Agreed and I believe if we look closer we will find that we have way more in common than our differences. And we can learn to "appreciate " our differences as long as they are not inhumane ideals
This videa is great, but i like to add that there's also a difference between winning and saying thr truth. If your objective from a conversation is connecting and extending a bridge between you and the other party, you gonna have to let go of your need to say the truth sometimes. You have whatever conversation or debate you feel like having, just make sure the goal of "truth" cannot be achieved without "connection".
Political journalism often falls short when a clear YES / NO question isn't pushed, and the mindless list of talking points from the inrerviewee is rattled off and accepted as a response. As much as I respect the nuances of good journalism and Socratic questioning, there is a time and place to be insistant. At least the NON-response that follows has been flagged as a transgression. You don't need to be aggressive or obtrusive to get answers.
belief in imaginary friends is the cause of some of the most inhumane acts in human history . and continues to this day to be the root of most divisions .
Encroching on someone's intellectual sovereignty never yields good results. At best, they will resent you, or worse, you'll gain their undying hatread. What's the point of being right if the only thing you can do with that righteousness is create resentment and hatred? The only people who were ever able to successfully change my opinions were humble, patient, and compassionate. They did it mostly by sharing their personal experience or displaying exceptional behavior. Rarely by argumentation alone. Cheers!
I fail to understand why in a debate there can be only 1 winner instead of setting a good example for all the people and families everywhere by settling on a proper compromise that allows both parties to win if red and blue mixed are purple which is the color representing royalty then why is it that blue and red can't set aside their hearts of lead and accept the challenge of finding the best compromises in doing so find out what new heights together we all can soar leaving behind us the demises of our fears that had everyone bound and blinded to the simple truth that we work better together than against one another. Holding eachothers progress back and arguing like children pointing out each others flaws but not a single solution can be found within either sides so called "resolution" better find one id say or there may just be a revolution. So much these thoughts spin around in my head it has me fearing that the last revolving that will occur will be accompanied by a loud pop and my head twist-top-popping free from my neck n' shoulders. Least I wont worry anymore then I suppose.😊❤
@Think.Thrive and when your society collapse because of those status quo changes, you're going to feel mighty silly, especially after people tried to reason with you, huh?
I would like to hear more from the people on the last part of the video. It feels inauthentic the way it’s constructed now - as if the people’s comments are there just to lead the narrator into points.
We live in a world were people hide behind "Fake News" to hold onto their beliefs. These days, I don't even waste time debating anyone. When people try to discredit sources of information that disprove their beliefs, it becomes emotionally taxing dealing with those who can't be reasoned with.
9:30 "Problem is we live in a world in which there is something called context collapse. And it means that those with agendas [..], will take snippets or will ignore the context that you've given, [..] even as you set it up. And not only will they ignore it, and they'll inflame it with their own commentary." I've got mixed feelings about that statement. There are two cognitive distortions at play (certainly more). The first is "confirmation bias", which means that everyone has the tendency to select and interpret information in such a way that it confirms one's own expectations. And the second is the "bias blind spot", which means that everyone has the tendency to consider oneself uninfluenced or relatively uninfluenced. This is true always and in every situation for everyone in a conversation. So for you when you present your context and also for them when they hear it. Those cognitive distortions make us blind for the reasoning of the other side, since we consider ourself as morally in the right, which in result make us ignore the "inflamed commentary" the counterpart give us. For them our context is "inflamed commentary". And yes, this is very normal. And yes, it is a massive problem in a globalized world, with just in time media broadcasting, which rely on selling exciting news and stories. So yes, this context collapse is a problem. But no, I don't think we won't get anywhere by focussing on the negatives as much, since everyone is trapped in their own bubble. Yes, you and me. So framing something as "inflamed commentary", is the first step of agitating yourself even if it is on a one an objective level. If you ask me, we should reassure our own reasoning and put it on a scale with our counterparts reasoning. If it is at balance, we can do whatever we want, we won't reach the other side nor that of the audience. If our reasoning has more weight, there is a chance to make a dent in the perception of someone else, especially when we choose confrontation. But certainly not in that of our counterpart (biases). If we choose instead eyelevel conversation, it might change the view of our couterpart. But that is not possible with everyone. Psychopathic people are immune to manipulations like that. Charming conversation in order to gain trust is their way to manipulate you. So if you are in a conversation you can choose verbal violence, which is direct confrontation to make an effect on the audience, but not your counterpart. That creates interesting drama everyone will listen to. Or you can choose eyelevel debate with recognition of your counterparts view. But wether your counterpart will change his view is a question of how psychopathic or narcisitic he is or how strong his biases are or heck if he is full and in a good mood. Yes, personal mood plays a big role too. So the naive idea to change someone elses view to the better, is futile when you do not know the basics. Also what is if lies are at play? Are you able to gain trust with someone who is telling you lies, you could believe? Also what if everything you believe in is a lie? If you ask me that is the real threat of our modern globalized world. It's not only that we are confronted with those lies on a daily basis. It's getting harder and harder to identify them.
