Is humanity purposely disingenuous?
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:31 pm
Human perception is prone to flaws and confirmation bias which acclimates people to say things like, “I saw the tokoloshe” or “that was the Virgin Mary.” People performing CE5 (summoning UFO) will gravitate towards suggestibility if the entertainment venue wasn’t quite worth the long drive or possibly thousands of dollars expended to attend.
Think of any cult-like identity and you will have an answer for why people (no matter how intelligent or educated) can sometimes dupe themselves and others, sometimes because egos depend on confirmation of belief, but also because people get exploited into believing in something that affects them on some level; and people gravitate towards escapism and satiating the ego, seeking a dopamine reward.
Good luck correcting people about false beliefs, as you may discover that people will still prefer to defenestrate with things they would rather not agree with, especially since people gravitate towards being part of one tribe, in opposition to the “other.”
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Perhaps those who believed they were capable of psychic phenomenon start to fake their activity in order to gratify the experiments and would such a thing invalidate the entire foundation of the claims of evidence for psychic phenomenon?
Similarly, do people actually experience a genuine event like, ‘*Our Lady of Fatima/Miracle of the Sun*,’ when prompted to believe in an event?
Did Constantine have an agenda to persuade people he saw Chi-Rho “crosses” as a propaganda tool and did the story suit an agenda of a religious organization (playing into confirmation bias and group hegemony/dominance over perceived enemies?) Since no contemporary account to the battle was recorded and was only written later, it’s assumed no one witnessed it; and the assumption is that if given the opportunity to expect to witness something supernatural and supernal, people would do so willingly?
Mass hysteria is no doubt a real phenomenon and when I was looking into Zimbabwe’s Aerial School sighting of a landed UFO and two beings that were claimed to be seen, I have wondered about some inconsistencies in the drawings made by the children (most showed traditional gray alien, though some drew long hair, and another drawing showed fully cloaked.) Many evident hysteria accounts are real (though does it explain all of them???)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3588562/
Things like sasquatch have no legitimate evidence of being real, and just like the relics of monasteries people in parts of Asia with their Yeti/Abominable Snowman, apparently had remains of the ‘creature’ which turned out to be bear femur. Did they know that or was it simply a story that got derailed? Similarly, in California people seemed to have ran with such a legend during the 60’s and claimed to video record it, which incidentally was at around the same time in Texas as ‘Lake Worth Monster’ claims were made with someone dressed in goatskin. Claims of Sasquatch are common in many boggy areas, probably for similar reasons, that someone was simply bored?
The ‘Starman Skull’ (a likely hydrocephalus child’s skull famously introduced by Lloyd Pye,) Atacama desert (“Ata”) mummy which was an extremely defective girl’s fetus presented as a possible alien by Dr. Steven Greer, and things like the alleged ‘Mesoamerica’ crystal skulls (with materials sourced from European mines and presented by a known con-man antique dealer named Eugene Boban,) are “modern” Barnam and Bailey deceptions that still linger in the imagination and draw attention, much as any cringe derivitive-“content” on modern social media or anything which seems to convince people of things they want to believe is true; as similarly, you will find many museums which would ultimately point out legitimate mesoamerican art acknowledge by a forger (Brigido Lara) to be their work, just as an art dealer (Han van Meegeren) convinced the world his forgeries were legitimate.
**What constitutes belief?**
When justifying belief in something we base our understanding of what we are familiar with or finding patterns in things that we analyze over time. . . People often resort to their immediate surroundings and are prone to primacy effect and again, confirmation biases with peer influence. . . People like to see what the people around them are thinking.
If someone is walking with their friend and witness their deceased father—they both run—is that hysteria?
If someone sees a dying relative who has given their last breath and in that moment notices a smoke-like wisp of illumination rise up from the body—and no mention until years later of it to the person who also witnessed it in the same room—is that hysteria?
