Exhibit A
In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.” When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone:
In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
That is not this . . .
A world where regurgitating garbage gets people to Like you — celebrating “victory” by clicking “bravo” to bad manners and bunk. A world where the rush is everything:
- The rush to respond
- The rush you get from responding
- The rush to roll out the next issue of concern
- Repeat and never reflect
Exhibit B
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
Left and Right . . .
I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to). America argues in a vacuum incapable of correlating anything: As if blowback has no bearing on 9/11 & today.
With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln.
[D]eep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
There was a time when we did!
“WUT”
In my youth, I could not have imagined a world in which even people with PhDs would act like imbeciles in the face of information they don’t instantly understand. That an entire country could take satisfaction in insulting your own intelligence on a daily basis just astounds me.
Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration.
As M. Scott Peck perfectly put it:
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like:
Never considering the defects in their own parts.
And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason): They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them.
This definitely feels like a bug here . . . this is going to take some much deeper investigation
— WordPress Support Rep
I’m saying the whole system is failing to a nation that refuses to recognize that there’s even a bug. Unless it’s on the other side, of course: They’re infested with ’em — while your side is a cleanroom for computer chips.
I watched this digital scan of the Titanic wreckage with fascination — and that would have been the end of it until this bit below. I respect the reporting and the passion of the people behind these efforts. What I take issue with is a culture that craves detail at the depths of Titanic:
While issues of world-altering consequence are skated over on the surface.
Despite how extensively the Titanic has been explored — there are still many fundamental questions. The hope is this scan could provide answers. We really don’t understand the character of the collision with the iceberg. We don’t even know if she hit it along the starboard side as shown in all the movies. She might have grounded on the iceberg — and this photogrammetry model is one of the first major steps to driving the Titanic Story toward evidence-based research and not speculation.
This nation no longer understands the meaning of character — and we’re talking about the character of a collision with an iceberg in 1912? Again, I’m not trying to take anything away from the passion in their purpose (and those who take an interest in it). But come on — can you at least show some degree of commitment in how you carry yourselves when considering issues that challenge your calcified convictions?
And if you’ve got the goods to back up your beliefs — they should be able to survive scrutiny, shouldn’t they?
Start with those 3 little words of wonder and you’ll be amazed at the clarity that comes with it. To any objective observer, it was plain as day that something wasn’t right with Stockton Rush and Elizabeth Holmes (both of ’em dying to be disruptors — and one of ’em went all the way).
Yeah, Rush got Titan to work for a while, but it was pure folly from the start — just like the hackery behind her claim to fame.
Why would anyone believe that you could conduct 200 blood tests in this little box below? Maybe someday someone will — what do I know? I know something’s not right when I see it. To be sure, I’ve been fooled a time or two — but that’s at the core of what this is all about:
To learn from our mistakes!
And lo and behold: Those who bought into her fantasy would have seen who she really was had they simply started with these 3 words and followed their instincts:
Something’s not right . . .
a.k.a.
Speaking of Holmes . . .
Another parallel is how our culture places excessive faith in people based on image, not the totality of their record. Titan’s passengers put their trust in their pilot — because surely if he’s going along, it must OK. I’m hardly comparing the naivete of Titan’s crew to the wildly misguided belief in this media darling.
I’m simply saying we’ve become a country that’s way too easily accepting of those who speak to us.
In a society that’s either gushing with over-the-top praise or seething with over-the-top scorn — whatever happened to something in between? Ya know, balance — which was nowhere to be found in the fallacies that follow:
The Mariana Trench of False Equivalence
But if an experimental approach to discovery is a crime, then we might as well put the Wright brothers, Charles Lindbergh and Apollo’s lunar-bound astronauts on trial. And while deep exploration of the oceans carries obvious risks, I can’t quite accept the notion that he was cavalier about it all.
Then by definition — you’re as delusional as he was:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
A lot of that goin’ around!
And here’s his motive in the very next sentence:
I knew Stockton through a mutual friend of ours in our hometown of Seattle, and within those circles of acquaintance he was known as a terrific husband, father, grandfather and friend, with an infectious, fun-loving curiosity that will linger as an influence long beyond his death.
His risks were calculated ones, however flawed the calculations might turn out to be.
Right on cue | Never fails
Stockton took shortcuts that cost him his life and the lives of those who placed misguided faith in him. Elizabeth Holmes took shortcuts that put her in prison and made fools out of a lot of people. Some were young and sincere who simply got lost in the dream of doing something special.
Others should have known better, but miserably failed to ask tough questions in a culture that craves the quick win with ease.
Speaking of #winning and records:
Before this guy got cancer — he’s ridden the Tour de France four times. His best place was 36th overall. In a mountain stage, he never finished within 8 minutes of the winner (mostly he was 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes behind). So how can you get cancer, come back from cancer, and be completely transformed? And this was a sport that the previous year had been revealed to be a doping circus.
