Read this thread from @lilithsaintcrow. I really mean it. Just read it. Because if what she is saying is true (and I happen to think it is) it explains *so much*

An example using the Flat Earthers: A thread of many parts:

I'm firmly convinced that the flat Earth thing was started by some adolescent trolls with nothing more productive to do. They didn't believe it, but they thought it was entertaining to keep pretending that they did.
You can't engage with them, because they *are playing a game*. They think it's fun to see if they can get anybody to engage with something completely stupid as though it's true.
If you challenge them, the rules of the game state that they have to argue as hard and a spuriously as they like, but *never* to admit that the Earth is not in fact flat. I suppose you have to make up your own entertainment on 4chan or whatever hole this was conceived in.
It's annoying as hell, but I suppose it doesn't do much harm.. except to folks like this: https://t.co/zsCejvkrkr
and this: https://t.co/hRInMK6vEU
So, yeah there are people who fell for it. Hook, line, sinker, rod, umbrella, and copy of Angling Times.
There's now people out there now who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat because of this game, and this has distorted their worldview (heh) because it has trained them to distrust the folks who are not playing the game and are genuinely arguing that the Earth is round
(because we have to do that now). It's socially disruptive, completely pointless, and a bit cruel. Perfect for teenaged trolls to get a kick out of it.

So how does this translate into the really *really* important thread I quoted at the beginning?
It's training.

The core idea is that you can just say "I believe the Earth is flat" and *nobody* can prove you don't. Evidence is irrelevant, because we are *playing a game*.
It doesn't matter how fallacious the argument, or crap the logic is, all you have to do to win is keep saying "I believe the Earth is flat" and eventually you win.
Now everyone wants to believe that they're the hero of their own story, and everyone decides what they think is true based on a range of evidence, preconceptions, outside influences etc.
We know that people are more likely to believe things that prop up existing beliefs (confirmation bias) and we know that you can't *make* someone articulate whether they do or don't believe something (eg the Spanish Inquisition - Amazing, they were finally useful for something).
So what does that mean?

1) People will rationalise their existing ideas. E.g. I don't like fat people, because... they're lazy, or they smell, or they are genetically inferior, or it's Tuesday or whatever insane reason you like.
2) People will use shaky rationalisations to justify their actions, even if the rationalisations are clearly (to you and me) bullshit.
3) People will repeat the rationalisations to others who are also trying to prop up their own existing ideas

4) It is impossible to *prove* whether someone genuinely believes it or not. To be fair, I expect that some of them don't even know.
5) If it goes on long enough, with enough intensity, you'll get people who do genuinely believe it because they are too badly educated to spot that it is, in fact, insane.

6) People make shocking decisions on the basis of shit data.
So what now?

Well I expect that some people are a lost cause. They have got so completely lost in a maze of justifications and lies that they are impossible to reach.
They have accepted a worldview that is so completely at odds with the real world, that they are a danger to themselves and others. It's basically a cult.
What do we do with the others?

I'd argue that this kind of thing is largely the product of *ignorance*. Now I don't mean that we aren't arguing effectively - there are many cleverer and more eloquent people than me working on this. I think it's to do with *experience*.
It's easy to make generalisations about people you don't know or abstract theories that don't have a concrete physical presence. A medieval peasant can perfectly well believe that there are dragons in a far off country if...
... someone who is well travelled comes back from the blank bit of the map and says they saw one. It doesn't even really matter if someone else who's been there before says there aren't - because then there's two experts arguing -
... and the poor peasant doesn't have the tools to work out which is right. The peasant might be the cleverest person in the world, but they simply don't have the data to make the decision.
So how would we convince the peasant that there are no dragons in the wilds of Lincolnshire (or somewhere)? We'd have to *take them* and *show them* what Lincolnshire looks like (flat, bit damp, not many trees, No Dragons).
What I think I mean (as I desperately try and bring this in to land) is that until there is some way (and I don't necessarily know what it is) to

1) stop peddling bullshit, and
2) re-introduce the people who think that Covid or climate change is a hoax, (or whatever) to the genuine real-world experienced reality of those things we're going to continue to have a problem.
Also consequences. Because, seriously if you want to dress up as a Nazi and assault people in the street, you've bloody well earned some consequences.
Ignorance is sort of understandable, but that doesn't mean you get to avoid experiencing reality - that's exactly how we ended up in this mess.

More from Science

What is going on at SWANSEA UNIVERSITY in Wales?
1.
https://t.co/d5NKtNlxxa
Sounds as if its connected to Bill Gates "LUCIFERASE" Vaccine?

2.
https://t.co/k0w1mjaPg0

"HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON SCHOOL OF LAW"
- AT SWANSEA UNIVERSITY!!!


3.
https://t.co/jifuWq6cGq
Remember all those FIRES, over the Summer!!!

4.
https://t.co/H3lstFyYx8
WUHAN PARTNERSHIP

"Links between Swansea & Wuhan date back to 1855 when Swansea missionary Griffith John founded the Wuhan Union Hospital.
This relationship was strengthened when representatives of the two cities signed an agreement".


5.
https://t.co/5b1JqiEQzi
Swansea University Strengthens Links with China

You May Also Like

हिमालय पर्वत की एक बड़ी पवित्र गुफा थी।उस गुफा के निकट ही गंगा जी बहती थी।एक बार देवर्षि नारद विचरण करते हुए वहां आ पहुंचे।वह परम पवित्र गुफा नारद जी को अत्यंत सुहावनी लगी।वहां का मनोरम प्राकृतिक दृश्य,पर्वत,नदी और वन देख उनके हृदय में श्रीहरि विष्णु की भक्ति अत्यंत बलवती हो उठी।


और देवर्षि नारद वहीं बैठकर तपस्या में लीन हो गए।इन्द्र नारद की तपस्या से घबरा गए।उन्हें हमेशा की तरह अपना सिंहासन व स्वर्ग खोने का डर सताने लगा।इसलिए इन्द्र ने नारद की तपस्या भंग करने के लिए कामदेव को उनके पास भेज दिया।वहां पहुंच कामदेव ने अपनी माया से वसंतऋतु को उत्पन्न कर दिया।


पेड़ और पौधों पर रंग बिरंगे फूल खिल गए और कोयलें कूकने लगी,पक्षी चहकने लगे।शीतल,मंद,सुगंधित और सुहावनी हवा चलने लगी।रंभा आदि अप्सराएं नाचने लगीं ।किन्तु कामदेव की किसी भी माया का नारद पे कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा।तब कामदेव को डर सताने लगा कि कहीं नारद क्रोध में आकर मुझे श्राप न देदें।

जैसे ही नारद ने अपनी आंखें खोली, उसी क्षण कामदेव ने उनसे क्षमा मांगी।नारद मुनि को तनिक भी क्रोध नहीं आया और उन्होने शीघ्र ही कामदेव को क्षमा कर दिया।कामदेव प्रसन्न होकर वहां से चले गए।कामदेव के चले जाने पर देवर्षि के मन में अहंकार आ गया कि मैने कामदेव को हरा दिया।

नारद फिर कैलाश जा पहुंचे और शिवजी को अपनी विजयगाथा सुनाई।शिव समझ गए कि नारद अहंकारी हो गए हैं और अगर ये बात विष्णु जी जान गए तो नारद के लिए अच्छा नहीं होगा।ये सोचकर शिवजी ने नारद को भगवन विष्णु को ये बात बताने के लीए मना किया। परंतु नारद जी को ये बात उचित नहीं लगी।
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.