It's not ego in itself, it's inflated egos and fragile egos that are the causes of the issues, people who have strong egos aren't the cause of any issues. I'm awesome, I'm brilliant, I'm great, but I still know that I'm not better than anyone else.
A conversation can last 120 life times and plus... or be over before it started. A conversation can incompuse debates. And a debates can pause for conversation... A debates stays after dinner and begins a life of its own, a conversation is more intimate and tailors maid for individuals... conversation can feel like a long dream or a short nightmare...
Our next evolutionary stage is and must be one of consciousness; not the crunchy granola crystal yoga kind, but true geo-socio-awareness. And I say this to all the mono-theists; 'Wouldn't it be a disservice to the creator to not try and explore to the farthest regions and understand to the deepest depths, this incredible sandbox of a consciousness we call reality?' At risk of sounding cringe, we should be striving to become a multi-planetary species as the prime directive of spaceship Earth, and we all require access to the same life-support system; so, let's make sure everybody has clean air, clean food, housing, health care, education, and a path to self-empowerment. We can't let Capitalism and the digital drugs that is the technology we have created hold us monkeys back, k!ll!ing one another over the color of our skin and pieces of the ground.
Don't take religion in its whole. Take each PERSON as a personality. You will find you either like or dislike them. Only as a personality can you truly know the truth of a person.
Such a timely discussion for me personally. I’ve internalized my frustrations with whomever or whatever issue & it takes its toll both physically & emotionally. Really need to learn new strategies. My intentions are honorable for whomever I’m advocating for, but with whatever/whomever seems in opposition. Thank you.
Yeah... No. You were excellent with Mehdi. You portrayed Muslims as normal people reverting to tribalism when under siege. I have never seen Mehdi with tears in his eyes before. You were arguing as one amongst equals. He was right though. A few contextual lines about how most other religous communities do the same thing would be good. Reform takes generations of relaxing before you are not fresh off the boat
!!!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $100k passively by just investing through an advisor, and I don't have to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
Without a doubt! Ruth Ann Tsakonas is a trader who goes above and beyond. she has an exceptional skill for analyzing market movements and spotting profitable opportunities. Her strategies are meticulously crafted based on thorough research and years of practical experience.
Release the interview or don't. It's not that deep. I don't know why she is over-analyzing this so much. It's one interview with one extremist it's not groundbreaking content. This did not warrant 17 minutes of discussion.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
For more tools to have honest conversations, go to moralcourage.org/tools.
This is what the world needs right now. Put more effort into understanding each other, less effort into defeating eachother.
Agreed and I believe if we look closer we will find that we have way more in common than our differences. And we can learn to "appreciate " our differences as long as they are not inhumane ideals
I would like to add that it can be okay to disagree. It is much more important to understand each other! ❤
This video series is fantastic. Thank you for making this🙏
This videa is great, but i like to add that there's also a difference between winning and saying thr truth. If your objective from a conversation is connecting and extending a bridge between you and the other party, you gonna have to let go of your need to say the truth sometimes. You have whatever conversation or debate you feel like having, just make sure the goal of "truth" cannot be achieved without "connection".
Political journalism often falls short when a clear YES / NO question isn't pushed, and the mindless list of talking points from the inrerviewee is rattled off and accepted as a response.
As much as I respect the nuances of good journalism and Socratic questioning, there is a time and place to be insistant. At least the NON-response that follows has been flagged as a transgression.
You don't need to be aggressive or obtrusive to get answers.
belief in imaginary friends is the cause of some of the most inhumane acts in human history . and continues to this day to be the root of most divisions .
