EGO HOLE DIGGING: MOST PEOPLE ARE JUST PUPPETS FOR THEIR EGO?

If you like audiobooks or audio shows, check out a free trial of Audible. Just click the link in the description. Welcome to Mind Shock. This is your host, Bruce McGuire. Today we're talking digging holes. How far do people dig their holes in order to satiate their ego? When their ego has got them on two short strings, they can't examine even the possibility that they could be wrong. The more evidence that mounts that they are wrong, the deeper hole they dig in response. It's actually a quite fascinating inverse relationship with new evidence exposing the corrupt who have been wrong this entire time, if we're talking current events, but it's not really specific to current events. This is Mind Shock, where we discuss practically everything in a logical and comprehensive fashion without falling for all these logical fallacies that everybody seems to desperately lean on when justifying their blind faith in the corrupt and their worldviews. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can donate to our PayPal. Just check the link in the description. Make sure you subscribe to the channel. Hit that bell for notifications. Make sure you allow your device to have those notifications come through. Like and share this podcast on social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Let's spread logic and reason to a world where it is quickly becoming extinct, never before so obvious as the past two years. You could also become a patron. Just check out our Patreon. You could support the channel that way. Also, case, topic, logical analysis, podcast, or requests. You could also be a guest on the podcast depending on your tier. Just check out the Patreon. Also, if you would like to become a Mind Shock member on YouTube, we have started YouTube memberships, so we will have members-only chats to discuss various topics and true crime cases. Questions, comments, theories, thoughts, suggestions, rebuttals, debunkings of any kind, just leave them in the comment section. So how obvious has it been in the past, let's say, year? So year one of, let's call them current events in our modern world, year one, or at least the beginning of year one, there was a lot of uncertainty. Now, there were critical thinkers, aka conspiracy theorists, who were pointing out that there are a lot of unknown variables here and that certain courses of action might do more harm than good. Now, over a year later, we see the result of that. You can see all of these benchmarks and statistics from various countries and their responses. So does, obviously, the highly insecure, narcissistic, or just power-hungry corrupt profiteers, they're always going to go for the emotional knee-jerk reaction instead of being scientific. Obviously, with science, you need controls because you need to be able to clearly identify dependent variables, independent variables, and controls. Is the reaction by a set course set forth what was intended, not intended, what are all the variables? So without doing the hard work in the scientific method, regurgitating the words of talking heads on the idiot box, that's not science. I don't know why so many goofs out there hallucinate that blind faith in corrupt authorities is somehow scientific. That's the opposite of science. That's faith. That's religious faith in the cult of authority worship, aka scientism, which is a religion. Real science is, of course, objective and neutral. So is this culture of doubling down on being wrong to not look stupid and then doubling down every single time new information exposes just how wrong so-called official narratives were, or just random goofs who believed these official narratives by those with horrible track records being wrong every step of the way. But they continue to double down. They continue to dig the hole deeper, which, I mean, this is fascinating psychology at play. I mean, Stockholm syndrome, which is a very, very serious pandemic going on. It's been going on for a long time, but there's just been a massive outbreak the past two years. And it has such a hold of people's minds if you haven't checked out the previous Mind Shock podcast episode, The Battle for Your Mind. Check that out because there are a lot of entities battling for your mind. And once they take it away from you, you're no longer you, so you don't have the mental capacity to act or even think in your own best interest. So you'll always defer to blind faith and the corrupt who only seek to exploit for profit. So my question to the listeners out there, all the Mind Shock listeners, the critical thinkers who could actually employ logic and reason, unlike the majority of the population, has it always been this bad? Where, I mean, think back to your school days. I mean, maybe in elementary school, middle school, there were people you get into an argument with a kid and no matter how much they're proved wrong, there's always that one kid who'll stick to their guns. They will dig a deeper and deeper hole just because they don't want to be wrong. They obviously have no interest in the truth. Now, you can present incontrovertible evidence, empirically verifiable evidence, clearly demonstrating how wrong they are, but they'll just pretend they're still right and dig a deeper and deeper hole. Now, personally, I haven't seen that with adults to this level that we're seeing this past year. I haven't seen that with adults at this wide scale. I mean, it's just widespread. And the extent to which it happens, I mean, in my social media research, where I actually engage with Dunning-Kruger goofs, I engage with a lot of these coincidence theorists, authority worshiping cultists, hopelessly indoctrinated into the cult of authority worship and scientism, and there's some commonalities. According to my research, a lot of these goofs pretend to be nice and they start off conversations like they're pretending to have a good faith discussion or debate. And then the more definitive evidence produced showing how clueless and goofy they are, if it's not