Classic scar experiment that is highly relevant to modern times, where people who believe that they are victims try to cash in on that purported victimization over and over, classic case of confirmation bias and WYSIATI.
More on the Dartmouth scar experiment at Psychology Today, along with commentary regarding Andy Clark's work on predictive processing, including a link to fascinating rubber hand experiments.
Made crazy and unintelligent because they succumbed to tribalism . . .
J.K. Rowling is often accused of being "transphobic." She is repeatedly threatened with physical harm and death in response to her views on transgender ideology. And see here. Why? What are her views? In this March 7, 2024 Tweet, she succinctly states her views, which are also my own:
The word ‘transphobic’, as used here, does not mean an irrational fear or dislike of trans people. It means refusing to use gender identity ideology’s jargon, refusing to parrot its slogans, refusing to accept that sex doesn't matter when it comes to sport and single-sex spaces, refusing to believe a bearded heterosexual man becomes a lesbian when he declares himself one, and refusing to believe an abusive, misogynistic male is a woman because he likes to wear mini-dresses and pout in selfies.
Like every other gender critical person I know, I believe everyone should be free to express themselves however they wish, dress however they please, call themselves whatever they want, sleep with any consenting adult who wishes to sleep with them, and that trans-identified people should have the same protections regarding employment, housing, freedom of speech and personal safety every other citizen is entitled to.
But this isn’t nearly enough for the dominant strain of trans activism, which asserts that unless freedom of speech is removed from dissenters, unless trans-identified men are permitted to strip away women’s rights, with particular reference to single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prison cells, hospital wards, changing rooms and public bathrooms, until we all bow down to their neo-religion, accept their pseudo-scientific claims and embrace their circular reasoning, trans people are more oppressed, and more at risk, than any other group in society.
This is nonsense. 99.9% of the world knows it's nonsense. The emperor is naked. He might be wearing lipstick, but his balls are swinging in plain sight.
--
Related topic: I recently had my eyes opened on the psychology of autogynephilia. . And see here.
Robert Malone offers this definition of "limited hangout":
A limited hangout is a propaganda technique of displaying a subset of the available information. It involves deliberately revealing some information to try to confuse and/or prevent discovery of other information.Why is this important? Because "limited hangouts" are ubiquitous these days. They are a common tactic of those who use propaganda and censorship to create false consensuses and prevent robust national discussion of critically important national issues. When they are caught red-handed, they offer only a tiny subset of information, which has the psychological effect of satiating the audience, causing use to think that the full story has been disclosed. The cleverly disclose a tiny part of what is often their own misconduct and complicity in order to gain just enough credibility that they can they use that ill-gained credibility as a trojan horse for the next chapters of their misconduct.
It misdirects an incautious audience, because information needs a context for correct interpretation. Subtly omitting information changes the interpretation of the surrounding information.
A modified limited hangout goes further by slightly changing the information disclosed. Commercially-controlled media is often a form of limited hangout, although it often also modifies information and so can represent a modified limited hangout.
Robert Malone takes a look at a very credible and scholarly-looking article, identifying it as a limited hangout, point by point. Here's the article:
“Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns.”Here is an excerpt from Malone's article, his take-awayBitounis, D. et al. Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA drug and vaccine toxicity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 23 January 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-023-00859-3; PMID: 38263456
In this recent review article (23 January, 2024), Bitounis et al. provide a partial disclosure and examination of known risks and toxicities associated with the modified messenger ribonucleic acid/lipid nanoparticle pharmaceutical delivery platform. In general, what makes this publication particularly remarkable is that (collectively) the authors have significant employment or other ties to Moderna therapeutics, a pharmaceutical company whose very name (MODified RNA) indicates its corporate dependency on the feasibility of this technology. As a veteran of prior biopharmaceutical corporations, it is inconceivable to me that these authors do not have pre-existing restrictive non-disclosure agreements with Moderna, and therefore it is highly likely that Moderna pre-approved this publication.
Therefore, my most generous interpretation of the overall intent of the article is that this article summarizes and represents information concerning risks and toxicities of this platform technology which Moderna wishes to have disclosed in a manner which puts the firm, its activities and the underlying platform technology in the best possible light. A less generous interpretation of intent is that this article represents a subtle form of propaganda strategy commonly referred to as a limited hangout.
The essay includes extensive speculation concerning how emerging new technologies such as artificial intelligence and organoids (simplified tissue culture structures mimicking an organ, that are derived from stem cells), as well as well established ‘high tech” approaches such as single cell sequencing can be used to minimize animal model use (a specific NIH objective). They are intended to facilitate more efficient pharmaceutical development and toxicologic analysis of modified-mRNA drug and vaccine development technologies.
Through the jaded eyes of this highly experienced proposal reviewer, this mostly reads like a forward looking justification for increased investment in a variety of expensive new pharmaco-toxicology infrastructure advances which would be in the financial and professional interest of the authors, while avoiding and overlooking time tested approaches to characterizing the profound and wide ranging toxicities of these pharmaceutical preparations.
In other words, this reads as an extended justification for spending a lot of money on new goodies for pharmacologists and toxicologists while avoiding the obvious and less sexy basics that still have yet to be performed and reported.
I highly recommend reading Malone's point-by-point analysis to understand how a limited hangout functions.
I periodically need to remind myself of this. Sometimes, the angst gets a bit thick in a confusing way and this is the problem, es explained by Oliver Burkeman:
[Other people’s emotions aren’t ultimately your problem. This phrase winds some people up, because they worry it means carte blanche to be a jerk to others – to treat them like dirt, then saunter away, complacently reassuring yourself that you needn’t take responsibility for the emotions you just triggered. But I don’t think that’s what it means. I think it means that at the end of the day, it’s a fool’s errand to make your sense of feeling OK dependent on knowing that everyone around you is feeling OK. Taken at face value, the information that someone is upset because you’re not doing what they wanted you to do is just that: a report on the state of their emotional weather. It doesn’t inherently implicate you at all. You might have good reason to do whatever you can to improve their weather in this case. But then again, you might not; it might be one of those cases where they’re just going to have to deal with it without you. As a factual matter, all callousness aside, the problem belongs to them. Allow other people to have their own problems!
And of course it turns out, time after time, that the people you thought would be furious with you… aren’t. You take some decision to use your time in a way that seems likely to invite anger or disappointment from someone else – yet the anger or disappointment never materialises. People find some other way to deal with the situation. Or they’re too wrapped up in their own troubles to be thinking of you at all. Whereupon you realise, with a start, that you were always somewhat freer than you believed to do what you wanted with your life. You only ever needed to face the consequences – and half the time, there weren’t even going to be any serious ones.
The above quote is from a mass-emailing - I don't see a link to an article. Here's Oliver Burkeman's postings.