General consensus is that normies are naive, brainwashed, believe everything the news tells them etc, etc... But is that really so? Maybe they are not as dumb as we think they are? Maybe most of them know it's a lie, they just choose to go along with the narrative?
Sure, there always will be some who are genuinely duped, but I'm not sure it's the majority. Like, when covid was going on, I met a lot of normies who publicly went along with the narrative, but privately it was obvious that they are not afraid of the scary virus at all. They didn't admit it out loud (even privately), but their actions were telling that (at least on some level) they know it's bullshit.
I find this thought a quite dark and depressing one. That would mean most of the people are happy to accept a lie and live with it just because it offers them some sort of benefit or simply because it's easier that way. Maybe this is why getting the truth out is not as effective as we'd like it to be. Also, that would mean mass awakening is probably not forthcoming, because there's nothing to awake from. Normies for the most part are already awake. They just don't care.
One of the Big Secrets which is being hidden is the true nature of human consciousness. Normies are normies because of how they think, which is different from how it is universally and unquestioningly assumed to be.
Part of it is the way they determine what is real. Normies determine what is real from those they consider "authorities", from parents to the fancy people on TV. Left on their own, normies can determine reality just fine, but the pronouncements from authorities can overcome all facts and sense and even first-hand experience.
It's like they're sitting next to the smart kid in their algebra class. Every time they take a test, they make sure their answers match those of that smart kid. Since they have to "show their work", if they can't match his answer on their own, they'll just make something up.
The key observation is this: Suppose that in the course of showing their work on a test question, they come up with an answer different than that of the smart kid. There is almost no chance they will write down their own answer.
There is much more to the full scope of the situation, but the Elites manipulate by making sure people think they're the smart kid in class.
Those are some good points. Was it you who recommended Julian Jaynes and his book The Origin of Consciousness? Well, whaddayaknow, I did actually read it! Found it very thought provoking as well. Thanks!
This time, however, my idea was that while large part of normies really might be incapable of independent thought outside their percieved authority, perhaps for some other part it's more like cold calculation and not literal wiring of their brain. Like, they don't really believe in mainstream narrative, but have decided to go along with it (and go along hard, even in private) because that way they can recieve some perks from the system. For example, because it's easier, there's less social pressure that way, because they want to have a carreer in some normie-only profession... etc, etc...
I guess the main difference here is in the process itself. How exactly this outsourcing of thought process happens. Was it conscious or unconscious? Was it more like a choice or more like a literal wiring of a brain? Things like that.
Well, probably the first thing to keep in mind is that this is all a shift in paradigm.
That is to say, you can't take the body of current scholarship and research then just select and and adjust your way to the correct view. You have to throw out the very foundations of it and set a new foundation.
But once that's done, you can actually go back and pick up the scattered masonry and start construction again. It wasn't the facts themselves that were wrong, but how they were interpreted and given sense.
So take a general form of the current question: "How does a person know what's true?" To answer it, perhaps you would study the page on epistemology. Maybe you start thinking that these damn normies better start studying some damn epistemology!
But we are already, at this very first step, trapped in the current and incorrect paradigm. That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.
In the "normie" or "NPC" mode, people are driven by their subconscious. Their essential goal might be called "safety". That is achieved in many forms in many different situations, but you can easily see the basic ones: "go along to get along", "move with the herd", "follow instructions", "do the smart thing", "mind your own business", etc.
Well, you can see that none of those involve a rational process. Rather, after the decision is made and the course set, the only process--if necessary--is rationalization.
Only on rare occasions when pressed hard will a normie say something like, "I don't care of it's true or not." Their subconscious knows they sound like a fool and that does not bring safety. So they will reverse engineer any reasoning, any facts, any moral principles to justify their beliefs and actions.
So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance. Try finding any of this mentioned as part of epistemology.
That's the cold calculation you mentioned, but where it becomes apparent is in the mid-level consciousnesses scattered about. A good example is Bill Maher, although I've been collecting a list of others.
The vast majority of the time, Bill goes along with the progressive line and spouts all the same dumb talking points and bullshit reasoning. But every once in a while, Maher comes across with the same things that would come out of your mouth or mine. When you focus on this phenomenon, it's stark. How is it possible?
The mid-level straddles that line, trying to move from rationalizing to rational. The problem is, there is one correct rational analysis but innumerable rationalizations. Bill is a smart guy with access to lots of info, so he can conduct the rational analysis. Bill is also firmly in the liberal milieu and gets all the rewards from it.
So it ends up being like pouring water into an upside-down funnel. Some gets through but not much. As an example, go back and study his comments after he met with Trump very, very carefully. His rational analysis--his first-hand experience, no less--is that Trump is personable even with a critic, he's well-informed and wants to do the right thing, etc, etc. But all that is at war with how Bill "knows" that Trump is "bad".
Interestingly, Bill can't bring himself to say something which is actually quite simple and reasonable like, "You know, I think it's possible I may have been wrong all this time about Trump. Maybe I was the bad guy in this." It's a related but bigger subject, but the NPC and mid-levels of consciousness also do not possess the same kind of morality it is assumed they do. They virtually always begin by assuming themselves to be the "good guys" and it is thus literally unquestionable.
As to the precise mechanism behind the three states of human consciousness (NPC, mid-level, fully awake), no one knows. It should, however, not be considered spiritual or magical or mysterious or anything like that unless it is clearly demonstrated to be so.
A very good analogy is the phenomenon of color-blindness. There are the color-blind, the normally-sighted, and for argument we add in people that can see ultraviolet. What is surprising is this: without screening, color-blind people often reach adulthood without themselves or anyone around them ever being aware of their condition.
People assume that what sight is like for them is what sight is like for everyone else. Color-blindness can be extremely difficult to notice. I would claim the same holds for the modes of consciousness.
With an awareness of color-blindness, we've come up with certain screening tests. As for the mechanism, the discovery of cone cells is not even two centuries old, and they were discovered by direct observation with a microscope.
No one has come up with screening tests for consciousness, and we don't have a microscope for internal thoughts. The question may be harder to crack. Also, as mentioned, it's a paradigm shift. Also, you're trying to get (at most, I believe) 5% of consciousnesses to recursively probe the depths of consciousnesses. Also it's a Big Secret so no one is studying it.
I have actually come to detest when people criticize normies as being stupid or guilty of some failing or such. As far as I can tell, they are how they are, they had no choice in the matter, and they are almost certainly incapable of changing the state of affairs.
It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.
Spot on. The world is interpreted through a worldview and not as is. There is no true neutral position from which one can evaluate information. All facts are theory-ladden.
Normies have zero knowledge about REAL philosophy like metaphysics and epistemology.