conclusive evidence, they'll continue to pretend to be nice and everything. But if it demonstrates clearly and succinctly how demonstrably false their view and blind faith in the corrupt is, the results of their blind faith, they could not be more wrong. When that's clearly stated, they'll dig a deeper hole. They'll hallucinate what was presented actually wasn't presented. They'll hallucinate that it was a different source. For example, normally in any kind of discussion, I'll only use .gov sources because obviously clueless coincidence theorists, they have blind faith in the corrupt and they will only take those kinds of sources. They will not believe anything. They don't understand basic conflicts of interest. They don't understand appeal to authority logic fallacies. So in order to take that out of the equation, to really narrow down these variables on how these goofs operate and how they think, I only use sources that they would consider credible or valid. And the more clear the evidence is on how dumb they are, how clearly hoodwinked they were, the more they'll double down and dig the hole deeper, which is so fascinating. Because if you just hint at the suggestion that maybe they're a little bit wrong, it won't be as bad of a result. So is this a case of just a whole lot of narcissists hanging out on social media? Very possible, very possible. There's, I've noticed a clear link between the level of narcissism and the level of indoctrination into the cult of authority worship. And all these goofs who take blind faith, these corrupt authorities' words with horrible track records, the more hopelessly indoctrinated they are, the more narcissistic they are. Because for whatever reason, they just can't consider the possibility that they were wrong. It's really fascinating. I mean, psychology nowadays is so fascinating. The Stockholm syndrome in play, the Dunning-Kruger in play, the cognitive dissonance in play. I mean, to people who find these topics and psychology interesting, I mean, this is like a field day out there with the amount of goofs hallucinating these things and clearly demonstrating all of these concepts. I mean, for mind shock, I mean, it's kind of, it's been, again, it's just been an overwhelming amount of information to make content from because this is what we discuss on mind shock. Metacognition. Why do people believe what they believe? How are people brainwashed? How does the scientific method work? How do logical fallacies hold up? How do arguments hold up when all of these logical fallacies that are used to justify these beliefs? And it's just so amusing in a certain way that the more clear, the more definitively clear you make it that these individuals are all completely wrong and they took on blind faith the words of the corrupt who had demonstrably false statements, not only admitted such after the fact, but clearly demonstrated by all statistics from all countries. So it's not even a case of, oh, you can cherry, yeah, you could cherry pick a small, tiny little data set, but if you look at all available data sets, because obviously there's going to be anomalies and fluctuations. You can't, I mean, there's too many variables at play. But when you look across all data sets from all countries, there's some very, very clear data. So the more clear and obvious it is, the more triggered these goofs get and the more they're unable to consider the possibility they were wrong when it's clearly demonstrated that they were wrong. I mean, this phenomena in and of itself should probably have a name. I mean, this isn't the Dunning-Kruger effect, although of course that's at play, that's involved, but this effect should, this should have its own name. I mean, maybe there is a name for that. Any psychologists out there, the more definitively, conclusively proven wrong someone is, the more they double down and dig a deeper hole should that condition have its own name. I mean, obviously again, narcissism at play, Dunning-Kruger at play, cognitive dissonance at play. But what is the specific name, if there is one, for this type of reaction? Where if it's fuzzy that they could be wrong, they don't double down as much. But the more obvious it is that they're completely wrong and they couldn't be more wrong, the more they defy and deny empirical truth. Very, very curious. And these are the things we discuss on Mind Chug. So again, as I was saying earlier, my question to all the listeners out there is has it gotten worse? Let's say 10 years ago, the average adult, if you showed them clear and succinct data, they were completely wrong. Would they at least say nothing? Because that used to be a thing where someone could see that they were wrong. They weren't going to continue to argue. They might not agree. They might be pissed off. They might leave or be silent. I mean, that's a little bit more of a reasonable reaction. But to continue to double down the more wrong they are, I mean, I believe that might be slightly new. Now, again, social media is not brand new. It was around 10 years ago. And 10 years ago, in a lot of these social media conversations, I mean, yeah, you'd have the odd goof that behaved this way. But for the most part, I think more people were willing to just disappear and abandon the conversation than just continue to double down again and again and again. And that's the next question. Where will we be in another year, in another two years? I mean, it's kind of scary to think about all these supposedly functioning adults out there that are just completely clueless to not just basic logic and reasoning, which comprehension, but to even their own reaction. So not only have they never even heard of metacognition or how to examine their own thinking processes or question what they believe in any way, but to even analyze their own reactions, because they're not that dumb that they don't realize that they're being proven wrong. I mean, some of them might be. Again, let's not fall for any hasty generalization or false dichotomy logical fallacy. I'm sure you could find some people that fit in