Remember….this whole episode is a DISTRACTION from the Epstein Files- Trump’s Achilles heel. He will do anything to keep us from seeing them. What is Bondi and friends redacting or destroying! Why did they go in this weekend? What was the latest deadline for the files to be released?? January 5th. Hmmmm
There is an alternative to the "this whole episode is a distraction" conclusion. My conclusion is that focusing on the Epstein files is a necessary treatment of one of the disease's symptoms and this whole episode is an attempt to identify the root cause of the disease that will lead to a cure (aka permanently eradicate the symptom-causing disease from our body politic).
“However, in the end, I didn’t have enough, and there were numerous theories to consider.”
And now here’s me telling you to consider another theory. Why dedicate any of your valuable attention to me?
At its core, science is two incredibly simple concepts teachable to virtually every child in virtually every fifth-grade classroom. First, assume that you can’t tell a book by its cover, so observe carefully. Second, assume that it is always much better in the long term to refute a falsehood than to avoid facing an inconvenient truth, so keep a careful watch for signs that an implicit assumption might be distorting your interpretation of your observations and then subject your assumptions to rigorous skepticism.
The essay linked below includes seven famous stories from the history of science where seven scientific communities operating on a vast storehouse of valuable scientific knowledge caused harm by reflexively ignoring a scientifically valid hypothesis for years. Polite neutral question: Does every scientific community “forget” the elementary school-level understanding of science?
My essay goes on to explain what I have every reason to believe is a scientifically valid interpretation of what I have every reason to believe is the most important experiment in the history of science. For a decade, my hypothesis has been (mostly) reflexively ignored. My response has been to subject my assumptions to rigorous skepticism only to find that they have been distorting my interpretation of my observations in surprising ways. And yet, since it was first derived in 2015, the core of my theory, an idiosyncratic interpretation of Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment (first publicly described in his 1983 paper), remains unchanged.
“What do you think is going on?” Thank you for asking. I’ll answer by asking you a question.
How long do you think the mind takes to determine if an incoming stimulus is a potential threat, a potential opportunity, or irrelevant? I don’t ask that specific question in my essay, but my (testable?) guess is less than 50 milliseconds.
Hypothetically, I’m right, and then the mind takes another 150 ms to trigger the “blink eye” response after it has already categorized an incoming dust particle on a collision course with the eye as a threat.
“It’s not their fault. It could eventually happen to you. So just be kind. Don’t attack them, their gurus, their beliefs, their favorite politicians. Don’t attack, just ask questions, polite, neutral questions, that’s it,” she said.
My advice? Change the last sentence to: “Don’t attack, ask polite, neutral questions, and subject the implicit and conflicting assumptions underlying an interpretation of the Libet experiment (including James R. Carey’s) to rigorous skepticism.”
My branch of science might not be acknowledged as a branch of human psychology, but it is. The questions we ask are not about the individual’s psyche. Instead, my branch was founded in the 1920s and proven in a program called Training Within Industry (TWI).
TWI was an American government program during WWII tasking experts in what was then a fledgling field with the job of helping manufacturers stop producing consumer goods and start producing war materiel while they were continuously increasing productivity and quality as most of their experienced workers were leaving to put on uniforms, pick up guns, and go overseas to fight.
That was not the only time my branch of psychology succeeded spectacularly and then faded into obscurity. Regardless, it both conclusively confirms the egalitarian vision (which is the inconvenient truth) and conclusively refutes the authoritarian vision (the "apparently" convenient falsehood).
What I think is going on is that it takes our (thankfully changeable) culture’s collective unconscious about 50 ms to mistakenly categorize the Libet experiment’s data as a threat, and then the conscious mind is tasked with deciding how to neutralize the threat.
Steve Bannon doesn’t want our collective unconscious to change. I want to convince our culture’s collective unconscious to consider the possibility that irrefutable data from a repeatable experiment are not a threat, and then our collective CONSCIOUSNESS will be tasked with deciding how to seize the opportunity.