Similarly, if recognizing a pattern in sound is that apophenia, or seeing a very distinct figure in a photograph, would that be pareidolia?
Did science itself overlook things because it didn’t know where to look, or did it only seek out what it was prompted to look for?
Think of any cult-like identity and you will have an answer for why people (no matter how intelligent or educated) can sometimes dupe themselves and others, sometimes because egos depend on confirmation of belief, but also because people get exploited into believing in something that affects them on some level; and people gravitate towards escapism and satiating the ego, seeking a dopamine reward.
Good luck correcting people about false beliefs, as you may discover that people will still prefer to defenestrate with things they would rather not agree with, especially since people gravitate towards being part of one tribe, in opposition to the “other.”
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Perhaps those who believed they were capable of psychic phenomenon start to fake their activity in order to gratify the experiments and would such a thing invalidate the entire foundation of the claims of evidence for psychic phenomenon?
Similarly, do people actually experience a genuine event like, ‘*Our Lady of Fatima/Miracle of the Sun*,’ when prompted to believe in an event?
Did Constantine have an agenda to persuade people he saw Chi-Rho “crosses” as a propaganda tool and did the story suit an agenda of a religious organization (playing into confirmation bias and group hegemony/dominance over perceived enemies?) Since no contemporary account to the battle was recorded and was only written later, it’s assumed no one witnessed it; and the assumption is that if given the opportunity to expect to witness something supernatural and supernal, people would do so willingly?
Mass hysteria is no doubt a real phenomenon and when I was looking into Zimbabwe’s Aerial School sighting of a landed UFO and two beings that were claimed to be seen, I have wondered about some inconsistencies in the drawings made by the children (most showed traditional gray alien, though some drew long hair, and another drawing showed fully cloaked.) Many evident hysteria accounts are real (though does it explain all of them???)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3588562/
Things like sasquatch have no legitimate evidence of being real, and just like the relics of monasteries people in parts of Asia with their Yeti/Abominable Snowman, apparently had remains of the ‘creature’ which turned out to be bear femur. Did they know that or was it simply a story that got derailed? Similarly, in California people seemed to have ran with such a legend during the 60’s and claimed to video record it, which incidentally was at around the same time in Texas as ‘Lake Worth Monster’ claims were made with someone dressed in goatskin. Claims of Sasquatch are common in many boggy areas, probably for similar reasons, that someone was simply bored?
The ‘Starman Skull’ (a likely hydrocephalus child’s skull famously introduced by Lloyd Pye,) Atacama desert (“Ata”) mummy which was an extremely defective girl’s fetus presented as a possible alien by Dr. Steven Greer, and things like the alleged ‘Mesoamerica’ crystal skulls (with materials sourced from European mines and presented by a known con-man antique dealer named Eugene Boban,) are “modern” Barnam and Bailey deceptions that still linger in the imagination and draw attention, much as any cringe derivitive-“content” on modern social media or anything which seems to convince people of things they want to believe is true; as similarly, you will find many museums which would ultimately point out legitimate mesoamerican art acknowledge by a forger (Brigido Lara) to be their work, just as an art dealer (Han van Meegeren) convinced the world his forgeries were legitimate.
**What constitutes belief?**
When justifying belief in something we base our understanding of what we are familiar with or finding patterns in things that we analyze over time. . . People often resort to their immediate surroundings and are prone to primacy effect and again, confirmation biases with peer influence. . . People like to see what the people around them are thinking.
If someone is walking with their friend and witness their deceased father—they both run—is that hysteria?
If someone sees a dying relative who has given their last breath and in that moment notices a smoke-like wisp of illumination rise up from the body—and no mention until years later of it to the person who also witnessed it in the same room—is that hysteria?
Similarly, if recognizing a pattern in sound is that apophenia, or seeing a very distinct figure in a photograph, would that be pareidolia?
Did science itself overlook things because it didn’t know where to look, or did it only seek out what it was prompted to look for?