The Happening Continues to Happen and Now it Has a Name!

in informationwar •  7 years ago  (edited)

So, I was making my rounds on the interwebz today, as usual, trying to find out what the haps is. Sure enough, I found it! What it is, is a new terminology coined by a bestselling author called John Durant. Maybe you’ve heard of him? He authored ‘The Paleo Manifesto’. A recent tweet of his, as seen below, illustrates just exactly what ‘The Kanye Effect’ is.

My take from the tweet above, is that the Kanye Effect is all about possibility, love, and optimism. It’s about the ability to talk politics, or anything for that matter, without having your fight or flight instincts take over and ruin the whole dog gamned thing by allowing others to gain control over your emotions.


Implementing the Kanye Effect with E-Prime.

We're all navigating this world from within our own little reality bubbles, which are just as individual and unique as our personalities are. When we listen to people, many times they will unknowingly speak as if though they are the arbiters of truth, when in fact, they are the arbiters of their truth.

This can cause a lot of friction because, for the most part, people don’t like their realities defined for them. They’ve spent a long time constructing their reality bubbles and your new information, well, that could be a threat to their entire foundation of cognitive constructs.

So, they will vigorously defend their ideas of truth and it is this kind of response that usually results in arguments, name calling, etc. What we need to understand is that when someone attempts to lay claim to truth, that-that is their perception of things and everyone has a right to their own worldview.

If you are secure in your own thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, then other people’s perspectives, so long as it does not involve violating the liberty of others, should not be a threat to you, or your way of life.

So how can you talk to people in such a way that you don’t unconsciously threaten their reality? I would suggest that you indicate with your language that you are speaking from your perspective, and not try to redefine their reality. By doing this you acknowledge that you realize everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to them.

VIDEO: YouTube.com/user/Lsdfunk/videos | (A RAW explaination of E-Prime)
So, instead of speaking absolutely on topics that are complex, nuanced and subject to opinion, it might be nice to suggest in your words, that you are speaking for yourself. In doing this you can disarm a negative response, well before it happens.


Below is an example:
"The red party is better than the blue party."


Speaking in such a way will almost definitely set the stage for argument. This is because, unless the person you are speaking agrees with you, they will take issue with what you said.


Whereas, if you said:
"Lately, to me, the red party seems to make more sense than the blue party, on several major issues."


A phraseology like that is far less abrasive and you have a better chance of cognitively infiltrating or influencing someone who has political beliefs that are the exact opposite of your own.

We live in some very divisive times, and if you earnestly want to influence people, then it would be wise to approach it with an honest attempt that doesn’t create a type of resistance that would make people cling even stronger to destructive belief systems.

I do not claim to be a master of this, and oftentimes find myself in heated exchanges. Yet, with a bit of practice, over time we can all become better and adopt new strategies to win the #informationwar.

It seems to me that the powers that be tend to use cognitive infiltration for all of the wrong reasons. However, that tool is a double-edged sword and can just as easily be wielded by people with good intentions. The primary goal should be to encourage people to question their beliefs.

Once people can move beyond the groupthink, they can begin to think for themselves. Many times, asking the right questions and giving people the space to think and answer is half of the battle. Kanye West is doing an excellent job at getting people to realize that it is more than okay to think for yourself.


Image above via Pixabay!
Dragon Energy Manifesting Itself!
Gaslighting 101 with Marc Lamont Hill
There's a Disturbance in the Twitterverse
Twitterstorm: Candace Owens Appears on Fox News

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

This may be a crux of social control mechanisms. It's something I do seek to do in my own personal interactions. I hope more folks undertake to do this.

Thanks!

Thx for dropping in @valued-customer!
If you liked that RAW clip, you might like
this one even better. He goes quantum.

I hope more people do too. The ego is a
tricky adversary. A Guy Richie film called
'Revolver' tackles the ego quite nicely.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by P4TieN+ ZerO from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.

I highly disagree with the notion that we are only the arbiters of our own subjective truths. This is not only wrong but is extremely corrosive to rational discussion.

Sure if were discussing metaphysics than all truth becomes subjective, but when discussing objective reality there must be some form of assumed truth.

While I do agree that everybody has the right to their own world view, I do not agree that its healthy to allow people to hold world views that are completely fucking wrong.

