Another Outcome: Not responding to the test could reflect a different kind of intellectual humility, such as acknowledging that engaging with the test may not be a constructive use of time or energy.
8. Intention: The intention behind this test may be to provoke engagement, but it risks alienating potential participants by setting up a false equivalency between response and intellectual humility.
9. Redefine Relationship: Participation in this test may demonstrate intellectual humility, but non-participation does not automatically indicate its absence, as intellectual humility is a broader and more nuanced quality.
10. Apply to Self: If the test itself is presented with the assumption that non-engagement proves a lack of intellectual humility, could this assumption reflect a lack of intellectual humility in its design?
11. Hierarchy of Criteria: Intellectual humility might be just one of many qualities of critical thinkers, and this test seems to overlook other crucial attributes like curiosity, evidence-based reasoning, and openness to alternative perspectives.
12. Change Frame: Instead of viewing non-participation as a failure of intellectual humility, it could be reframed as an opportunity to explore why some critical thinkers might disagree with the premise of the test.
13. Meta-Frame: The structure of this test creates a binary judgment that may not align with the complexity of intellectual humility or critical thinking as broader constructs.
14. Humor: So, intellectual humility boils down to whether someone responds to an invitation to take a test? That sounds less like a test of humility and more like a test of patience.
I forgot about this useful tool, Peter. I must keep it in mind.
1. I'm defining it the way one of the collaborators of the Conspiracy Test defines it and I think that definition works perfectly for this test.
2. False premise. I'm not addressing this test to critical thinkers generally but to those who wrote the Conspiracy Test.
3. I think the narrow criteria work perfectly fine for this test plus see 2.
4. I think by definition if you consider yourself a critical thinker then you are obliged to respond to critiques of your work if they make reasonable criticisms and are delivered in a perfectly civil way. I wouldn't exactly call it adversarial, I would call it more a challenge and these people are used to robust argument.
5. I'm only asking for a response. If those addressed disagree with the methodology that can be their response and I think a lack of response absolutely indicates a lack of intellectual humility. There are 10 people addressed. If one or two don't respond for whatever reason there's still a few who can respond.
6. I'm not saying that responding proves IH, I'm saying not responding proves lack of it and I stand by that claim.
7. No.
8. The connection is very clear.
9. Disagree. It is utterly inconceivable to me that if someone critiqued a serious piece of my work in a reasonable manner that I wouldn't respond to their criticism - especially on the subject of critical thinking. Seriously? If you're actually advising people on how to think and that advice is criticised you need to respond. End of.
10. If someone lets me know how it lacks intellectual humility in its design I will consider their argument.
11. It's not overlooking other qualities it is simply focusing on one - a very, very important one.
12. If people want to disagree with the premise of the test please go ahead.
13. If someone wants to explain that I'm very interested to hear it. Really, it's just so simple. All that is required is a response even a response saying "I will not engage with the test for reason X ..."
Well isn’t that handily pat.
It doesn’t matter your existing knowledge, or training, or insight, all that matters is your feels, and from an expert no less! Where is the intellectual humility of that supposed expert revealed?
If money can be made from crime, various criminal conspiracies will be present.
The only question is how well they are hidden from the public.