Conspiracy theory

I love that video, because it encapsulates the reason the "for or against" dynamic is so infuriating, especially when there is a false dichotomy and both "sides" only exist to distract people from what's really going on.

An example of this is "neo-conservative" media.

A controlled opposition of sorts, they're fond of playing to a false dichotomy to try and corral people into one of two positions on a topic that creates a win-win scenario for the manipulators, while often destroying the very people that think they're just aligning with "their side".

Free Trade is one topic where, for the longest time, many believed that it was a necessary component for international trade, for the economic health of a nation in dealing with other nations. The logic was at least superficially sound, but more and more voices are starting to question the "acceptable narrative" that was supposed to exist on "the right", and not for the same reasons or with the same reactions as those on "the left".

Another example of this phenomenon is with conspiracy theorists.

So certain are they of the particular arrangement of actual events according to what they understand, that when folks express doubt or criticism as to the foundational claims for their theory, the usual response is defensive, to presume that such overtly hostile agents are clearly working for the "other side", and that only ideological lockstep with their position is necessary to show that you aren't. The terms are polarizing and force a binary, a false dichotomy, and just like with "Free Trade", the truth and reality of the circumstances doesn't tend to fall into one of the formerly defined "sides".

Such "for me or against me" arguments work, at least for a time, while the conversation can be kept going. In the heat of emotion, it can be easy to sustain the most ridiculous positions on a topic, because we're being driven by emotion and ego, instead of rationality and logic.

While it can happen to anyone, how do we reduce the probability that we'll slip up like this?

Public school systems do not teach critical thinking. Critical thinking strives for objective analysis in order to make a judgment. Objectivity is a concept which has been under assault for more than a century by postmodern philosophy. This has led to an intellectual stagnation, if not degradation, where criticism and questioning is not interpreted as being part of the process to discover truth, but is treated as if it is a distraction from truth.

That is not objective analysis.

When folks are convinced that they have all the truth necessary to draw the line in the sand, and that folks who are detracting from the position they've taken are "the enemy", when it may very well be that the criticism and input from such parties can actually strengthen the existing position by them contributing truth that they had discovered into the process, they're denying that there is any further objective analysis required.

On that thought process, all truth has been discovered, period, end of discussion.

This process, of putting forth a hypothesis, gathering data, and then seeing where the data affirms or denies the claims of the hypothesis, is how Western Civilization grew to the place of prominence that it did, because the objectivity required prevented personal pride from getting in the way of truth.

We always find that, once we understand something, more questions arise, every single time. We have never gotten to "the end" of knowledge.

When we adhere to truth, when we genuinely understand and know what we're talking about, we then don't have to be afraid of new data. We don't need to be afraid of "new" truth being discovered, because what is found that we didn't know about won't contradict what we've already discovered to be true.

By the nature of reality, we can't have simultaneous and yet mutually exclusive truths.

There can't be a married bachelor. We can't count the corners of a circle.

So if a claim comes along which seems to undermine a formerly understood truth, this shouldn't scare us, unless the "truth" we discovered before was not the totality of the phenomenon that we were analyzing. In that case, the truth that comes along will still be able to account for our previous position and understandings, to explain how they really functioned, in addition to expanding that understanding to account for what had previously been missed or not seen.

It's a process that's occurred time and time again, why do we think it would stop now?

This type of information should be welcomed, because it would enhance our ability to really understand what is going on, instead of getting defensive and trying to argue that an incomplete view of truth is really "all we need". Claims should withstand scrutiny, and when people are averse to any sort of feedback, it speaks to an inherent weakness in understanding how understanding is built.

Sure, there are folks who will seek to exploit this to their favor, to poison the well or to mislead or misdirect or to try and derail the entire process. But these people are easy to spot, if you're being objective, because their aim is not to grow an existing body of knowledge, but to tear it down, or to try and place themselves in the center of truth, as a mouthpiece for truth.

We need to be able to determine what type of response is appropriate and then act, instead of just relying on instinct. This is referred to as an "OODA" loop, Observe Orient Decide Act. We need to be better about making the right choice, not just making one at all, if we want victory. We can't just be predictable puppets, led astray by our predictability, we need to be able to determine the right course of action and then act quickly and decisively, whatever that ends up being, not falling into the intellectual traps that have been set for us.

Don't get caught up reacting to what someone else says you need to react to. Don't let them define the terms for action, or inaction. You need to understand the scope of options available to you and why you'd pick one over another, and when you pick one, know that as soon as you've acted on a choice that the circumstances have changed and the OODA loop process starts all over again.

It's tempting to fall into a pattern of "for me or against", not because it's wrong, but because it is easy, and pursuing the easy path is what got us to where we are in the first place.

We can't break a cycle by repeating it. We can't move on if we're just doing the same thing we did before with new labels, a new lexicon, but the same delusions and ignorance as before.