Encroching on someone's intellectual sovereignty never yields good results. At best, they will resent you, or worse, you'll gain their undying hatread. What's the point of being right if the only thing you can do with that righteousness is create resentment and hatred? The only people who were ever able to successfully change my opinions were humble, patient, and compassionate. They did it mostly by sharing their personal experience or displaying exceptional behavior. Rarely by argumentation alone. Cheers!
This video is straight fire
Everyday, I want to lead with my heart more, and to show love and compassion to all. We're all interconnected.
This was beautiful. Thank you.
Sooo good! May read her book
I fail to understand why in a debate there can be only 1 winner instead of setting a good example for all the people and families everywhere by settling on a proper compromise that allows both parties to win if red and blue mixed are purple which is the color representing royalty then why is it that blue and red can't set aside their hearts of lead and accept the challenge of finding the best compromises in doing so find out what new heights together we all can soar leaving behind us the demises of our fears that had everyone bound and blinded to the simple truth that we work better together than against one another. Holding eachothers progress back and arguing like children pointing out each others flaws but not a single solution can be found within either sides so called "resolution" better find one id say or there may just be a revolution. So much these thoughts spin around in my head it has me fearing that the last revolving that will occur will be accompanied by a loud pop and my head twist-top-popping free from my neck n' shoulders. Least I wont worry anymore then I suppose.😊❤
12:54
Ego feeding.
Because that's the definition of a debate. We can start having discussions instead, but debates by definition have a winner.
Nice one loved irshad
Takes a lot of courage to challenge the status quo, and a lot of character to aim for constructive discussion, as opposed to simply opinion-bashing.
@Think.Thrive and when your society collapse because of those status quo changes, you're going to feel mighty silly, especially after people tried to reason with you, huh?
I have a very pressing question which if anyone can then pls answer, that Should people who haven't been to war talk about it or debate on it?
Gotcha journalism...
I'd love to view that interview with regards to this video's ideas.
I would like to hear more from the people on the last part of the video. It feels inauthentic the way it’s constructed now - as if the people’s comments are there just to lead the narrator into points.
We live in a world were people hide behind "Fake News" to hold onto their beliefs. These days, I don't even waste time debating anyone. When people try to discredit sources of information that disprove their beliefs, it becomes emotionally taxing dealing with those who can't be reasoned with.
9:30 "Problem is we live in a world in which there is something called context collapse. And it means that those with agendas [..], will take snippets or will ignore the context that you've given, [..] even as you set it up. And not only will they ignore it, and they'll inflame it with their own commentary."
I've got mixed feelings about that statement. There are two cognitive distortions at play (certainly more). The first is "confirmation bias", which means that everyone has the tendency to select and interpret information in such a way that it confirms one's own expectations. And the second is the "bias blind spot", which means that everyone has the tendency to consider oneself uninfluenced or relatively uninfluenced. This is true always and in every situation for everyone in a conversation. So for you when you present your context and also for them when they hear it. Those cognitive distortions make us blind for the reasoning of the other side, since we consider ourself as morally in the right, which in result make us ignore the "inflamed commentary" the counterpart give us. For them our context is "inflamed commentary". And yes, this is very normal. And yes, it is a massive problem in a globalized world, with just in time media broadcasting, which rely on selling exciting news and stories. So yes, this context collapse is a problem. But no, I don't think we won't get anywhere by focussing on the negatives as much, since everyone is trapped in their own bubble. Yes, you and me. So framing something as "inflamed commentary", is the first step of agitating yourself even if it is on a one an objective level.
If you ask me, we should reassure our own reasoning and put it on a scale with our counterparts reasoning. If it is at balance, we can do whatever we want, we won't reach the other side nor that of the audience. If our reasoning has more weight, there is a chance to make a dent in the perception of someone else, especially when we choose confrontation. But certainly not in that of our counterpart (biases). If we choose instead eyelevel conversation, it might change the view of our couterpart. But that is not possible with everyone. Psychopathic people are immune to manipulations like that. Charming conversation in order to gain trust is their way to manipulate you. So if you are in a conversation you can choose verbal violence, which is direct confrontation to make an effect on the audience, but not your counterpart. That creates interesting drama everyone will listen to. Or you can choose eyelevel debate with recognition of your counterparts view. But wether your counterpart will change his view is a question of how psychopathic or narcisitic he is or how strong his biases are or heck if he is full and in a good mood. Yes, personal mood plays a big role too. So the naive idea to change someone elses view to the better, is futile when you do not know the basics.
