Well broken down and presented (for me). "Often" & "Many" is a helpful start (for me). "We" need to parse? Yup. We who chose to subscribe & read need to, so I'm OK w/ that "we". "We all have complicated lives"? Nah. There are some who are sleepwalking through life. But again, perhaps all your kind readers all complicate our lives with deeper thinking.
Agree w/ the complete collection of a day's experiences & deletion, distortion & generalization. Didn't realize it 30+ years ago, but dinner table question to my 3 kids wasn't "How was your day?". We asked for high point and low point. It was daunting for us to resist deleting, distorting & generalizing; perhaps impossible.
Your using the upstream insanity of the lockdown was (for me) very useful. Who among us escaped that universal insanity? Slogans like "Trust the Science", indeed slogans in general were everywhere (in my experience). For example, there were no less than 120 yard signs praising hospital staff as "heroes" & affirming courageous behaviors like showing up for work. For the remote-working, protected administrators, fact were indisputable facts. Short of mowing down the signs I made no figurative dent in the prevailing "reality".
Your Axiom Examples & Pattern Identifiers have been helpful (for me). Gentle requests for clarification barely put a dent in most of my family, friends & associates. The longevity of my confrontational, impatient "style" hasn't optimally positioned me to credibly try new approaches! I, however, find it fortifying and clarifying to mindfully watch for BS tactics before reacting.
One final thought, perhaps off-topic: I was taught to translate shorthand descriptors into phenomenological communications. It was as basic as, for example, "The patient is sleeping" vs "The patient is in bed, recumbent and not moving" (which could mean deceased if "regular respirations" isn't added). Another might be, "The patient was violent" vs "The patient was screaming threats with a knife in hand moving toward others and ...") Likewise, consumers (in this case patients) who'd say, "I'm depressed" would be asked to flesh out what they meant by "depressed". The same was useful for people who'd say, "I'm suicidal", which conveys little about the perspectives that drive toward despair, rage, revenge or whatever outcome they sought.
Thank you, Peter, for working so diligently on your readers' enlightenment. What else is there for us to do in the traffic insane pace of our information superhighway except to slide out of the passing lane and avoid getting rear ended in the breakdown lane? Off ramps!
Thanks for this work. I think it's worthy of printing to add to my trove.
This article reminds me of a men's retreat I went on that had a ban on using the words " you" and " we" so the participants the participants had to replace it with " I".
It wasn't until I went back into the world that I noticed how much I had changed from doing this.
Intially I tried to ask people to not include me in their language of " you" and " we" and I received a unanimous offended NO!.
I did not concent to be included in these people generalisations so shouldn't I be offended?😁
I cringe when I hear people speak or write this way now but I reckon that the impotence of the " we the people" slogun and some individuals that preech thruth more than discuss it, is helping some people come around to taking personal responsibility for the inference of the words they choose.
Yet if I only use "I" and refrain from "you" or "we" it's like a novel written in first person narrative. It's entirely subjective as the only perspective is mine.
That's why first person narrative is also known as the unreliable narrative. All I or we can know as the reader or readers is what the narrator knows and, as I or we know, that's not the whole truth of anything.
Using "I" exclusively creates an unspoken relativity. What I'm saying is only relative to me and my thoughts, etc., which can be an interesting exercise in "owning" your thoughts.
But, "I" eliminates universality and just as you dislike being included in "you" or "we" without your consent, I dislike having the choice of personal or universal meaning taken from me.
There are many layers to linguistics. I appreciate what this article says and also wonder how linguistics plays into a situation like this :
When I asked someone why they had chosen to be vaccinated, he replied -
"Because I want to be around other people." Hmmm... I had little to say in response since I knew what he meant. He wanted to keep working at his place of employment where everyone had to be vaccinated and being with his family who were all vaccinated, etc.
I understand the need for some people to live collectively and a community is dead without some form of moral consensus.
Given the present divisions between people, my focus ( as I said- with exception) was supposed to be about open discussions that might bring people together honestly.
I feel that an individual that expresses a point with " we" believes that they have more credence if they think they speak for a group. There is no discussion with someone that has that sort of conviction for they are on the defence of the tribe for themselves.
I've played chess with a tribe of Indonesian blokes in Sumbawa. Me against the minds of 15 of them in one game. They were only about winning for the tribe against a westerner, not communicating with someone to make a connection, maybe even to learn something new.
As you mentioned with the jabbed fellow, the need to belong got a lot of fearful people killed.
