There's an important phenomenon in advancing one's knowledge that no one ever talks about. Maybe that's because not that many make it far enough, or maybe the ones that do are not very self-reflective.
Suppose you start out fairly "fresh", just breaking away from the mainstream official narrative worldview. If you follow the No Agenda Show or r/conspiracy or Tin Foil Hat or anything else like that, you start off being blown away by all this new and startling information coming your way. It can really be a lot to take on board, and challenging to accept that you were this wrong about so many things for so long. That's a crucial phase to get through.
Time goes on and you build your own knowledge and expertise. In a certain process of "maturity" with all these sources, you begin to see what they miss, spot where they have accepted lies, realize they have misinterpreted because they don't have the correct context, etc. This is another vital phase: to develop the basis and confidence to disagree with "authorities" you have followed in the past.
After this process continues to fullness, if you have self-awareness you look around and realize that--at least to some degree--almost everyone gets almost everything wrong almost all the time. All the gods have fallen and there's no one to follow any more. Ninety-eight percent of what you come across is erroneous, irrelevant, or disinfo. All the sources become a best effort at finding news filters, hoping for nuggets here and there you can follow up on.
But even that dim situation can be turned around, because I use the "spare cycles" for meta-analysis: to examine how other people's minds operate, how they see the world and process information. This is an incredibly important issue to understand. If you look at my other comment, you'll see it was not about what John and Adam said, but about how they think.
There's an important phenomenon in advancing one's knowledge that no one ever talks about. Maybe that's because not that many make it far enough, or maybe the ones that do are not very self-reflective.
Suppose you start out fairly "fresh", just breaking away from the mainstream official narrative worldview. If you follow the No Agenda Show or r/conspiracy or Tin Foil Hat or anything else like that, you start off being blown away by all this new and startling information coming your way. It can really be a lot to take on board, and challenging to accept that you were this wrong about so many things for so long. That's a crucial phase to get through.
Time goes on and you build your own knowledge and expertise. In a certain process of "maturity" with all these sources, you begin to see what they miss, spot where they have accepted lies, realize they have misinterpreted because they don't have the correct context, etc. This is another vital phase: to develop the basis and confidence to disagree with "authorities" you have followed in the past.
After this process continues to fullness, if you have self-awareness you look around and realize that--at least to some degree--almost everyone gets almost everything wrong almost all the time. All the gods have fallen and there's no one to follow any more. Ninety-eight percent of what you come across is erroneous, irrelevant, or disinfo. All the sources become a best effort at finding news filters, hoping for nuggets here and there you can follow up on.
But even that dim situation can be turned around, because I use the "spare cycles" for meta-analysis: to examine how other people's minds operate, how they see the world and process information. This is an incredibly important issue to understand. If you look at my other comment, you'll see it was not about what John and Adam said, but about how they think.