People With More Intellectual Humility Have Superior (general) Knowledge

[Hugh Johnson]

Many times they do not recognize the threat or even if they do there is not need to do anything in most cases. Like you said, even family structures often dislike/discourage truth seeking/telling and can effectively suppress such a person without any help from outside. If the person does manage to break through then it is quite easy to track their influence/impact these days. I mean, even Peat does most interaction with others electronically and that can be quite easily traced, quantified, assessed, etc. Google knows quite well how impactful say Peat's last newsletter was and Google has publicly admitted to selling "personal profile assessments" of any individual of interest to the government or anybody else with deep-enough pockets. That's kind of the main business o Google right now - i.e. not so much indexing the world's information but tracking individuals through public posts, emails (Gmail) or even "anonymous" searching. Same with Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft (whose Windows 10 OS by default track almost everything you do on your computer). Combine the information these 4 companies have on a person and you pretty much know how much of a threat they are to governments, to others, or even to themselves (e.g. mental illness, drug use, etc).

I just don't find that a satisfactory explanation. There is too much data for it to be used like that, and too many people on both sides with no actual powerstructure to inform people for that to happen. There is some influence, and it is very important when it comes to selling statins and faking the studies etc. but not with sugar.

I posted about David R Hawkings' successes in orthomolecular psychiatry and the opposition he received from collegues and it made no rational sense. DH was making tons of money, was internationally respected and these people could have copied him or worked for him. Yet the psychiatrists found suppressing cures more important than money and fame. They definitely were not receiving direct orders from medical companies either, and those companies could not possibly pay them all off, not back then when they were not making such great money.

Same thing with discussing something like full employment with people. People with master's degree seem to often become incoherently angry while blue collar people easily understand the basic functioning of the monetary system when it is explained to them, and the political aspects of full employment. There is no one commanding these people, they consider themselves rational, yet there is an aggressive reaction.

 

[haidut]

Yet the psychiatrists found suppressing cures more important than money and fame.

Well, isn't this akin to the family structure suppressing truth/dissent, as you mentioned? Not everything is about money/fame, it sometimes can be a very basic aggressive/subversive reaction from low-energy people who have power over you through family/culture/law/etc.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Well, isn't this akin to the family structure suppressing truth/dissent, as you mentioned? Not everything is about money/fame, it sometimes can be a very basic aggressive/subversive reaction from low-energy people who have power over you through family/culture/law/etc.

Yes, of course. That is what I am wondering and I was hoping someone had some insight into. Why so much emotion and personal sacrifice to make things worse? It is not rational, and I don't think anyone would conciously say that is what they are doing. Yet they do it, and it is almost like organized, long lasting, goal directed behaviour. The arguments for it are obvious motivated reasoning, yet the goal is coherent.

I probably act like that sometimes, I know I have in the past. I can't understand it, even though I can see there is something there. It's not even a basic reaction, many of these people are sophisticated scientists spending a lot of time making ridiculous arguments seem plausible. And how do they recognize the good things, like usefulness of vitamins, as something to suppress?

 

[haidut]

Yes, of course. That is what I am wondering and I was hoping someone had some insight into. Why so much emotion and personal sacrifice to make things worse? It is not rational, and I don't think anyone would conciously say that is what they are doing. Yet they do it, and it is almost like organized, long lasting, goal directed behaviour. The arguments for it are obvious motivated reasoning, yet the goal is coherent.

I probably act like that sometimes, I know I have in the past. I can't understand it, even though I can see there is something there. It's not even a basic reaction, many of these people are sophisticated scientists spending a lot of time making ridiculous arguments seem plausible. And how do they recognize the good things, like usefulness of vitamins, as something to suppress?

Well, I don't know what the original cause of all of this is but the direct cause is likely serotonin. It's like asking why does a psychopath like to torment people or a sociopath like to sabotage honest group efforts. Ultimately, it is perturbed (and insufficient) energy flow but serotonin plays a major role as a direct cause. It is a primal signal that your fellow man is your enemy, that the world is a dog-eat-dog playground. Pretty much all "developed" societies are hierarchically structured and hierarchy is driven by serotonin. That also suggests higher power person = higher serotonin person. As such, it is mostly children (= little to no hierarchy) under 12 that are capable of camaraderie, altruism and truth-seeking.

 

[Dobbler]

Many times they do not recognize the threat or even if they do there is not need to do anything in most cases. Like you said, even family structures often dislike/discourage truth seeking/telling and can effectively suppress such a person without any help from outside. If the person does manage to break through then it is quite easy to track their influence/impact these days. I mean, even Peat does most interaction with others electronically and that can be quite easily traced, quantified, assessed, etc. Google knows quite well how impactful say Peat's last newsletter was and Google has publicly admitted to selling "personal profile assessments" of any individual of interest to the government or anybody else with deep-enough pockets. That's kind of the main business o Google right now - i.e. not so much indexing the world's information but tracking individuals through public posts, emails (Gmail) or even "anonymous" searching. Same with Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft (whose Windows 10 OS by default track almost everything you do on your computer). Combine the information these 4 companies have on a person and you pretty much know how much of a threat they are to governments, to others, or even to themselves (e.g. mental illness, drug use, etc).

What can one do to make themselves as invisible as possible?

 

[haidut]

What can one do to make themselves as invisible as possible?

Probably no need to do anything explicit. Most people these days are so consumed with their own issues and focused on themselves that if you mention a few times some "outlandish" things like the ones we discuss here they will consider you mad and largely leave you alone. Only if you start attracting a following it may become a problem and I don't know how to avoid drawing attention if you already have a large group of people following you. But if you are largely on your own or with a small group of dedicated friends then you will just be considered eccentric and written off as another wacko.

 

[Dobbler]

Jesus, i didnt realize it's this scale of an issue. This is insane... Im buying 3 VPNs right now. Atleast all my reddit and youtube trolling accouns are not on my name but i quess that doesn't help ..

 

[MatheusPN]

A curiosity in relation to haidut reply, in two different city or county I sometimes go. Almost everyone, when they discover my eccentric side, most become genuinely interested, some very interested!
Totally distinct experience from the usual

 

[Amazoniac]

Probably no need to do anything explicit. Most people these days are so consumed with their own issues and focused on themselves that if you mention a few times some "outlandish" things like the ones we discuss here they will consider you mad and largely leave you alone. Only if you start attracting a following it may become a problem and I don't know how to avoid drawing attention if you already have a large group of people following you. But if you are largely on your own or with a small group of dedicated friends then you will just be considered eccentric and written off as another wacko.

It explains the bulletproof vests in some of your recent interviews.

 

[haidut]

It explains the bulletproof vests in some of your recent interviews.

Lol, you should see my bunker and torture chamber for doctors under the bed

 

[Birdie]

Lol, you should see my bunker and torture chamber for doctors under the bed

Haha. And thank you always.

 

[Giraffe]

"We should approach the world and our conclusions about it with a little more humility and a little less certainty."

 

[Regina]

"We should approach the world and our conclusions about it with a little more humility and a little less certainty."

Awesome video Giraffe!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I re-read this post and I remembered that when I went to business school at 19 I was extremely authoritarian, and it did lead to good grades in most subjects. I had trouble with marketing, and I think that is because it deals with people and other vague stuff where simply following orders does not work. I understood and could follow instruction very well, although it was extremely stressful to me. This meant that I had great grades.

In the real world, that is useless. There is a certain balance of obedience, where by you learn to repeat what you are told, while separating those things from what you actually do. It works best on those who are not interested in the truth, and either due to psychopathy or dull mind do not suffer from cognitive dissonance that would cause. At least that is my hypothesis, it's probably not correct.