I've watched a lot of videos and read a lot of articles about things that are going wrong, but I want something that will help me move forward to make things better. To this end, I propose to take the following steps myself, and if anyone would like to follow a similar path, it could be mutually beneficial.
In my opinion, the best thing that I can do in this highly polarized time is to sharpen my thinking and persuasive skills. When I'm confronted with people who are brainwashed by the mainstream media, I want to be able to engage with them constructively, and possibly get them to skeptically examine their own beliefs.
To improve my thinking ability, I plan to watch several courses that are available at Wondrium.com. The first few I want to watch are:
An Introduction to Formal Logic, taught by Steven Gimbel
Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills, taught by Steven Novella
The Art of Debate, taught by Jarrod Atchison
The Art of Conflict Management, taught by Michael Dues
Sometime before I finish those courses, I'll probably read Thank You for Arguing, by Jay Heinrich.
I also want to reread Influence, by Robert B. Cialdini.
Then I want to read Pre-suasion, also by Robert B. Cialdini.
More courses at Wondrium I'd like to watch are:
How Conversation Works: 6 Lessons for Better Communication, taught by Anne Curzan
The Philosopher's Toolkit: How the Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room, taught by Patrick Grim
The Art of Critical Decision Making, taught by Michael A. Roberto
Thinking Like an Economist: A Guide to Rational Decision Making, taught by Randall Bartlett
Prove It: The Art of Mathematical Argument, taught by Bruce H. Edwards
How to Speak Effectively in Any Setting, taught by Molly Bishop Shadel
Understanding Nonverbal Communication, taught by Mark G. Frank
Effective Communication Skills, taught by Dalton Kehoe
Written Communications: Being Heard and Understood, taught by Allison Friederichs Atkison
The purpose of all of this is to learn to think more clearly, and learn to communicate more effectively. In addition to that, I have worked out a strategy that I want to test, which is as follows:
In most cases, it won't be possible to change anyone's opinion in a single day. It has to be looked at as a journey of a thousand miles, and it needs to be taken one step at a time.
The single most important thing to do when conversing with lunatics - I mean people who are otherwise intelligent but who have been brainwashed - is to remain calm. If I ramp up my energy level to meet their own, it only escalates the tension. I need to remain calm (I know, it's easier said than done), and be understanding.
Pacing and leading is one of the most important principles in such a conversation, and there are many ways to do it. Essentially it consists of finding something in common with the person and using that to demonstrate a connection, after which the other person will be more disposed to follow one's lead. Pacing can be done by matching posture, or mannerisms of speech, or finding some idea about which we are both in agreement. Establish rapport first, and do so in a calm and non-threatening manner.
It is possible to try to establish a rapport in a way that is obviously ridiculous. Examples of that include Michael Dukakis in an army tank, and John Kerry windsurfing. I don't want to pretend to be something that I'm not. In these type of discussions, I want to be truthful and sincere. However, humor is a powerful tool, and if I can bring that to bear it could be very helpful by creating a relaxed atmosphere.
People don't only feel threatened by the possibility of violence. There are tones of voice that are threatening, and ideas. If the other person thinks I'm going to attack his or her beliefs, that person's defenses will go up, and it will be unlikely that any progress can be made.
It's important to remember that a die-hard liberal cannot be changed in a day. I need to remove that possibility from my mind. The strategy I want to follow is to find agreement on something first, and then mention something that might cause them to question one of their assumptions.
The Socratic method consists of asking questions rather than making statements. I've noticed that when I make statements, it often causes the other person's defenses to go up. I need to learn to calmly ask a question that doesn't challenge any one of their core beliefs directly until the time is ripe.
Obviously it may be necessary to make statements at some point, but I should only do that after the other person has been mentally prepared. The first thing is to work at the foundation on which their beliefs rest. If I can successfully get them to question the solidity of that foundation, then I open the path for persuasion on the higher level ideas.