that category as well. But there's also a large group of people in a certain category. They're smart enough to see that they've been proven completely wrong, but their egos got them on two short strings. But even that, I mean, some people just want to save face. So the best thing might be to just abandon the conversation. That's reasonable. And there are certain people that do that. But to continue to double down, making yourself look dumber and dumber and dumber, I mean, personally, I think that's a relatively new phenomenon. Because again, other than that odd rare goof on social media years ago, you'd find that odd goof, just like there'd always be that one kid in school that would do that. But it wasn't, I mean, these amount of numbers, I mean, we have mass numbers of people now doing this. Not just random talking heads on the idiot box who are also doing it, but their peons and followers, those keeping the faith, the blind faith in the cult of scientism. These followers, they seem to be, I don't know if I'd say they're growing in numbers, but they're willing to double down on wrongness more and more and more. And the more wrong they are, the more they're willing to double down, and the more of them there are willing to double down on being wrong. So these holes that are dug, I mean, they're so deep. I mean, these are abysses now at this point. I mean, these are complete abysses. Is there a way out of this where supposedly functioning adults can examine this? Because I don't know if I'm willing to say that it's just a whole culture or new generation of spoiled children, because I don't believe that's the case. There's plenty of older people doing the exact same thing. So I don't know if I would jump to the conclusion and say this is age-based or generational-based. I don't think it is. You have ages across the whole spectrum performing in this fashion. And so again, these are all just more questions for the mind-shock listeners out there. That's all I have for you today on this topic. I will continue to examine. I will continue to engage with these coincidence theorists and these authority-worshiping cultists to see how they behave, how they interact. It's all very, very fascinating in studying psychology. I will be putting out a book on it at some point. I'll keep all you guys updated. And then of course, if you want to become an actual member on the YouTube channel, feel free to do that. Support the channel that way. You'll have access to exclusive chat and more. Also, make sure you subscribe to the channel. Hit that bell for notifications. You could also donate to our PayPal or become a patron. Like and share the podcast. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Patreon. Patrons do get priority for case, topic, logical analysis, quote podcaster requests. And I'll be adding a lot of those priorities as well for YouTube members. Questions, comments, theories, thoughts, suggestions, rebuttals, debunkings of any kind, leave them in the comments section. This is Bruce McGuire signing off. Catch you guys next time. If you like audio books or audio shows, check out a free trial of Audible. Just click the link in the description. Welcome to Mind Shock. This is your host, Bruce McGuire. Today, we're talking digging holes. How far do people dig their holes in order to satiate their ego? When their ego has got them on two short strings, they can't examine even the possibility that they could be wrong. And the more evidence that mounts that they are wrong, the deeper hole they dig in response. It's actually a quite fascinating inverse relationship with new evidence exposing the corrupt who have been wrong this entire time, if we're talking current events, but it's not really specific to current events. This is Mind Shock, where we discuss practically everything in a logical and comprehensive fashion without falling for all these logical fallacies that everybody seems to desperately lean on when justifying their blind faith in the corrupt and their worldviews. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can donate to our PayPal. Just check the link in the description. Make sure you subscribe to the channel. Hit that bell for notifications. Make sure you allow your device to have those notifications come through. Like and share this podcast on social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Let's spread logic and reason to a world where it is quickly becoming extinct, never before so obvious as the past two years. You could also become a Patron. Just check out our Patreon. You can support the channel that way. Also, Case Topic Logical Analysis called Podcaster Requests. You could also be a guest on the podcast, depending on your tier. Just check out the Patreon. Also, if you would like to become a Mind Shock member on YouTube, we have started YouTube membership, so we will have members-only chats to discuss various topics and true crime cases. Questions, comments, theories, thoughts, suggestions, rebuttals, debunkings of any kind, just leave them in the comment section. So how obvious has it been in the past, let's say, year? So year one of, let's call them, current events in our modern world. Year one, or at least the beginning of year one, there was a lot of uncertainty. Now, there were critical thinkers, aka conspiracy theorists, who were pointing out that there are a lot of unknown variables here, and that certain courses of action might do more harm than good. Now, over a year later, we see the result of that. You can see all of these benchmarks and statistics from various countries and their responses. So does, obviously, the highly insecure, narcissistic, or just power-hungry corrupt profiteers, they're always gonna go for the emotional knee-jerk reaction instead of being scientific? Obviously, with science, you need controls because you need to be able to clearly identify dependent variables, independent variables, the controls. Is the reaction by a set course set forth? What was intended, not intended? What are all the variables? So without doing the hard work in