Joshe

I think ABC was biased but that doesn't necessarily mean their bias made things unfair. If ABC feels it's their responsibility to not be a conduit of blatant, verifiable propaganda and misinformation, that's their prerogative and IMO, it was the responsible thing to do. Had Harris attempted to spread overt falsehoods, I do believe they would have fact checked her as well. Did you notice they let Trump get away with lots of lies but only pushed back on the most blatant ones? If you cross a certain threshold of deception, you get called out... so it seems to me.

Have you ever watched people slowly accept a new idea, which is usually how new ideas are accepted? It doesn’t happen in an instant. It takes around 20 or so times of hearing a Spotify ad before it really starts to work on you. What are normies doing right now? They’re not making up their minds. They’re being influenced. Little by little. It’s near impossible for this debate to not boost Kamala because her campaign is objectively on point. No need to wait on a poll.

The poll ain’t gonna answer how normies were swayed. The psychological impact is subtle and cannot be measured by their polls. This was undoubtedly in Kamala’s favor.

True, but I’ll take my own sentiment analysis over some poll. The poll is useful data, so it gets included, but you can use google trends, track social media influencers, msm, cope levels, etc. all sorts of stuff you can do to get data to inform your opinion. @Hardkill 😂😂😂 damn man, you cracked me up with the Meg Kelly thing.

@Shodburrito I went through similar feelings. I wanted others to come along with me in my development but they weren’t interested and it bothered me deeply, and even more so because I thought they needed my advice to end their suffering and to solve their problems, but no one cared about solving the problems. They just wanted instant gratification and not to have to think too much. Why did that anger me and fill me with resentment and cynicism? I told myself it was because I cared about them and it hurt me to see them suffer… and that was true, but later I found another reason: I was all alone on the path. No one would come into my beautiful world and be with me there. I was heart-broken and couldn’t admit it. I wasn’t willing to live in their shitty worlds and they didn’t want anything to do with mine and so that’s just the way it was. But trust me, you should keep on your radar that you will some day need to surrender these resentments. If you want to be healthy, there is no other way. You will have to forgive them and yourself. You might not be ready now, but just keep it in your mind that one day, this will need to be done. I remember the day I saw what an asshole I had been my whole life. I never cried so hard in my life and I literally felt a stream of shit beaming out of my chest. Years of resentment I guess. It felt really good.

My purpose is not to shit on Musk. It's to point out what seems like epistemic error or just simple bias/inertia/refusal to re-assess. People ask the yellows if Musk belongs in the yellow cat and their answer should be "no", because that's accurate, but because prior sense-making said "yes", there is resistance to the truth. It's possible my understanding of SD is flawed because I didn't study it deep. But like I said, if Musk is yellow, I'm coral and you're iridescent. Congrats! Many things are serious but I only need to invoke their seriousness if recognizing it would be beneficial. The seriousness things deserve depends upon what you're doing. From my POV, you don't just have these deep insights into the nature of the mind and then forget them. They never go away, or at least, they didn't for me, so I don't have to try to take it seriously. It's a background process that can't not be ran. Reality itself is the reminder. It would be like me reciting "the sky is blue" so I never forget it. Of course I'd be less likely to make an error if I were to hyper-fixate the way you like, but time / energy / life are finite, so I'd rather move faster and trust myself to self-correct as needed rather than go slow.

Sadhguru offers a relevant parable in one of his books: https://recorder.google.com/8354bf2d-236b-4562-b3dd-0b0d12a5f700

Yes, and the sky is blue. How might one get around that? 🤔 When you recognize it, you can correct it, hence, self-correct, hence, it's possible to accurately assess in spite of biases. Just a quick and effective heuristic: If someone has a long-standing pattern of various types of failure to self-correct, it's highly suggestive they're simply not "advanced". (Please do not point to how bias can undermine this heuristic. I've already dealt with that) Patterns indicate things. If all you do with your patterns is say "maybe", I recommend trying to make use of them. It's the only way to get good at discernment. Go be wrong but try like hell not to be. Refine and self-correct! Not tricky. Just takes some courage and getting used to. Couple of notes: Bias seems to be most tricky in the choosing of criteria, metrics, and methodologies, so look there if you want to obliterate your biases. Logical fallacies/inconsistencies are often easier to spot. Don't be afraid to be wrong. Welcome it. It's ok to not be a big-brained genius. I'm sure not. (see my humble brag there? I'm trying to be more like Lex. I love you all!) If people have sufficient courage, then objective, unbiased thinking is a totally achievable goal. IMO, it shouldn't be overly idealized and placed on a pedestal. It should just be advocated for. That would allow peeps to reach it faster. Food for thought. I love you all!

The only metric I care about is who was "most effective" at changing public opinion in their favor. Using this metric, I bet she might be in the running for the best presidential debate of all time.

Not sure what OP means but my interpretation is a never-ending string of connections of which can be observed, analyzed, mined for insights, and manipulated, forever. Do this for long enough and it gets old.

