Not teaching school kids critical thinking, debating and the rules of propaganda so as to improve narrative control is a conspiracy theory, unless it’s not.
School children are taught critical thinking skills and a history or propaganda in many forms, most schools won't teach debating because most people will never need to actually debate.
Thank you for another thoughtful article. Perhaps, we could call those who accept narratives at face value "uncritical thinkers." It is true and it is a much-needed, jarring insult that might make them reflect on their over-willingness to accept BS.
Sorry to have to say this, but you haven't done your homework. Before writing an article on conspiracy theories, you need to read Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance de Haven Smith. He provides documentary evidence that the CIA instructed its global media contacts to smear Warren Commission skeptics by calling them conspiracy theorists.
The counter to being called a conspiracy theorist is to call the accuser a coincidence theorist.
Coincidence theorist, I like it. Jerome Corsi always said that the term was invented by the CIA. Then we have to wonder if de Haven Smith’s book was itself a conspiracy theory. Wheels within wheels. Of course, if we all waited to do all of our homework before writing anything nothing would be written and the forces of darkness would sweep the Earth. Stay brave, stay free.
The problem is that the "one level thinking" is a real thing. We should all strive to be better thinkers and not intellectually lazy. I try to to remind myself that I could just as easily have been born stupid - a good thing to tell your kids. Don't know just how to phrase it.
Rude or not, one should speak the thing that is true. If there were third level thinking that is beyond us all I would want to know about it. I will try not to be rude.
We are always on the defensive, explaining why we are not so bad. Any such phrase should be mildly offensive, much as conspiracy theorist is. Don’t have any great ideas myself.
"A normal, psychologically healthy individual is not starving for constant positive feedback and can face opposition" WTF do you mean "A normal, psychologically health individual" seeking approval and not wanting to be shunned is as basic an instinct as they come. Humans like all social animals rely on others of their group to survive, it's in the best interest of individual organisms to be nice to others and not be ostracized from the group lest they die. People seek approval from others because they feel good when they get approval, they feel good because it's evolutionarily advantageous to be rewarded for doing an almost objectively good thing in terms of surviving, if people didn't feel good about being validated then they wouldn't seek it and thus wouldn't do the good things that require that validation to be provided in the first place, if they don't do the good things then they get ostracized from the group and starve to death or get eaten. A normal, psychologically health individual, is one that is normal and follows it's normal instincts. It's not a new thing, it's not because of social media or any kind of media, it's a perfectly normal and healthy social ability.
Seems like you might be saying similar things. A healthy person with good family and friends will get his feedback from them and not need to get it from strangers of dubiousness.
Not teaching school kids critical thinking, debating and the rules of propaganda so as to improve narrative control is a conspiracy theory, unless it’s not.
School children are taught critical thinking skills and a history or propaganda in many forms, most schools won't teach debating because most people will never need to actually debate.
Thank you for another thoughtful article. Perhaps, we could call those who accept narratives at face value "uncritical thinkers." It is true and it is a much-needed, jarring insult that might make them reflect on their over-willingness to accept BS.
Sounds like a good start. Just a matter of getting traction with the phrase.
I only investigate “conspiracy theories.”
David here is one of my many collected quotes that fits well with your article:
“In politics, nothing happens by
accident. If it happens, you can
bet it was planned that way.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
I could take that as corroborating evidence of my thoughts, but I would be called a conspiracy theorist.
And the point goes to…..
DAVID !!
Good one. And YES, you would so be called….
Like it. Have heard similar things
Sorry to have to say this, but you haven't done your homework. Before writing an article on conspiracy theories, you need to read Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance de Haven Smith. He provides documentary evidence that the CIA instructed its global media contacts to smear Warren Commission skeptics by calling them conspiracy theorists.
The counter to being called a conspiracy theorist is to call the accuser a coincidence theorist.
Coincidence theorist, I like it. Jerome Corsi always said that the term was invented by the CIA. Then we have to wonder if de Haven Smith’s book was itself a conspiracy theory. Wheels within wheels. Of course, if we all waited to do all of our homework before writing anything nothing would be written and the forces of darkness would sweep the Earth. Stay brave, stay free.
Interesting
Why not? We just start using whatever and see what works.
You can't worry too much about about what others think. Hopefully your immediate family is all right.
Your "one level thinker" would be insulting.
When something doesn't make sense it should be natural to figure out a reason for it.
I sometimes preface my spouting on with "Being a conspiracy realist ... ."
I know that's not original of me to label myself that way but it seems to amuse my audience and seem that I am not taking myself too crazy serious.
Edit: good and insulting.
The problem is that the "one level thinking" is a real thing. We should all strive to be better thinkers and not intellectually lazy. I try to to remind myself that I could just as easily have been born stupid - a good thing to tell your kids. Don't know just how to phrase it.
Let's face it, we don't really want to be so rude to people, even if they think it's on trend to insult us.
We just have to wait for them to realise that oftentimes we have been correct.
You are right, I don't think critically enough often enough. Easier not to read MSM as it's hard work critiquing it.
Rude or not, one should speak the thing that is true. If there were third level thinking that is beyond us all I would want to know about it. I will try not to be rude.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to think of the term.
"Obedient thinking"
"Easy thinkers"
As per my byline, they and we both roll our eyes at the others' nonsense.
My friends think that I am the gullible one.
Primary thinking
Fifteen hours later and the best that I can come up with is: * compliant thinking*.
We are always on the defensive, explaining why we are not so bad. Any such phrase should be mildly offensive, much as conspiracy theorist is. Don’t have any great ideas myself.
Another reason undermining the family is crucial.
"A normal, psychologically healthy individual is not starving for constant positive feedback and can face opposition" WTF do you mean "A normal, psychologically health individual" seeking approval and not wanting to be shunned is as basic an instinct as they come. Humans like all social animals rely on others of their group to survive, it's in the best interest of individual organisms to be nice to others and not be ostracized from the group lest they die. People seek approval from others because they feel good when they get approval, they feel good because it's evolutionarily advantageous to be rewarded for doing an almost objectively good thing in terms of surviving, if people didn't feel good about being validated then they wouldn't seek it and thus wouldn't do the good things that require that validation to be provided in the first place, if they don't do the good things then they get ostracized from the group and starve to death or get eaten. A normal, psychologically health individual, is one that is normal and follows it's normal instincts. It's not a new thing, it's not because of social media or any kind of media, it's a perfectly normal and healthy social ability.
Seems like you might be saying similar things. A healthy person with good family and friends will get his feedback from them and not need to get it from strangers of dubiousness.