Always a pleasure to see you 'around the traps'. ( Aussie phrase that originated from checking animal traps but now means places that people meet infrequently that are habitual hangouts)
No kidding! But what didn't he like about not being around people? What made that hard? Unemployment is likely. For me it was the sadness of being shunned. Shunning & shaming is a powerful tactic to force compliance. Maybe those without traits of oppositional defiant disorder aren't as skillful in tolerating middle school misery, LOL!
I liked that you put a watermark behind Rachel Maddow that says Rhodes Scholar and how you completely undress a dishonest person. It's better to understand than to dislike dishonest people. If I dislike someone, it takes energy and I may imagine a threat that I deal with irrationally. Be aware of what people say and do. Understand it. Great piece of work Peter.
Same. But the loss can become dimmer with time as their contribution to your world might look more hollow. Still, the loss of estranged siblings & parents sometimes cuts deep into a sense of meaning & relational context. But then there's the belief that "blood is thicker than water", "family first". Yikes!
Very useful analysis, Peter, although you certainly picked an example where even without any close analysis one's reaction tends to be one of revulsion. Oh my goodness! So nauseating and only tolerable with your analysis detailing exactly what is going on.
Thank you! Really, I only scratched the surface (I didn't want to overwhelm people). Someone could easily write a doctoral dissertation on just that video. (Someone probably will).
Neuro Linguistic Programming? ...That's interesting; I've just come from another internet forum where the entire shtick was about Fiddler on the Roof and other Jewish comedy.
Which, under the present scenario in The Middle East, I can only assume was deposed as some kind of mitigation for less than jocular, Jewish genocide and dispossessions there.
I could be wrong though; the entire thread may have been something divinely inspired by God or Jesus.
You seem to be an expert in NLP, applying it yourself using loads of axioms, unwilling to ask to basic questions. Or did "they" just do a good job propagandizing whatever they want you to believe.
Well broken down and presented (for me). "Often" & "Many" is a helpful start (for me). "We" need to parse? Yup. We who chose to subscribe & read need to, so I'm OK w/ that "we". "We all have complicated lives"? Nah. There are some who are sleepwalking through life. But again, perhaps all your kind readers all complicate our lives with deeper thinking.
Agree w/ the complete collection of a day's experiences & deletion, distortion & generalization. Didn't realize it 30+ years ago, but dinner table question to my 3 kids wasn't "How was your day?". We asked for high point and low point. It was daunting for us to resist deleting, distorting & generalizing; perhaps impossible.
Your using the upstream insanity of the lockdown was (for me) very useful. Who among us escaped that universal insanity? Slogans like "Trust the Science", indeed slogans in general were everywhere (in my experience). For example, there were no less than 120 yard signs praising hospital staff as "heroes" & affirming courageous behaviors like showing up for work. For the remote-working, protected administrators, fact were indisputable facts. Short of mowing down the signs I made no figurative dent in the prevailing "reality".
Your Axiom Examples & Pattern Identifiers have been helpful (for me). Gentle requests for clarification barely put a dent in most of my family, friends & associates. The longevity of my confrontational, impatient "style" hasn't optimally positioned me to credibly try new approaches! I, however, find it fortifying and clarifying to mindfully watch for BS tactics before reacting.
One final thought, perhaps off-topic: I was taught to translate shorthand descriptors into phenomenological communications. It was as basic as, for example, "The patient is sleeping" vs "The patient is in bed, recumbent and not moving" (which could mean deceased if "regular respirations" isn't added). Another might be, "The patient was violent" vs "The patient was screaming threats with a knife in hand moving toward others and ...") Likewise, consumers (in this case patients) who'd say, "I'm depressed" would be asked to flesh out what they meant by "depressed". The same was useful for people who'd say, "I'm suicidal", which conveys little about the perspectives that drive toward despair, rage, revenge or whatever outcome they sought.
Thank you, Peter, for working so diligently on your readers' enlightenment. What else is there for us to do in the traffic insane pace of our information superhighway except to slide out of the passing lane and avoid getting rear ended in the breakdown lane? Off ramps!
Thanks for this work. I think it's worthy of printing to add to my trove.
This article reminds me of a men's retreat I went on that had a ban on using the words " you" and " we" so the participants the participants had to replace it with " I".
It wasn't until I went back into the world that I noticed how much I had changed from doing this.
Intially I tried to ask people to not include me in their language of " you" and " we" and I received a unanimous offended NO!.
I did not concent to be included in these people generalisations so shouldn't I be offended?😁
I cringe when I hear people speak or write this way now but I reckon that the impotence of the " we the people" slogun and some individuals that preech thruth more than discuss it, is helping some people come around to taking personal responsibility for the inference of the words they choose.
