Yes, I know Soviet Communism was authoritarian, it was simply seen as the wrong type of authoritarianism to the generation of mindless American flag-waving Christian nationalists. I'm quite familiar with the system, and endorsed it in spite of all the horrors it produced. As I said, I believed some weird shit as a teen-ager. I have since moved to the opposite corner of the political compass. I suppose embracing liberty and individualism comes with growing up, especially since, truth be told, I was never a very good communist.
Moving on then, serious question: how can someone who professes to be "well versed" in the tactics of propaganda be able to point out, so easily, that a certain news source (e.g. CNN) is nothing more than propaganda, yet fail to see how another news source (e.g. The Guardian) is equally propagandistic? Is this nothing more than the classic "our news is honest, theirs is propaganda, our glorious leader, their despot" sort of rhetoric that leads so many to willingly inhabit echo chambers? Did I just answer my own question?
Speaking of echo chambers, don't midwits immediately run to them whenever they experience cognitive dissonance? Is not their method of resolving conflicts to simply seek out further affirmations that their pre-conceived notions are correct, or did I miss something?
Is not their method of resolving conflicts to simply seek out further affirmations that their pre-conceived notions are correct, or did I miss something?
Yes - and avoidance - big time. (essentially, intellectual cowards - because the psychological pain is too hard to bear).
Is this nothing more than the classic "our news is honest, theirs is propaganda, our glorious leader, their despot" sort of rhetoric that leads so many to willingly inhabit echo chambers?
Did I just answer my own question?
No you didn't. lol
It's not a question of our side v their side. ( I'll change my position on anything if truth and facts lead me there)
Accepting dogma as truth - in the face of factual evidence is a state of delusion.
Delusion is a mental illness.
breaking through delusions can be long gentle process- or a traumatic, sudden one. (from how I understand it)
Breaking through delusions takes quite a bit of effort indeed. Pity so many midwits see themselves as enlightened, and their ideological opponents as deluded, hence the "us vs them" false dichotomy that so many of them like to indulge in. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all (but three rights make a left)!
I remain curious, is it easier to induce delusions or cure them in people of the 110-125 IQ range (and is there a difference between midwits and the merely above-average)? I'm told that it is easier to lie to someone than to convince them that they've been lied to, but that isn't universally true.
hence the "us vs them" false dichotomy that so many of them like to indulge in
maybe not such a false dichotomy....the people who see reality V's those that don't/can't?...scary... (irrelevant of IQ)
It's easier to induce delusion ( a carrot - to offer a reality - and one that's already desired in the head of those being 'attacked'..)
_ ...and is there a difference between midwits and the merely above-average_.
Yes.
Not all people within 'the IQ range' are midwits ...
When I asked if there was a difference between midwits and the merely above average, I was referring specifically to the dichotomy of inducing vs curing delusions. In other words, are midwits especially stubborn compared to everyone else?