One important point that it's important to establish agreement on, is the principle that a fundamental characteristic of a scientific mindset is the willingness to question everything. Any idea that is true must be true for a reason, and there should not be any fear when questioning any belief. If I can get the other person to agree to that idea, and let it set in for at least a day, reinforcing it over other days, then I will have prepped them to have the mindset necessary to consider the validity of their own beliefs. Conversely, I must also be willing to question any of my own deeply held beliefs, and be willing to defend them without getting emotional about it.
One of the biggest weaknesses that all of us have is our source of information. Most of us don't have first-hand information on every subject. We rely on reports from others. The media that most liberals get their information from are controlled by a comapany called The Vanguard Group. They are the top institutional holder in a company called Blackrock, Inc, and between Vanguard and Blackrock they manage over $15 trillion. This doesn't include the money managed by the companies these two companies control. None of the mainstream media are independent. If I can get the people I'm engaging with to realize that fact (over time), then they might be ready for questioning some of the beliefs that they have picked up from the MSM.
If anyone would like to join me on the road to discovery, you are welcome to. The Wondrium courses require a subscription of about $15 a month, billed quarterly. These courses are from thegreatcourses.com, from where they can be purchased. If you decide to buy any, I recommend that you only do so when they're on sale because the regular price they ask for is ridiculous. I assume the reason they put such absurd prices on them is so that the sale prices won't seem bad by comparison.
I don't have a time frame for completing these yet. I'm going to have to see how I can fold this into my existing schedule. I do plan to watch at least three lessons per week, starting tonight with the first lesson of An Introduction to Formal Logic.
Dr. Drew interviewed Scott Adams recently, and Scott Adams mentioned the absurdity that Republicans went to overthrow the government on Jan 6, but they neglected to bring their guns. On the first or second anniversary of the event, that alleged oversight made the narrative appear absurd to me, so I made a "video" that was supposed to be audio from January 6, captured on a video camera from which the lens cap had not been removed. I'm posting it again just because.
While I was waiting on hold to talk with a human at the IRS, I decided to put some food out for the dogs. I set the full bag of dog food on a chair, and walked away to get the bowls. When I turned around I saw the bag slowly tipping over, spilling much of its contents onto the floor. Fortunately I had help cleaning it up.
The main task for today is to begin revising McGuffey's Fourth Eclectic Reader. It may take a couple of weeks, possibly more. I still have to work at Publix, and next week I start a new job in the memory care unit of a rehab/nursing home facility, and I'll also be working at Publix at least one night.
After that I'll take a look at the double-slit experiment, and see if there is an interpretation that is consistent with my theory of wave physics.
Also, I came across the attached meme, which I had created two or three years (or so) ago. I thought I'd include it because I still like it.
I recently proposed a theory of matter and energy called Wave Physics. In this theory, the only things in the universe are energy and the universal membrane, which is the medium through which all energy is transfered and stored.
Tonight I realized that according to this theory, everyone and everything in the universe are connected to each other at all times. Things that would be impossible according to the standard model of particle physics, are very possible in the universe of wave physics. Psychic transmissions and the power of prayer are physically possible and make sense if the universe works in any way like the theory I proposed.
If you've ever heard the phone ring and felt sure who it was before answering it, and were proven correct, this makes sense in wave physics, but not with particle physics. If you've ever looked intently at someone, and had that person quickly turn and look directly at you (I have), that phenomenon makes sense if all of us are parts of the same vast, ...
I was only scheduled to work three days this week, so I decided to work on a theory I'd been playing around with for fun over the last few years. I'd never been a big fan of the standard model of particle physics, so a few years ago, just for fun, I thought about exploring some alternate ideas, with zero training and zero experiments.
This week I wrapped up a few loose ends, and posted it to a community I created called Wave Physics. Originally I had called it Alternative Physics, but I changed my mind, so the link still has alternativephysics in it, but the community name is Wave Physics. I'd love for people to pay $5.00 a month to tell me how wrong I am.
https://alternativephysics.locals.com/
I also posted it on my personal website:
