When the lens meets reality

It is human nature to seek out information and examples that support our decisions, opinions, and overall view of life. It is also human nature to either only see within the information or examples that which supports us, or even to not see what does not support us at all. This can occur in either a supportive response (see what I believe is right), or a negative justification (see the other view is wrong).

This can happen on either an individual choice method, or via mass manipulation. At it's greatest we simply make up a story to justify the rejection of evidence that would make us at least question our position. One of the best examples is the case of the Heaven's Gate Cult. They believed there was a space ship behind a comet that was passing by earth. The ship was coming to get them and take them to a better place. They bought a powerful telescope so they could view the space ship as the comet passed by. When the telescope did not produce images of the space ship they returned it and asked for a refund. Since they could not see the space ship they said the telescope was defective.

Very often we form our opinion and views in much the same way people come to believe the narrative of a cult. Let's look at another organization, NXIVM ( see HBO's The Vow), that has been determined to be a sex trafficking and sex slave ring. This organization was run by a person, Keith Raniere, who had previous been convicted of a felony in conjunction with a another multi-level marketing company. His title with NXIVM was Vanguard. With NXIVM he created an organization that claimed to help the world become more honest and better. Members would learn to experience joy in their lives. They could help others lead happier and more meaningful lives. They even claimed to cure Autism and Turret's Syndrome. The people who joined thought they were helping the world. There were all kinds of red flags: Gathering "collateral" against their members to prove their loyalty, going after people who left, not paying recruiters as promised, the leader living a lavish life style, etc.. Eventually they started branding woman in the group with the leader's initials and were forced to have sex with him, and enter into monitored agreements for starvation diets, or be excluded from the group. What is familiar in the story is new members joined after being identified as being unhappy and confused. They were then recruited to attend brief gathering where they were welcomed and made to feel appreciated and special. They found their value in the group and escalated that value via a system of colored sashes and titles. They were promised that by joining they could live the life they always wanted, and become leaders in changing the world for the better. If they did not join they were shamed into believing they simply did not want to do the work to be happy and were choosing unhappiness. The people who joined the organization became family. Despite all the warning signs, many members did not leave it and instead defended it because of all the good they say it did. They ignored or twisted facts right in front of them and demonized those who exposed it. Being branded was not a big deal and just a sign of commitment to a better world. Most of these people came to the original meeting with a sense of not living the life they wanted. They had low self-esteem and self-value. They joined because of the promise of becoming good and self-actuated people. As evidence came to be exposed to them about the issues with the organization, they could not even look at it and make critical thinking decisions about what truth the evidence held. If they did, the fear of changing their new view of themselves and how to make the world better would be overturned. They had to stick to the view and reject reality. Many of us have identified with political and social movements in much the same way.

I sometimes think there are two main things that determine our opinion on political and social issues. The first is what do my friends and the people who make me feel good about myself think. The second is do I "like" the politicians espousing what my friends think. In the presidential race, some people like Joe Biden based on his appearance and the way he comports himself and/or like Kamla Harris and the fact she is a woman and mixed race. They take in what these two say often without evidence to support it and ignore and don't question their opinions or motives. Many hate Donald Trump (I personally think he is conceited, arrogant and seldom goes beyond the first layer of exploring an issue) and therefore do not believe anything he says and often claim he says things he doesn't or doesn't say things he does. You can say the opposite for all three mentioned above. ( The one difference is many Trump supporters readily admit he is a "Jackass" but like him because they feel he gets things done.)

Let's take an example of Obama Care. There is a narrative that if it is overturned 120 million people will be without healthcare and preexisting conditions will not be covered. Yet we know Trump has stated over and over again he will replace it with a plan that will have lower premiums, no co-pays, and will cover preexisting conditions. Still, we hear over and over with posters and ads that people currently on Obama care will not be covered. Why do we believe the narrative. I submit a large portion of this belief is because many do not like Trump and his personality. When Biden says he will rewrite Obama Care into Biden Care even if it is not overturned, those who don't believe Trump applaud Biden for making changes. Why, because Biden 's persona is liked by them. Really there is little difference in the main issue. If Obama Care is found to be unconstitutional, it can be replaced with a plan that is constitutional, or an amendment to the constitution can be written if needed. What neither side does is debate differences in the new plans. No one looks at how prescription costs have gone down the last 4 years nor the push to make the US a favored nation to drastically reduce the the cost of prescriptions in the US which pays far more than other countries for the same medications. Instead of analyzing the reality and going beyond the fear of a non-existent reality of no coverage we react to the personalities and support whichever person we see as our Vanguard. Isn't healthcare a more important issue than liking or not liking personalities? The reality is both say they will create better plans, both say preexisting conditions will be covered. Doesn't this deserve more than campaign rhetoric? I have a friend of over 40 years who called me in a panic and angry because Trump was going to let him die. He hung up the phone on me because I dared to ask what was the basis for his opinion. He will no longer speak to me. This does not get us to purple.