Once this was exhausted for me and the novelty fell away, which took a couple decades, there was the question of "why?" Why was I doing all this understanding? I think the answers to that question is what leads to the surrender of all the thinking. You can miss it if you're not paying attention. Maybe you saw the games you were playing or the reasons why you were doing it and that led to some surrender. I hesitate to use SD labels because I don't like to imply superiority. If you're turquoise, you're better off not adopting the label, IMO. @Lila Great explanation!

My stage blue mother is also capable of self-correction. I always thought a self-corrective mechanism was a defining feature of yellow cognition, not merely something it is capable of from time to time.

Look beyond "tonight". By the end of this week, will there be a victor? C'mon yellow. What's gonna happen with this dynamic system? Will there be equal damage? Will the there be no damage? How will the clips and sound bites impact public opinion? What clips and soundbites will be available? How much money will the Harris campaign use to shove those sound bites into the eyes and ears of Americans? How many more questions can I pull out of my ass? Lots, but no need. You don't need 100% accurate information. The Harris campaign has executed very well and capitalized on every opportunity thus far. Do you think they might capitalize on this situation too? Bet your ass they will. Also, it was no mistake Taylor Swift executed after the victory. Put it all together man! Mark these words: By the end of this week, honest sense-makers will know Kamala was the victor of this debate.

Indeed, I was referring to what I consider a non-lofty cognitive process, which I thought was the bare minimum entry to yellow. You wouldn't really call it "advanced thinking". That said, what I described is quite different from ordinary human cognition. Most people absolutely do not operate in this way. This cognition is distinguished by continual self-reflection, autonomy, self-correction, and higher order awareness, so it's something... right? My point is... if your cognition can't function to correct itself, you're not an "advanced thinker". The whole point of being "advanced" is to be able to stand on your own. To self-correct. That is the hallmark of advanced thinking. To be able to find your way... on your own. It's not about how much knowledge you have or that you've discovered interesting insights. It's about the processes you nurture and cultivate and how effective you can utilize those processes with awareness. Elon Musk can't self-correct for shit. So, in other words, if Elon Musk is Yellow, I'm Coral.

I jumped out of seat with glee as soon as I heard him say it. 😂I don't think I've ever been that excited by watching a screen.

Oh yeah, from his campaigns POV, he definitely did fine, but I think the overall public will have a different POV. 😂

I think they don't care because they don't know and they don't want to know, but they won't be able to avoid the clips. If you collect the best clips for Trump and Harris and disperse them equally throughout society, I think Kamala wins. That said, the right does have a massive propaganda network, so if they're creative enough, they could mitigate this disaster. Get ready for red herrings and distractions out the ass to cover the cope of this ass whoopin'

😂So true. Also, the fact that there was no crowd, this was a total blow for him because he didn't have an audience to validate his responses. When they all laugh at his attacks or cheer him own, it puts him at ease and thus, less defensive. He didn't know how to act in this setting. Also, I noticed when his popularity was attacked, like World leaders who laugh at Donald Trump Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people his eyes went wide as hell. Everytime. So that was interesting. Also, you could see him plotting. He would listen intently for attacks and you could see him nod his head every time he figured out his response to the attack. IDK what the hell he was doing with this new "I'm gonna whip you if you don't shut up" tone.

No Trump supporters were swayed by Kamala, nor will they be. If you want to assess their performance, you've got the right idea of stepping into the shoes of the uninformed, apolitical, everyday American. I can tell you, the majority will not see a "polite" Trump. He will appeal to some, but once the clips and analysis of this debate are done circulating, the majority will have seen an unhinged, angry liar who is desperate to avoid prison time because he tried to steal the last election and some will see a man whose face is synonymous with legislation that stripped women's right away. Those clips will be what does him in. He's cooked.

I'm referring to typical cognition where a person is capable of reflecting on their thoughts and actions with the ability to pass the reflection to executive function for quality assurance and to adjust their thoughts and actions based on QA's findings. You could have strong opinions that you know are arbitrary biases but you can suspend/surrender them and adopt other arbitrary biases and cognize with those plugged in. This is basically the mechanism of empathy. It can be used for observation and simulating potential realities as well as going meta on your thought processes. Here, it's possible to observe objectively enough to be what I thought was the bare minimum entry to yellow. No?

EXACTLY! I did not expect it to go this well. He looked like a mean old asshole yelling at a calm woman and they were letting him do over and over and over.

I'm glad it went this way. It benefits her. Think about how hard it will be to say Kamala received preferential treatment. I saw it all happening and was excited as hell. I think ABC knew what they were doing. The fucked him good. Edit: I spoke too soon. They're doing it anyway. lol

The clips and analysis that will come out in in the following days will be disastrous for Trump. No doubt. He looked like a mean old dumb asshole yelling at a calm woman making sense.

I thought yellow was so advanced that it had the ability to go meta on all its thought processes to uncover flaws and inefficiencies in any domain. That's the standard that I've always applied to yellow. In other words, if you can't escape your biases in one domain, you are not yellow... at all, but maybe I misunderstand SD.