Perfect example would be the widely held belief that communism is achievable without creating a ruling class. As much as id love an idealistic communist society to be truly achievable, objectively it has been proven time and time again that it is impossible.

Thanks for your feedback @mlgcrypto!


"I highly disagree with the notion that we are only the arbiters of our own subjective truths. This is not only wrong but is extremely corrosive to rational discussion."

Sure if were discussing metaphysics than all truth becomes subjective, but when discussing objective reality there must be some form of assumed truth.

I think that the subjective opinions of one or more individuals will many times agree that a particular idea is objectively true. If we didn't step into that land of make-believe, we probably would not be able to accomplish anything. Scientist do this all the time with their theories and counter theories. They put something out there, and it seems true, and theoretically, it is accepted as true, unless and until someone can provide a better theory.

Take time for example. It exists in our minds when we play let's pretend, but it didn't exist there until we created it, and when we created it, nothing new sprang forth into existence. Sure, you have clocks and they can tell you what time it is, but they don't tell us what time is. We certainly didn't create it. Whatever it is, it existed here long before we did. So we play lets pretend and allow the speed at which planets orbit each other to dictate our earthly lives. Now our days have been divided into 86,400 seconds.

Is there really that many seconds in the day, or is the phrase meaningless. I think it all depends on who you ask. In some areas in the world being just seconds late off of a work break will result in a dock in pay. So for someone like that the 86k seconds is more meaningful. Yet to a child, that's just a few years old. Their minds have not been conquered by time yet. The damage has yet to be done.


While I do agree that everybody has the right to their own world view, I do not agree that its healthy to allow people to hold world views that are completely fucking wrong.

What would you suggest be done with the heretics?


Perfect example would be the widely held belief that communism is achievable without creating a ruling class. As much as id love an idealistic communist society to be truly achievable, objectively it has been proven time and time again that it is impossible.

Maybe you are right, but just to play devils advocate for a moment, what about voluntary communes? I believe in the '70s their were many groups of hippies that tried that kind of thing out for a while, and at the times that it didn't go all helter skelter, the worst that happened was that in addition to sharing everything, they also shared each others STDs. Do you think voluntary communes can exist without imposing a ruling class?


What would you suggest be done with the heretics?

Personally I'm known for arguing and calling people out, as are most of my friends. Many times I find out that I'm wrong, or that I do not understand the topic as much as I thought I did, but having that discussion helps both parties come to the truth. Situations do exist where it is best to just nod and pretend that you don't know anything but as a culture we tend to do nod and smile too much. We subconsciously care more about offending other people more the reaching the truth. This becomes extremely problematic when in an academic setting, this refusal to challenge false ideas is what has people believing in all sorts of failed ideologies such as the my earlier example

Maybe you are right, but just to play devils advocate for a moment, what about voluntary communes? I believe in the '70s their were many groups of hippies that tried that kind of thing out for a while, and at the times that it didn't go all helter skelter, the worst that happened was that in addition to sharing everything, they also shared each others STDs. Do you think voluntary communes can exist without imposing a ruling class?

You're forgetting that the hippies were all on LSD, which made the people with the good LSD the ruling class

LOL

One way of looking at this discussion is in two parts:

  • The reality of the thing (truth, as you see it.)
  • The desire to get the other person to actually consider and accept your perspective.

In order to blast out a fact (which may or may not be correct, depending on whether or not you are correct), you only need to consider the first. If you actually want to persuade most people, you must consider the second part. Psychology plays into this, so things like approach, subject beliefs, phrasing, tone of voice, body language, and conversational reciprocity will play a part in this.

Some people, of course, "data exchangers", don't need the hand holding, and for these people, you can just blast out reality as you see it, expect the same, vigorously argue it, and then make conclusions (all absent emotion, largely, as data exchange does not require emotion.) A group of these people is a powerful intellectual force indeed.

Well said!

Hi @thoughts-in-time! You have received 5.3 SBD @tipU upvote !

@tipU pays 100% profit + 50% curation rewards to all investors and allows to automatically reinvest selected part of the payout.




(This is an occasional tipuvote! advertisment comment so your upvote profit was set to x 3 :)

You got a 15.98% upvote from @emperorofnaps courtesy of @thoughts-in-time!

Want to promote your posts too? Send 0.05+ SBD or STEEM to @emperorofnaps to receive a share of a full upvote every 2.4 hours...Then go relax and take a nap!