Another method of turning from reality is the "say a lie enough and it will be believed" method. Let's take another current political scenario. Those against Trump say he has said white supremist are fine people and refuses to condemn white supremist and the KKK. This serves as evidence of his being a racist and a bad person who should not be president. The truth is that if you edit or shorten the clip it appears he did say there are fine people on both sides of a video taped conflict which had white supremist in it. If you listen to the unedited tape of his response, he clearly condemns the white supremist and makes it clear he was not talking about them. I have also seen a compilation of him condemning white supremist and disavowing any support from them ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGrHF-su9v8). I have shown this compilation to a liberal friend of mine who responded by calling me me a racist ( Must be a defective telescope). Also in this compilation you can hear news reports and politicians repeatedly saying Trump refused to condemn white supremist. These are informed people who should know better. They have seen all the reports of him condemning. It is hard to fathom Chris Wallace not knowing he has condemned white supremist. Yet they continue to ask the question over and over and claim he never did over and over. They know that if we hear something over three times in a short period we tend to believe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGrHF-su9v8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JmOSsv-KSg

Question: After viewing the above compilations, whether or not you think Trump is a racist, do you still feel Trump has never condemned white supremist?

Yes ____

No ____

Question: How do you feel about Biden's (and the news media's) comments claiming Trump has never said one negative thing about the KKK and White Supremacy?

He is lying for political reasons ____

He must be misinformed ____

He is right and the compilations are fake ____

(Note: Trump similarly did not call Mexican's rapist and criminals. All countries and nationalities have a criminal element. To recognize that element for an activity is NOT calling everyone in that country or nationality a criminal. If you think Trump is racist that is fine, but please use reality and critical thinking so we can discuss things and get to purple.)

Now the right also uses this tactic. They right claims Biden will increase taxes on the middle class despite his repeated statements that his hikes would only start at $400K. It has also been said Biden voted to cut Social Security and Medicare. From the clip I have seen to prove this ( I am trying to find the link to show here) all he said was it was on the table during a cutting federal spending analysis. That merely means it would be looked at not meaning he would recommend cutting it and in fact he did not vote to cut it. Recently Biden has said he and Obama have created the greatest voter fraud organization in the history of America. I hear the right press and Trump supporters repeating this as proof of voter fraud. It should be clear he meant anti-voter fraud.

Seeing reality and recognizing it is tough when it contradicts our lens of the world. It forces us to challenge a much larger portion of our perception than the small piece of our perceived truth it represents. To see the handwritten notes the FBI had on the Russia probe of Trump, to know that one FBI agent admits to altering an email to help get a dossier into evidence. to know all 30 of the agents involved had their phones wiped, to now know that the dossier was written by a Russian agent and most of it can be proven false (such as meetings taking place in embassies that do not exist) forces us to reconsider the honesty of organizations and people we admire. Our very concept of who is good and who is bad and the validity of that judgement in every aspect of life it touches is challenged. Our comfort in living a life were most things are black and white is shattered into pieces of grey. Yet it is within this grey we find truth and the path to purple.

Imagine how tough it was for the members of Heaven's Gate when the telescope did not provide the view of the spaceship they hoped it would. Imagine how painful it was to have their excitement around proving their distractors wrong turn to a scramble to find an explanation. Imagine the temporary relief when they found a lifeboat in the belief that the telescope was defective. While we look at the thought that there was a spaceship behind the comet coming to take them away, and the thought the telescope that did not prove it's existence had to be defective, as delusional, it was a successful coping mechanism that allowed the members to feel special and good people. Did some of the members see the folly in their beliefs? I would imagine the answer is yes. But there is a fear of retribution, both in a real threat of harm, or in the pain of letting go of a group that made them feel special and accepted. I am sure that when latter directed to commit suicide as a new way to enter the promised land many did not believe, yet the fear, conscious or not, prevailed.