the scientific method, regurgitating the words of talking heads on the idiot box, that's not science. I don't know why so many goofs out there hallucinate that blind faith in corrupt authorities is somehow scientific. That's the opposite of science. That's faith. That's religious faith in the cult of authority worship, aka scientism, which is a religion. Real science is, of course, objective and neutral. So is this culture of doubling down on being wrong to not look stupid and then doubling down every single time new information exposes just how wrong so-called official narratives were, or just random goofs who believed these official narratives by those with horrible track records being wrong every step of the way. But they continue to double down. They continue to dig the hole deeper, which, I mean, this is fascinating psychology at play. I mean, Stockholm syndrome, which is a very, very serious pandemic going on. It's been going on for a long time, but there's just been a massive outbreak the past two years. And it has such a hold of people's minds if you haven't checked out the previous Mind Shock podcast episode, The Battle for Your Mind. It checked that out because there are a lot of entities battling for your mind. And once they take it away from you, you're no longer you. So you don't have the mental capacity to act or even think in your own best interest. So you'll always defer to blind faith and the corrupt who only seek to exploit for profit. So my question to the listeners out there, all the Mind Shock listeners, the critical thinkers who could actually employ logic and reason, unlike the majority of the population, has it always been this bad? Where, I mean, think back to your school days. I mean, maybe in elementary school, middle school, there were people you get into an argument with a kid and no matter how much they're proved wrong, there's always that one kid who'll stick to their guns. They will dig a deeper and deeper hole just because they don't want to be wrong. They obviously have no interest in truth. Now you can present incontrovertible evidence, empirically verifiable evidence, clearly demonstrating how wrong they are, but they'll just pretend they're still right and dig a deeper and deeper hole. Now, personally, I haven't seen that with adults to this level that we're seeing this past year. I haven't seen that with adults at this wide scale. I mean, it's just widespread. And the extent to which it happens, I mean, in my social media research, we're actually engaged with Dunning-Kruger goofs. I engage with a lot of these coincidence theorists, authority worshiping cultists, hopelessly indoctrinated into the cult of authority worship and scientism. And there's some commonalities. According to my research, a lot of these goofs pretend to be nice and they start off conversations like they're pretending to have a good faith discussion or debate. And then the more definitive evidence produced showing how clueless and goofy they are, if it's not conclusive evidence, they'll continue to pretend to be nice and everything. But if it demonstrates clearly and succinctly how demonstrably false their view and blind faith in the corrupt is, the results of their blind faith they could not be more wrong. When that's clearly stated, they'll dig a deeper hole. They'll hallucinate what was presented, actually wasn't presented. They'll hallucinate that it was a different source. For example, normally in any kind of discussion, I'll only use .gov sources because obviously clueless coincidence theorists, they have blind faith in the corrupt and they will only take those kinds of sources. They will not believe anything. They don't understand basic conflicts of interest. They don't understand appeal to authority logic fallacies. So in order to take that out of the equation, to really narrow down these variables on how these goofs operate and how they think, I only use sources that they would consider credible or valid. And the more clear the evidence is on how dumb they are, how clearly hoodwinked they were, the more they'll double down and dig the hole deeper, which is so fascinating. Because if you just hint at the suggestion that maybe they're a little bit wrong, they won't, it won't be as bad of a result. So is this a case of just a whole lot of narcissists hanging out on social media? Very possible, very possible. There's, I've noticed a clear link between the level of narcissism and the level of indoctrination into the cult of authority worship. And all these goofs who take blind faith, these corrupt authorities words with horrible track records, the more hopelessly indoctrinated they are, the more narcissistic they are. Because for whatever reason, they just can't consider the possibility that they were wrong. It's really fascinating. I mean, psychology nowadays is so fascinating with the Stockholm syndrome in play, the Dunning-Kruger in play, the cognitive dissonance in play. I mean, to people who find these topics and psychology interesting, I mean, this is like a field day out there with the amount of goofs hallucinating these things and clearly demonstrating all of these concepts. I mean, for mind shock, I mean, it's kind of, it's been, again, it's just been an overwhelming amount of information to make content from because this is what we discuss on mind shock. Metacognition, why do people believe what they believe? How are people brainwashed? How does the scientific method work? How do logical fallacies hold up? How do arguments hold up when all of these logical fallacies that are used to justify these beliefs? And it's just so amusing in a certain way that the more clear, the more definitively clear you make it that these individuals are all completely wrong and they took on blind faith the words of the corrupt who had demonstrably false statements, not only admitted such after the fact, but clearly demonstrated by all statistics from all countries. So it's not even a case of, oh, you can cherry, yeah, you could cherry pick a small, tiny little data set. But if you look at all