Ask a Question manipulation.

All debate is negotiation...at least you have spotted that!

But following on from my comment to you on 'facts', you don't seem to be aware that many philosophers since Kant have been specifically concerned with words like 'truth', 'meaning' and 'reality', as markers in dynamic human contextual exchanges. A seminal text is Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.
Here's a useful introductory clip which illustrates where Rorty is coming from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Many questions that are asked here come from people who genuinely are seeking information, and don't have expectations about the answers. English language learners come to mind. Others are asking questions for which they truly do not have answers or expectations.

Others want answers of immediate use to them.

Where can i get my poodle clipped in L.A.?

Thanks, appreciate the info provided will definitely watch it and induce a bit of research from there.
I do understand that, many different concepts were created, and analyzed, but even without going into the specifics (might be my arrogance) we are still talking about concepts.
People always refer to great philosophers, where from my point of view, that is influencing Your way of thinking, falling into predefined patterns (as our brains always seek patterns) of thinking. Because when we refer to great figures in any spectrum of our files we might develop a subtle inferiority complex amplified by their "success" or "prestige" if You will. That time we take away our right to question them. I know great people are great but not perfect. I am interested in many concepts, developed(in my head) in the years, gone i know this is infantile attitude, I am not trying to be an expert I am just interested in how other people think and how they present their concepts, conclusions ect.
I am also a fan of lateral thinking, trying to approach things without common patterns, like with kids, when every 10000 useless, stupid ideas they say something really new, profound yet simple.

The question is am I really going to consider Your answer or it does not suit or creates a conflict with my beliefs, will try my best to absorb it with open mind to respect Your time and patience.

I know of course people seek information, but we can never be sure. People might do it unconsciously. I'm not trying to undermine anybody's intentions, just noticed similarity in the flow among discussions, I meant people asking more about some choices they make. In the English lang. sec I'd say people wold not have any hidden agendas.
I just wanted to stress the fact that it kind of scares me when people might be influenced by other people opinions where there is no ultimate answer only properly justified choices. What I mean by that is that someone's opinion backed up with proper and eloquently put arguments might win "in the contest". I am also not saying that is bad, but might be potentially.
On the other hand it might be better in many cases to ask a question here, being anonymous and answers are given by strangers who won't be sugar-coating or blindly supporting that person as opposed to friends that know them and will tell them thing they want to hear.
Again it is all my curiosity no offence to anyone, hopefully my curiosity is not rude

Don't be too sure about "hidden agendas" in English language learning. j We have people who come here hoping to prove that their "foreign" teachers are incorrect. One of our English language learners came here for a long time with quotes for an EFL workbook he had been given, and the English was appallingly bad. (The Han crack me--you'd call them Chinese. For five thousand years or longer they have seen the world as being divided into "real" human beings--the Han--and everyone else, who are barbarians little better than apes. We get English language learners from China all the time who refer to their English teachers as "foreign teachers," and asking how they can better learn to speak "foreign." It's a blatant attitude of the Han/Chinese, and everybody else.)

But as for agendas, hidden or overt, i think you're busily engaged in attempting to build mountains from very low molehills.

A key issue is to understand that nobody can fully escape 'conditioned thinking' because most if not all of what we call 'thinking' uses socially acquired language which segments 'the world' according to local human needs. The advantage of referring to 'celebrities' is that by comparing and contrasting their own understanding of the local constraints of language, and their attempts at neologisms to transcend those limits, we can get perhaps get a neutral vantage point from which we can investigate our own thinking.
As far as 'lateral thinking' is concerned, I do not consider this amounts to much more than what might be called 'the ability to come up with an alternative Gestalt', perhaps by questioning or reversing axioms. In any case, the criterion for success remains as 'practical functionality' which is precisely what the Pragmaticists like Rorty have advocated.