Also what is if lies are at play? Are you able to gain trust with someone who is telling you lies, you could believe? Also what if everything you believe in is a lie? If you ask me that is the real threat of our modern globalized world. It's not only that we are confronted with those lies on a daily basis. It's getting harder and harder to identify them.
That's beautiful. Egoistic person cannot think about welfare of anyone; neither oneself nor others.
Ego is the enemy.
It's not ego in itself, it's inflated egos and fragile egos that are the causes of the issues, people who have strong egos aren't the cause of any issues. I'm awesome, I'm brilliant, I'm great, but I still know that I'm not better than anyone else.
This is a very interesting interview if you care about creating content that promotes peace.
Reason doesnt work. Debate doesnt either. Only understanding works. So be silent, listen. Try and understand. Give people the benefit of the doubt.
A conversation can last 120 life times and plus... or be over before it started. A conversation can incompuse debates. And a debates can pause for conversation... A debates stays after dinner and begins a life of its own, a conversation is more intimate and tailors maid for individuals... conversation can feel like a long dream or a short nightmare...
no , exceptance forgiveness and allow , if the universe speaks through you then so be it !
Our next evolutionary stage is and must be one of consciousness; not the crunchy granola crystal yoga kind, but true geo-socio-awareness. And I say this to all the mono-theists; 'Wouldn't it be a disservice to the creator to not try and explore to the farthest regions and understand to the deepest depths, this incredible sandbox of a consciousness we call reality?'
At risk of sounding cringe, we should be striving to become a multi-planetary species as the prime directive of spaceship Earth, and we all require access to the same life-support system; so, let's make sure everybody has clean air, clean food, housing, health care, education, and a path to self-empowerment.
We can't let Capitalism and the digital drugs that is the technology we have created hold us monkeys back, k!ll!ing one another over the color of our skin and pieces of the ground.
That would be an incredibly difficult thing to achieve especially among 7+ billion people.
Taqiyya
Please don’t have two minute long introductions before the video!!!!
Don't take religion in its whole. Take each PERSON as a personality. You will find you either like or dislike them. Only as a personality can you truly know the truth of a person.
Such a timely discussion for me personally. I’ve internalized my frustrations with whomever or whatever issue & it takes its toll both physically & emotionally. Really need to learn new strategies. My intentions are honorable for whomever I’m advocating for, but with whatever/whomever seems in opposition. Thank you.
The “Socratic Method” Mentioned!
Yes- because inferior intellect will consider you a threat until it believes it has no other route but surrender.
Yeah... No. You were excellent with Mehdi. You portrayed Muslims as normal people reverting to tribalism when under siege. I have never seen Mehdi with tears in his eyes before. You were arguing as one amongst equals. He was right though. A few contextual lines about how most other religous communities do the same thing would be good. Reform takes generations of relaxing before you are not fresh off the boat
I'm reel editer 😼
Sure - do it and you will be a petty person. That's your own damn burden to carry.
going around the truth for 16 minutes. great
98.2% of the videos uploaded on this app. Just noise on top of noise. Yadda, yadda.
!!!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of
information can be a big hurdle. I've been
making more than $100k passively by just
investing through an advisor, and I don't have
to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my
finances remain secure. So I really don't blame
people who panic.
Without a doubt! Ruth Ann Tsakonas is a trader who goes above and beyond. she has an exceptional skill for analyzing market movements and spotting profitable opportunities. Her strategies are meticulously crafted based on thorough research and years of practical experience.
nice!! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier. How can i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?
In a good debate, you argue for your opponents argument as preparation till you come to a dead end, exploring all variables and avenues.
Smoke screens
grandios
First - some one else said first but give me first pls
Release the interview or don't. It's not that deep. I don't know why she is over-analyzing this so much. It's one interview with one extremist it's not groundbreaking content. This did not warrant 17 minutes of discussion.
First viewer
Normally I would say this is a stupid comment, but the other day I was on another video and it was so tempting haha
Mission accomplished. Nural mcdonaldification achieved.
She said a lot about nothing.
genuinely "i got this, i did this im so smart, im not gonna show u what i did, im just gonna talk about how great i am"
Horrendous acting, fake personalities... With this cringe content you creating more division.
I haven't even watched the video and I know you're bs-ing
Donetsk🇷🇺