Cults have many commonalities to our political and social beliefs:

1) The world (or country) is messed up and bad or evil.

2) The political or social belief will save the world.

2) Demonization of the opposition.

3) Placing the leader or leaders on a pedestal of goodness and wisdom.

4) Connecting our self-image to the cause.

5) Hyperbolic statements to prove the truth of the of the above.

If you are on the right, see how you can make a case where some of your allegiance to a person, candidate, or any single social issue has at least three of the commonalities listed above. Do the same if you are on the left.

Now do the opposite: If you are on the right, find three of the listed commonalities you see on the left. If you on the left do the same about the right.

Lastly, list all your reasoning for whatever your allegiances are.

Now look at your reasoning for all three exercises. Are you using any of the commonalities described above to generate your own reasoning? Is your reasoning based on reality, fantasy, and/or unsupported perception and beliefs to even a small degree?

Hint: Is you have trouble finding areas where the commonalities listed above apply to "your" side you might be avoiding some realities.

Another thing that keeps us from seeing reality and including it in our critical thinking is the suppression of information. Right now people on both sides of current issues including the election are working to suppress counter information. In a cult the leader restricts what its members can read and listen to and/or calls any negative information lies and the attempt of others to hurt the group. While it is true that our press today does lie, if we listen to outlets that are counter to our group belief, we can better determine what is a lie and what is not. In this day and age old video clips are available (but we must insist on seeing the context of the clip). The shortened clip used to prove Trump called white supremist good people is a good example of a clip used to support a lie. There is a clip of Biden telling a member in a conference of his that he will raise his taxes, yet we don't know who the person is. This clip is used to prove Biden will raise taxes to the middle class. Twitter and Facebook are banning any reports on the emails, voice recordings, or third party testimony of Hunter's business dealings and the connection of those dealing to his father. The Biden campaign claims they are all Russian misinformation despite the fact the DNI says there is no evidence they are and others who wrote or received the emails verify they authentic (Note: Neither Joe or Hunter Biden have said they are not his emails or have been altered). There are unaltered videos of Biden saying all drug offenders should be locked up and the death penalty should apply despite his current position of treatment verses imprisonment. The "right media" shows every one of Trumps rallies but only shows small clips of Biden's focusing on the small crowds and/or gaffs. If someone from the left shows a person on the right evidence of something good on their side the person will merely discredit it based on something someone on their side said, substantiated or not. If someone on the right shows something to someone on the left against their side their side, that person will discredit it (such as it is Russian misinformation) because their sources merely say so even in the face of the discretization having strong evidence against that very discretization. The mainstream will block what they consider to be hacked information or unsubstantiated stories .. as long as it is against their narrative... while reporting on hacked tax returns, a false Russian Dossier, and a book by an anonymous source. And what do we do? We cling to whatever our Vanguard says we should. Never before has it been so important for us to actively seek out contradictory evidence and use our critical thinking to determine what we believe.

Question: If the DNI says there is no evidence of Russian misinformation, if others involved in the email chains say the emails on Hunter's laptop are real, if former business partners are speaking out, if the timing of Hunter's employment at Burisma and Joe's admitted forcing Ukraine to fire the DA looking into Burisma is suspicious, if there are claims Burisma admits to bribing Biden, if the 27M the Chinese government gave to the Penn-Biden center is accurate, if there is evidence of money laundering on the lap top, if there is evidence of child pornography on it as well, do you think mainstream media should be interested in it and present it to you and at least not block it?

No, I would not bother to consider it ___

Yes, but I still would not believe it ___

Yes, I trust myself to consider it unbiasedly ____

Question: How uncomfortable would it be to discover evidence that your view of a social issue or politician was wrong at least in part?

It would be difficult ____

I would want the truth ___

Question: Might such information lead you to change your mind?

No. I still think my gut is right ___

It would have to be proved 100% ___

It depends on how "big" the dent in my view is ___

I am open to change ____

Another tool of a cult that we use in our social and political affiliations is demonizing. The purpose of demonizing is to separate and prevent any ties that might lead to an open unbiased exploration of information.