I agree entirely, that we have no say in "conditioned thinking", as it is impossible to be achieve ultimate objective approach. We need some kind of base/ground to be able to jump. No matter how revolutionary our new approach is, it is still conditioned.
I'd say I would call it a pseudo-neutral vantage point ("conditioned thinking"), referring to already created concepts gives us a head start but a potential flaw, might kill the entire effort. As we can start from that point with greater efficiency, but developing compromised concept efficiently only gives us a false sense of accomplishment if the work is taken personally.
Just curious that if we are not able to escape "conditioned thinking" why there are "celebrities", where they are no different from us (read: human), is it due to their comprehensive research, including any possible factors that might affect their conclusions, when we think how do we recognize the process to be even subtlety compromised by "conditioned thinking", how do we readjust the process, should we try to focus on the origin of our "condition" and try to exclude it from the process. This seems to be impossible as if we start doubting every step we take, we will avoid conditioned thinking by not thinking at all.
I hope after doing some research based on You reference, I might be able to come back with something a bit more of value. Thanks again.
P.S
Just to add, I was thinking that the number of times that our point of view is altered must be huge, as once we acquire information empirically we distort it, with everything we got (senses, experience ..etc), then as I read somewhere that once we try to recall it from our memory it is distorted again, with the help of our emotions and complexity of the process of extracting it from different parts of our brain synchronizing it together making a whole "memory", so every time we access it we might have a different belief so at the end of the day we are left with something in our head that does not resamble the actual thing that has happened.

One definition of 'celebrity philosopher' is one who has reacted successfully against the prevailing Zeitgeist...in short 'a lateral thinker'. But note that 'reaction' is itself dependent on 'mainstream' for its import. (Analogy. Atheism is dependent on Theism for its meaning). One philosopher who took this 'reaction' on board was Derrida with his concept of aporia in which all definitions encompass both what is and what is not the case. Thus the dynamics of dialogue involves a succession of privileging of positions none of which is independent (either ontologically or epistemologically). This is one essence of the erosion of 'facts' as being independent of observers, or even the same observer on different occasions.
(NB 'fact' is from the Latin facere - ' to construct').
Such considerations tend to make phrases like 'actual thing' meaningless.

Jumped right into it, but don't mind, I always preferred a discussion over reading articles to learn new stuff. When reading articles, sometimes I might not understand few things entirely, due to new vocabulary or complexity, like I mentioned it somewhere before I am a simple person, I value "simple" explanations (basically the ones I will understand), even if possible supported with examples. Spontaneous decision brought me here to express few of my chaotic ideas, and the forum looked perfect, having people with different views, levels of knowledge ect. a variety. I have noticed that people are willing to spend their time and try to explain, and correct.
The English section is like a bonus, might be quite useful as well.
It takes time for me sometimes to decipher some of the responses, but on the other hand I learn something new about myself, my interest and language skills on the way.
I hope people will be patient enough to guide me despite any errors in logic, communication, lame questions that might be obvious for some or language barrier, trying to stay as open minded as possible.

"Building mountains", , I am deep in a dark hole.

Making a mountain out of a molehill is a common expression in English meaning to make more of something than it warrants. Much of the behavior you describe is an artifact of the internet, and not actually common to ordinary, day-to-day human interaction. I suggest to everyone that they take their heads out of their computer screens and out of their allegedly smart telephones and look around their world to see how people live, and love and hate, and laugh and cry--how the very real world of human interaction looks when it is not electronically filtered.

Your mileage may vary.

I think You might be right I do have a tendency to overthink stuff. A blessing and a curse at the same time.

I'd say the internet, especially social media are affecting people behaviour, constant comparison, judgement, a competition I am not saying it is all bad but even if You try to filter out the bad stuff we all fall for some things that affect us in one way or the other.
I have not been on a forum for I would say at least 10 years, back then I think people used to put a bit more effort than nowadays. Still I don't want to generalise, there are exceptions.