— David Walsh, The Undoing of Tour de France Hero Lance Armstrong
Something’s not right!
Walsh asked questions unwelcomed by a world wrapping its arms around a cancer survivor who came back to dominate the sport of cycling. Not to mention the mountains of money involved in preserving the lie — so there’s that.
What I circled above is so in tune with the times.
The more I learn about the sub, the more it sounds like a 50/50 coin flip suicide expedition than exploration.
Lots of intelligent commentary floating around on Titan. It’s refreshing to see all the sound analysis I’ve seen on the sub. And from experts to casual observers — most everyone recognizes reality on Rush.
Who doesn’t?
The same people who always refuse to see something for what it is: Those too close to the situation to objectively evaluate it (invariably with motive in some form — innocent or otherwise). I realize Cameron’s craft was designed to go 3 times deeper than Titanic:
But it’s just a striking contrast on the look of seriousness alone.
And so’s this . . .
Your pursuit of truth and accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell.
And that’s a fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
Just as my lifelong record of unwavering commitment to the truth and objective scrutiny to find it. As I said in my doc:
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:
A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration.
If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.
8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
This mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that second article — and yet not one word addresses the marquee claim on a mushroom cloud.
How do you reconcile that?
Stockton Rush’s name will never be forgotten for his folly that took 5 lives in a contraption doomed to fail. That same wishful thinking in totally unsuitable material — was held by a CIA/WINPAC analyst named Joe Turner:
Who provided a path to war that cost countless lives, unspeakable destruction, trillions of dollars & counting, and poisons political discourse to this day and probably generations to come.
Never heard of him!
I’m not surprised . . .
In a country that can’t even get this straight:
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake:
How about uranium hexafluoride?
Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability, no less. How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
Yellowcake to UF6 Conversion to Uranium Enrichment:
On Titan, time-honored materials and safety standards of DSVs are taken into account to accurately assess the situation. We listen to experts and respect their input because it makes sense. Had Stockton done the same, he and his crew would still be alive.
And if this nation didn’t look at everything through a political lens — a lot of people would still be alive.
And lo and behold: The number of experts who thought carbon fiber was sound for DSVs — matches the number of nuclear scientists who supported Powell’s baseless assertions on the tubes that took us to war:
Exactly Zero!
Something’s Not Right!
If you understand baseline information on material properties in one context: Shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another? Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up:
Red Team Paper: Nevertheless, by September 2001, the matter had more or less been settled. There was no serious debate within the intelligence community. One stubborn WINPAC analyst does not constitute a debate.
Richard W. Memmer: Then 9/11 happened — and whad’ya know, the tubes were resurrected.
— Act I
If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is in the gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
If I came across someone so clearly in command of this material — I wouldn’t give a f#@k about format. They could write it down on napkins and I’d roll with it. I don’t need somebody to babysit me with the just the right formula for me to carefully consider something. I’m happy to put some time and effort into working it out on my own.
When did acquiring knowledge become:
I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything!
If you don’t understand something, try this on for size:
For two decades:
America has made it impossible to have this conversation: Painfully obvious deception that shaped everything you see today. But we’ve got all the time in the world to talk about Titan:
Strikingly similar — don’t ya think? . . .
I’m a retired engineer, electrical not mechanical. You are absolutely correct about technical limits on materials such as this sub design. It’s insane this guy took the sub to its breaking point. It’s sad but a good lesson to future explorers. Don’t push the physical limitations of the materials and design.
— YouTube user
That’s Entertainment!
This is work! Where your bullshit beliefs get put in the dustbins of self-delusion where they belong. If this title doesn’t tell you something about my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I. In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out, but I like to be thorough.
To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know.
If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone — my first thought would be
I must be missing something pretty big!
You have other ideas . . .
Button your lip and don’t let the shield slip
Take a fresh grip on your bulletproof mask
And if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
You can hide hide hide behind Paranoid Eyes
I point you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes doc — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing: And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me. I offered you overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that exhaustively exposes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:
Taking both parties to task for it — and then some!
You refused to even glance at the doc while deriding my efforts with pleasure. So with this site I tried another approach: Interweaving clips in conjunction with the behavior of those who slavishly defend the indefensible.
The doc is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest.
But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out: Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place. You go out of your way to not comprehend what could not be more crystal clear. You refuse to address anything I’ve said as you redirect the discussion in any direction that allows you to avoid having to answer for anything.
You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span of a child?
But still that wasn’t enough — as you won’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutes. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you. In slinging your insults, you’re insulting your intelligence far more than you’re insulting me (not to mention being in gross breach of those precious principles you preach).