Remember….this whole episode is a DISTRACTION from the Epstein Files- Trump’s Achilles heel. He will do anything to keep us from seeing them. What is Bondi and friends redacting or destroying! Why did they go in this weekend? What was the latest deadline for the files to be released?? January 5th. Hmmmm
There is an alternative to the "this whole episode is a distraction" conclusion. My conclusion is that focusing on the Epstein files is a necessary treatment of one of the disease's symptoms and this whole episode is an attempt to identify the root cause of the disease that will lead to a cure (aka permanently eradicate the symptom-causing disease from our body politic).
💙💙💙
“However, in the end, I didn’t have enough, and there were numerous theories to consider.”
And now here’s me telling you to consider another theory. Why dedicate any of your valuable attention to me?
At its core, science is two incredibly simple concepts teachable to virtually every child in virtually every fifth-grade classroom. First, assume that you can’t tell a book by its cover, so observe carefully. Second, assume that it is always much better in the long term to refute a falsehood than to avoid facing an inconvenient truth, so keep a careful watch for signs that an implicit assumption might be distorting your interpretation of your observations and then subject your assumptions to rigorous skepticism.
The essay linked below includes seven famous stories from the history of science where seven scientific communities operating on a vast storehouse of valuable scientific knowledge caused harm by reflexively ignoring a scientifically valid hypothesis for years. Polite neutral question: Does every scientific community “forget” the elementary school-level understanding of science?
My essay goes on to explain what I have every reason to believe is a scientifically valid interpretation of what I have every reason to believe is the most important experiment in the history of science. For a decade, my hypothesis has been (mostly) reflexively ignored. My response has been to subject my assumptions to rigorous skepticism only to find that they have been distorting my interpretation of my observations in surprising ways. And yet, since it was first derived in 2015, the core of my theory, an idiosyncratic interpretation of Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment (first publicly described in his 1983 paper), remains unchanged.
The essay: https://jamesrcarey.substack.com/p/why-scientists-are-expert-problem
“What do you think is going on?” Thank you for asking. I’ll answer by asking you a question.
How long do you think the mind takes to determine if an incoming stimulus is a potential threat, a potential opportunity, or irrelevant? I don’t ask that specific question in my essay, but my (testable?) guess is less than 50 milliseconds.
Hypothetically, I’m right, and then the mind takes another 150 ms to trigger the “blink eye” response after it has already categorized an incoming dust particle on a collision course with the eye as a threat.
“It’s not their fault. It could eventually happen to you. So just be kind. Don’t attack them, their gurus, their beliefs, their favorite politicians. Don’t attack, just ask questions, polite, neutral questions, that’s it,” she said.
My advice? Change the last sentence to: “Don’t attack, ask polite, neutral questions, and subject the implicit and conflicting assumptions underlying an interpretation of the Libet experiment (including James R. Carey’s) to rigorous skepticism.”
My branch of science might not be acknowledged as a branch of human psychology, but it is. The questions we ask are not about the individual’s psyche. Instead, my branch was founded in the 1920s and proven in a program called Training Within Industry (TWI).
TWI was an American government program during WWII tasking experts in what was then a fledgling field with the job of helping manufacturers stop producing consumer goods and start producing war materiel while they were continuously increasing productivity and quality as most of their experienced workers were leaving to put on uniforms, pick up guns, and go overseas to fight.
That was not the only time my branch of psychology succeeded spectacularly and then faded into obscurity. Regardless, it both conclusively confirms the egalitarian vision (which is the inconvenient truth) and conclusively refutes the authoritarian vision (the "apparently" convenient falsehood).
What I think is going on is that it takes our (thankfully changeable) culture’s collective unconscious about 50 ms to mistakenly categorize the Libet experiment’s data as a threat, and then the conscious mind is tasked with deciding how to neutralize the threat.
Steve Bannon doesn’t want our collective unconscious to change. I want to convince our culture’s collective unconscious to consider the possibility that irrefutable data from a repeatable experiment are not a threat, and then our collective CONSCIOUSNESS will be tasked with deciding how to seize the opportunity.