Trump and the right are racist and do not care about human life.

The left is radical and a bunch anarchists who only want power despite what they say.

If you believe either of these narratives you can always find bits of evidence that can serve to support your view. If you believe the opposite, again you can always find bits of evidence to support your views. The human mind can distort, ignore, or manipulate anything. If you are looking for something, you can at least appear to find it. But, if you can take away the demonized façade your mind has accepted you will find common ground with those you have demonized. Of course the first step is to see how biased your own mind is. I have spoken with many moderates who feel that are unbiased. When they tell me why they have beliefs and opinions they soon discover, via questioning, that they have formed their belief based on limited information and emotional responses versus critical thinking. The only way to truly get an unbiased self-opinion is to put aside whatever you believe and research the other side as if you are about to enter in a debate and are assigned to be on the "other" side. Pretend this is the most important debate of your life. As they say in the CSI TV series, follow the evidence and see where it takes you. In the end you will have your own unique take on things and will also better understand those who disagree and move toward purple.

Just like leaving a cult, the hardest thing about forming your own opinion is the ramifications it will have in your relationships as well as your self-image. It seems we humans bond over mutually complaining about the same thing. Sharing our outrage makes us feel heard and important. It makes us feel part of something bigger than ourselves. With social media our ability to instantly connect and get our need to connect filled is increased many fold over the past. We send out a tweet, feel better about venting, then wait for the response and the thanks for sharing. Sometimes we get negative and mean feedback which can have us either put our tails between our legs or see another chance to express our outrage and get our fellow "cult" members to join us in bullying those who dare disagree. If you send something that even asks a question that infers you do not 100% agree with the members of your group, be prepared for the backlash. This is the same thing that happens in a cult, except there legal action to silence you is often taken. In the social/political world you are discredited and your posts may be blocked it place of legal action. In its milder form members try and convince you of the folly of your ways and suggest you are being mislead or misinformed. It is highly unlikely your critical thinking will be acknowledged and fair and friendly debate will ensue. What is of a bigger consequence is the damage it all imposes on your self-image. We are a communal species. We tie who we are to our position in our communities. Being shunned by members of our community might leave us lost. Many members of cults tell us that they wanted to leave the cult, but were ashamed and afraid of being exercised from the cult and not welcomed by their "real" family and friends. Once they began to see the light and/or question things the cult was telling them they were overwhelmed with shame. To get to purple it is important everyone create a welcoming and loving landing spot for people who seek the truth over the comfort of their current community.

Lastly we have the role of activists who claim to be making us aware (or woke). This is not true of all activists, but when I hear someone proudly saying they are an activist ( without even saying what they are an activist for or against) my radar is set-off. I have found many activists to be more about being right or affixing blame than about fixing problem. It is more about them being special and held on high. Have you ever heard someone introduced as " dentist and activist" like being an activist had some royal connotation. I recently had a lady on social media tell me while we debated how to get to social justice that she had been an activist for 20 years and attended many demonstration through the years as though her logic or opinion had more value than the rest of us. I had never met her and really could care less about how long she had been an activist. I cared more about her logic and the truth in her positioning. Too many activists, in my opinion, position themselves as "vanguards". They will often attack anyone who even questions their superiority. I would encourage anyone who might look up to and value the words of an activist more than normal instead listen with a healthy skepticism. Taking that step back might surprise you. I think we need more mediators and less activists if we want to get to purple.

Lastly we often overlook methods to solve a problem as though the end justifies the mean. When we identify a person or movement as "good" we might overlook the injustice of their methods. If you saw the final episode of Game of Thrones you might remember that the Dragon Queen violently killed the evil ruler to free the people. At the end her lover killed her rather than join her on the throne. Why... because he saw her rule would be another form of imprisoning the masses, only now in the name of "good". (Note: this usually turns out to be true of socialist/communist movements). Eventually someone who was humble and would serve as more of a mediator was chose to rule. ( Note: I am waiting for a leader who says I don't have the answers and I welcome challenges to any I might have. I want to get all sides together and work toward solutions). Feeling the end justifies the mean keeps us from getting to purple.

Question: What is more important to you, the truth, or being perceived as a good person leading us to a narrative that claims to be a change for the good?

Being seen as a good person ___

The truth is my goal ____