THE MIND WARRIOR PROJECT
Become a Mind Warrior and add your voice to the project. Get notified of a new releases, and special episodes and receive the Mind Warrior Newsletter. Listen to Episode 1 – The Mission, if you need to know what this is all about.
We publish Sunday’s (weekly when possible)
Can you compare Trumpers or give insight. And you can tell me at my email if you would like He just seems bazaar.
Hi Viki
When you use the term “Trumpers” – what does that mean?
Never before in the history of politics has a POTUS been so polarizing. Whether you are for Donald Trump (I guess that’s what “Trumper” means) or you despise him you are correct that it is likely to create a “paradigm trap” – meaning you will tend to filter information that fits your paradigm position. The question here is not which position is right or wrong, its just recognizing that if you have an emotional reaction to being challenged about your position – that means you are in the trap.
The key for mind warriors is to know that… when their views are opposed. Debating someone outside your viewpoint without emotional attachment is the goal, and being open-minded to the possibility that your “truth” may not be THE TRUTH. That’s all this episode is really trying to say, and what’s important to realize is how much pain the human race has gone through because of our inability to seek the truth without inherent bias creeping in and contaminating our thinking. Does this make sense?
Dane
P.S. Being a Trumper or a Never Trumper doesn’t really matter. Do you believe that the Truth matters? And that you as a mind warrior are willing to not fall into the Paradigm Trap just to make information fit what makes you comfortable.?
Let me know what you think of this episode and the thesis. This is an important topic that matters to us all.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
David, don’t just quote something from wikipedia without making your argument. It’s boring.
Ok, point taken but I thought it fit exactly. Comparing the Holocaust to vaccinations is a false equivalency.
Did you get the vaxx ?
I did.
We never compared the Holocaust to Vaccines. What we were doing was using them as examples of how power structures create a belief system to make people behave in a certain way. Did you glitch a bit (have an emotional reaction) to my comment in this episode that the vaccination narrative in the USA was about creating a paradigm around it… to increase compliance?
I am not suggesting getting the vaxx is good or bad. But because you took the jab, is it possible you are defending a paradigm that all people should comply and be vaxxed, and if so — is it possible your mind created the need to make the false equivalency argument? I don’t know your thinking on this, but could it be an example of ‘Paradigm Paralysis’ and the need to feel right about your belief that the vaxx is good and all should take it?
I think to say that you didn’t compare the Holocaust to vaccinations is just mincing words. It was heavily implied (possibly just to get a reaction from people) if not explicitly said. I don’t think that 100% of people should be vaccinated – there are obviously medical reasons not to. To argue either side of the question requires coming from a belief system but to say that most people should be vaccinated is based on the best science available right now. Yes, that is a belief system and yes I was mildly triggered by what you said.
Dialogue is often provoking to make a point. The idea of this episode was to voice the power of paradigms and how they can rule our thinking and behavior. It doesn’t mean a paradigm is positive or negative – just that we are fully aware as “free thinking” humans that what we think to be true (based on our beliefs) may not actually be true and that it doesn’t serve our individual minds (or the group mind) to be stuck and not see other possibilities.
The reason why I used the vaccine paradigm as an example is because it is current, and there is a definite belief dichotomy of people for and against. Both sides have emotional reactions to their positions. Why? Because survival is at stake in addition to a need to be right. If you were triggered emotionally, it means the idea threatened you in some way, otherwise you wouldn’t care. That was the entire point I was making. And once there is awareness that you have an emotional reaction to an “idea”, well then you know it’s bumping up against your paradigm wall. There is nothing wrong with having a paradigm or defending a position, but as Mind Warriors we never want to be blinded by it. Our minds can trick us, pretty easily.
By the way David, I appreciate you bringing all this up and having this discussion. We need more debate like this. Thank you. It’s an opportunity to examine our thinking. It’s how we evolve.
Good discussion. Thanks for engaging on the topic.