available data sets, because obviously there's going to be anomalies and fluctuations, you can't, I mean, there's too many variables at play. But when you look across all data sets from all countries, there's some very, very clear data. So the more clear and obvious it is, the more triggered these goofs get and the more they're unable to consider the possibility they were wrong when it's clearly demonstrated that they were wrong. I mean, this phenomena in and of itself should probably have a name. I mean, this isn't the Dunning-Kruger effect, although of course that's at play, that's involved, but this effect should, this should have its own name. I mean, maybe there is a name for that. Any psychologists out there, the more definitively conclusively proven wrong someone is, the more they double down and dig a deeper hole should that condition have its own name. I mean, obviously again, narcissism at play, Dunning-Kruger at play, cognitive dissonance at play. But what is the specific name, if there is one, for this type of reaction? Where if it's fuzzy that they could be wrong, they don't double down as much. But the more obvious it is that they're completely wrong and they couldn't be more wrong, the more they defy and deny empirical truth. Very, very curious. And these are the things we discuss on Mind Chugs. So again, as I was saying earlier, my question to all the listeners out there is, has it gotten worse? Let's say 10 years ago, the average adult, if you showed them clear and succinct data they were completely wrong, would they at least say nothing? Because that used to be a thing where someone could see that they were wrong, they weren't going to continue to argue. They might not agree. They might be pissed off. They might leave or be silent. That's a little bit more of a reasonable reaction. But to continue to double down the more wrong they are, I believe that might be slightly new. Now, again, social media is not brand new. It was around 10 years ago. And 10 years ago, in a lot of these social media conversations, I mean, yeah, you'd have the odd goof that behaved this way. But for the most part, I think more people were willing to just disappear and abandon the conversation than just continue to double down again and again and again. And that's the next question. Where will we be in another year, in another two years? I mean, it's kind of scary to think about all these supposedly functioning adults out there that are just completely clueless to not just basic logic and reasoning was comprehension, but to even their own reaction. So not only have they never even heard of metacognition or how to examine their own thinking processes or question what they believe in any way, but to even analyze their own reactions, because they're not that dumb that they don't realize that they're being proven wrong. I mean, some of them might be, again, let's not fall for any hasty generalization or false dichotomy logical fallacy. I'm sure you can find some people that fit in that category as well. But there's also a large group of people in a certain category. They're smart enough to see that they've been proven completely wrong, but their egos got them on too short strings. But even that, I mean, some people just wanna save face. So the best thing might be to just abandon the conversation. That's reasonable. And there are certain people that do that. But to continue to double down, making yourself look dumber and dumber and dumber, I mean, personally, I think that's a relatively new phenomenon. Because again, other than that odd rare goof on social media years ago, you'd find that odd goof, just like there'd always be that one kid in school that would do that. But it wasn't, I mean, these amount of numbers, I mean, we have mass numbers of people now doing this. Not just random talking heads on the idiot box who are also doing it, but their peons and followers, those keeping the faith, the blind faith in the cult of scientism. These followers, they seem to be, I don't wanna say, I don't know if I'd say they're growing in numbers, but they're willing to double down on wrongness more and more and more. And the more wrong they are, the more they're willing to double down. And the more of them there are willing to double down on being wrong. So these holes that are dug, I mean, they're so deep. I mean, these are abysses now at this point. I mean, these are complete abysses. Is there a way out of this where supposedly functioning adults can examine this? Because I don't know if I'm willing to say that it's just a whole culture or new generation of spoiled children, because I don't believe that's the case. There's plenty of older people doing the exact same thing. So I don't know if I would jump to the conclusion and say this is age-based or generational-based. I don't think it is. You have ages across the whole spectrum performing in this fashion. And so again, these are all just more questions for the mind shock listeners out there. That's all I have for you today on this topic. I will continue to examine. I will continue to engage with these coincidence theorists and these authority worshiping cultists to see how they behave, how they interact. It's all very, very fascinating in studying psychology. I will be putting out a book on it at some point. I'll keep all you guys updated. And then of course, if you want to become an actual member on the YouTube channel, feel free to do that. Support the channel that way. You'll have access to exclusive chat and more. Also, make sure you subscribe to the channel. Hit that bell for notifications. You could also donate to our PayPal or become a Patron. Like and share the podcast, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Patreon. Patrons do get priority for case, topic, logical analysis, podcast requests, and I'll be adding a lot of those priorities as well for YouTube members. Questions, comments, theories, thoughts, suggestions, rebuttals, debunkings of any kind, leave them in the comments section. This is Bruce McGuire signing off. Catch you guys next time.