I think some of that behaviour is implemented in day-to-day human interactions as well, it all becoming interconnected. For instance I would say that some people would rather text You than talk to You. Those kind of changes impair real life verbal and non-verbal communication, it numbs people on the outside.
Of course I do mention some extremes to make a point, I do not consider the internet or social media to be a bad thing, the amount information we have access to on a daily basis is incredible (useful once filtered through). There are endless advantages but as with everything else, once You abuse it, once it takes over You have a problem.
I am trying to stay neutral and to avoid "juvenoia", the cycle repeats, things always change, it just quite interesting how people behave online as well as in real life.
I don't judge people or tell them what to do I think I am just addicted to knowing stuff, like a fly on the wall.
I realise everybody is different introverts, extroverts etc. at times we all chose one thing over the other, it is a personal choice, I think we should be just a bit more aware of stuff we are doing (as a precaution to being persuaded to make that choice).
I am actually concerned about all this Self-improvement trend, of course the concept is great but it is turning into a "social stigma" (i don't know if I chose the right word), a competition, spiritual race of extremists. I thing the whole thing is killing the concept.
People start to categorise themselves, when I was younger that used to be common among youngsters seeking their identity. Now we are craving for labels... I am an introvert, I am not assertive, I am this and that. People just are who they are, we don't need words to define us. I is good to know Your personality, but let the definitions not do it for us. If a person is an introvert is not 100% introvert, there are times that that person can behave as an extrovert. It is quite confusing, I know that from experience as I fell for different things before and probably will again, list of my flaws is filling up.
My advice to people to trust themselves more, although it is hard when trying to stay open minded.

Again I am all over the place with flow of my thoughts.

Hi parkol. Nice to see you.



Everyone is on their own journey to find their "own truth", so to speak. It seems almost instinctual, if you ask me. It is always easiest to pick what is pleasing to the ear when the heart is not trained to hear.



This isn't always necessarily true. We are all individuals. Uniquely different. So uniquely different in fact that one fingerprint can be used to identify us. One fingerprint. Man... Think about that for a second...

Change is a part of life. Everyone has to face it at some point. And it's scary for everyone regardless of what they try to tell you. Not knowing what's next. Not being able to see the next step, but knowing somehow that taking that step is the only way out.



In life, you only get answers to the questions you actually ask, and are willing to diligently seek the answer to. The Truth is not easy to find for anyone.

Likewise



I see, it is all about our perception, I agree. I just would be worried that our "instincts" or "gut feeling" if You will, might be hard to "feel" (or hear) having our Ego on guard. Hypothetically this kind of ugly, socially deformed (super Ego) will prevent us from the access in a good cause of course - to protect us. But because it is influenced, trained to keep Your "flaws" away from exposure, will not let You risk by feeding You with its own interpretations of certain situation.

Les't say You are Young and a group of people mocked You for sharing Your perspective (on something). That might have happened couple of times, until the time when Your super Ego noted that activity is threatening to You.
- so You keep quiet from now on.
Years later You might be trying to recover from that unpleasant experience, first educating Yourself (eg. it is alright to share Your thoughts, despite the feedback and be treated with respect), You are going to give it a try. That is where super Ego advices Your Ego about that obvious (learnt from exp.) rule, Ego says right You can not do it, it will hurt, the possibility is there, You have nothing to loose if You won't do it. That is going to be the loudest voice in Your head. Instincts and "gut feeling" ruled out.

This potential scenario shows that for the price of Your "safety", You are formed by a negative exp. hearing Your "own truth" presented by Your Ego. Becoming stagnated from any development.
Not hearing Your instincts because Your Ego is too strong, well fed. You might even believe Your Ego to be Your instincts.

In the mentioned case I think that, if You hear Your instincts and trust them in case of a failure, Your Ego might help You building resilience. Where You will be open for criticism (any form constructive or not) if slightly affected, Your self esteem will stay untouched.

That is my take on it, I have no degrees, just reading stuff and different perspectives tailoring my understanding. Might be wrong about the mechanics of our personalities.


I have this huge dilemma , how to stay as open minded as possible and resistant to manipulation. How to distinguish.



Yes, once watched a talk on "Lies", it mentioned that to spot a lie or a lair we have to really want to know the "truth". Sounds obvious but they presented an example when in a relationship, Partner 1 is asking partner 2 about some details of last night party. Partner 1 is suspecting partner 2 of being unfaithful. Partner 1 is testing partner 2, to see if par. 2 is lying... But partner 1 is terrified, angry and insecure at that moment that the judgement is impaired. Partner 1 thinks that is trying to find out the truth but, in fact, in case of partner 2 lying, Part 1 will ignore, rationalise, even make excuses to mask any possible lie to still trust and be with partner 2.