There are exceptions to the rule but not many.
Best $2000 I ever spent. ( Not joking)
Yet if I only use "I" and refrain from "you" or "we" it's like a novel written in first person narrative. It's entirely subjective as the only perspective is mine.
That's why first person narrative is also known as the unreliable narrative. All I or we can know as the reader or readers is what the narrator knows and, as I or we know, that's not the whole truth of anything.
Using "I" exclusively creates an unspoken relativity. What I'm saying is only relative to me and my thoughts, etc., which can be an interesting exercise in "owning" your thoughts.
But, "I" eliminates universality and just as you dislike being included in "you" or "we" without your consent, I dislike having the choice of personal or universal meaning taken from me.
There are many layers to linguistics. I appreciate what this article says and also wonder how linguistics plays into a situation like this :
When I asked someone why they had chosen to be vaccinated, he replied -
"Because I want to be around other people." Hmmm... I had little to say in response since I knew what he meant. He wanted to keep working at his place of employment where everyone had to be vaccinated and being with his family who were all vaccinated, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts. So interesting.
I understand the need for some people to live collectively and a community is dead without some form of moral consensus.
Given the present divisions between people, my focus ( as I said- with exception) was supposed to be about open discussions that might bring people together honestly.
I feel that an individual that expresses a point with " we" believes that they have more credence if they think they speak for a group. There is no discussion with someone that has that sort of conviction for they are on the defence of the tribe for themselves.
I've played chess with a tribe of Indonesian blokes in Sumbawa. Me against the minds of 15 of them in one game. They were only about winning for the tribe against a westerner, not communicating with someone to make a connection, maybe even to learn something new.
As you mentioned with the jabbed fellow, the need to belong got a lot of fearful people killed.
Always a pleasure to see you 'around the traps'. ( Aussie phrase that originated from checking animal traps but now means places that people meet infrequently that are habitual hangouts)
Please use this Substack for all your hangouts! Thanks all for this high intelligence conversation!
No kidding! But what didn't he like about not being around people? What made that hard? Unemployment is likely. For me it was the sadness of being shunned. Shunning & shaming is a powerful tactic to force compliance. Maybe those without traits of oppositional defiant disorder aren't as skillful in tolerating middle school misery, LOL!
For some reason I can't make the "like" button work. But I like!
I liked that you put a watermark behind Rachel Maddow that says Rhodes Scholar and how you completely undress a dishonest person. It's better to understand than to dislike dishonest people. If I dislike someone, it takes energy and I may imagine a threat that I deal with irrationally. Be aware of what people say and do. Understand it. Great piece of work Peter.
Outstanding Peter🌀
Thank you, kind sir
I lost quite a few 'friends' during the Covid pandemic and then made new ones!
#MeToo
Same. But the loss can become dimmer with time as their contribution to your world might look more hollow. Still, the loss of estranged siblings & parents sometimes cuts deep into a sense of meaning & relational context. But then there's the belief that "blood is thicker than water", "family first". Yikes!
Very useful analysis, Peter, although you certainly picked an example where even without any close analysis one's reaction tends to be one of revulsion. Oh my goodness! So nauseating and only tolerable with your analysis detailing exactly what is going on.
Thank you! Really, I only scratched the surface (I didn't want to overwhelm people). Someone could easily write a doctoral dissertation on just that video. (Someone probably will).
Brilliant takedown!
Neuro Linguistic Programming? ...That's interesting; I've just come from another internet forum where the entire shtick was about Fiddler on the Roof and other Jewish comedy.
Which, under the present scenario in The Middle East, I can only assume was deposed as some kind of mitigation for less than jocular, Jewish genocide and dispossessions there.
I could be wrong though; the entire thread may have been something divinely inspired by God or Jesus.
Start with John 1:1. "In the beginning was the λόγος, and the λόγος was with God, and the λόγος was God". Λόγος does not mean "word." It means everything you can do with words. Jesus is λόγος incarnate. The Bible is an NLP handbook. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry%3Dlo/gos
To me, the bible seems like the operators' manual for 'amoral tyrants and all Greek to the fools who believe it.
You seem to be an expert in NLP, applying it yourself using loads of axioms, unwilling to ask to basic questions. Or did "they" just do a good job propagandizing whatever they want you to believe.
Nevertheless it is a read-worthy piece of work.
wut
Great article. Infection is fairy tale stuff but it doesn’t alter any of your points that you used it as if it was real.
https://youtu.be/OmxhajWJAnY
Context please… Assume my time is $750 an hour
Can by tricky when they've hijacked words like "Resist"!!
Not at all, just ask "resist what?"