I don't know if I provided a clear scenario, trying not to involve any name or sex to stay neutral.
That might be an example of Ego being in control again, helping You to be blind to potentially harmful outcome where Your instincts are trying to show You something You won't like, the bigger picture.

Again might be wrong, just trying to show that hearings things we want to hear are "not the things we want to hear".(not always)

Well, whether it's accessing the int4rnet at home or on a phone, or a text message, it's still an artifact of electronic communications. Believe it or not, there are billions of us out here who communicate without electronic devices. You should try it some time--go a day, or if you can stand it, a week, without electronic communications. People actually do talk to 0ne another, you know, and it's a lot more difficult to "game" someone when communicating face to face.

I do believe, I am aware of it, I value both methods as they provide different experience.

Believe or not - I did.

That one too.

Yes have seen it, and done it myself and there is no doubt about that, although it does occur.

Like I said, I don't judge but I'd say" I try not to judge" would be more accurate in my case, trying to control thoughts, promoting empathy to understand. On the other hand maybe I am just rationalising, forcing tolerance to avoid confrontation, hiding in fear behind masks of unlimited flexibility.
"People pleaser" , unassertive, narcissistic, passive agressive, attention seeker there are some of the flaws I allow myself to believe to have.
Hard to say, easily masked (maybe) in real life, not sure about electronic communication.
Expressing myself here does provide comfortable and safe environment I think. Makes me think too is it a game for me masking my real self, do not know.
Still I do enjoy exchange of views, discussions and feedback, learning new things. Real life long conversations are great, more natural, enhanced with emotions, body language etc.
Electronic media allow structure, standards, time to think twice, careful approach. (real life allows it too but not as easily)

I have to add, that I do talk a lot, been told, over-complicating simple things not always making myself clear that is what I was told.
Was suspecting myself to perform "pressured speech" a lot, doubting that I actually think on my own or just make up stuff as I go to suit the audience.

Ahhh parkol.... We think... Or perhaps over think... a lot alike... Lol I actually enjoy dissecting things quite a bit. It can be almost maddening at times... I will not lie... But, I have found it is a necessary process in finding the truth to anything in life. It is unfortunate that you really can't take anything... Or anyone at face value now a days. We are so completely surrounded by voices, (meaning parents, peers, TV commercials, pop up ads on websites, ect...) telling us what we should want, how we should look, even how we should act in some cases. No one thinks for themselves anymore.

It seems like no one questions even what real "truth" is anymore because there are so many things and people out there that claim to have it. Here's the thing though... The real Truth doesn't stand with the masses, screaming loudly, trying to be heard. It whispers. Only those who are listening can hear.

Ego will never lead someone to the real truth because it stands directly in front of it saying, "No, that makes me uncomfortable, therefore it must not be the truth. It most defiantly isn't MY truth anyway." People don't like it because the truth will change you. No one likes change, it's scary. Especially when you have been believing something wrong your whole life and have no idea what kind of change that will bring in the end, and who will be left standing by your side... If anyone.

You have to desire it so badly you are willing to stand alone to defend it even if no one understands or seems to care. It's the only way it can really be known... and proven. When I said instinctual I meant like a hungry Lion. When it's hungry it's instinct says, "Pssst.... Hey... You see that group of gazelles over there? Go get one... I'm hungry." Not that he even comprehends even what that hunger is. It is the will to survive.

Can you imagine a Lion hearing,"Pssst.... Hey... You see that group of gazelles over there? Go get one... I'm hungry." and stopping to debate that for a moment? Like, "Gee, I don't know about this. That gazelle is awfully cute! Gosh... He looks just like his mama... I don't know, it might offend the rest of the group if I eat him... I mean... He is after all one of their relatives..." That Lion would starve, wouldn't he?



I understand this all too well. Here's a tell of true manipulation... The one doing it is so driven by their ego to be right and to try to shape your thinking to agree with them that they will go to any extremes necessary, no matter who it hurts in the process... And that includes you. The truth doesn't manipulate anything or anyone. It doesn't have to. It whispers. Those who have quieted themselves enough to listen with their heart will hear and understand it.

Then whether you want to hear the truth ; that is really the ultimate manipulation ; and as you say but ONLY if we accept the change. .