I think what you are describing is an example of "availability heuristic/bias" or "personal experience bias".
It's common for a person to weigh their own personal experiences at a higher level and with more relevancy than what is statistically present in the wider population (something that also applies to base-rate neglect).
I'm not saying that personal experiences are incorrect or should be ignored or anything remotely to that effect. What I'm saying is that to arrive at an objective evaluation, a statistical analysis of events needs to be done - and any personal experiences should be evaluated in the context of this larger dataset.
What you describe is an example of anecdotal fallacy (An informal fallacy where personal experience or a singular example is used to support an argument or position instead of compelling evidence. People often gravitate towards using their own experiences or those of people around them as evidence in arguments.)
I am extremely guily of doing the same myself - using my own experiences to make judgements and arrive at conclusions instead of evaluating my experiences in a broader context. I work at it constantly - it's challenging - but I've found that placing less importance on personal experiences helps me make more objective and accurate assessments.
Apologies if this comes across as patronizing or pedantic - that's not my intention.
Also I just asked my girlfrind if she remembers those drills that went on downtown and she described it back to me exactly what I was saying..
So yeah maybe the bunkers and the drills don't add up to much other than a interesting hmm?...but I never said more than that... And yeah maybe filling in the blanks is not always wise but they are cercomstantial evidence that should not just be fluffed off and ignored either..
The trick of the way our clandestine world works is it's too outlandish to believe so it must not be real or must be seen as ridiculous...it's like the con artist saying oh don't be ridiculous I'm not stealing from you im your friend,, trust me.
I'm not disbelieving your experience. How could I? I wasn't even there.
I'm not even talking about ignoring or omitting any evidence, however microscopic or circumstantial it may be.
I'm talking about drawing connections and inferences between different events.
I'm talking about evidence of the connections, not evidence of the experience.
I'm talking about the evidence and the justification for making the leap, from your experience of the event, to your analysis of how the US might want WW3 - of how it ties in to your statement of "All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this."
If you saw what I did you might change your mind...
I think it interesting that the asumption you took was that I misinterpreted some normal goings on with maybe police helicopters as somthing more neferios and thus you came to the conclusion it's all in my own conspiratorial head.. I find it interesting that you kinda did exactly what you described you are working on not doing.
Our world is so fucked up, so messed up - that it is becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between true and false, truth and lies, etc. Different people's realities start competing with each other for "who's reality represents the truth?"
In such situations, who's version of reality does one believe?
IMHO, what most people fail to realize, is that there is a very thin, invisible line between reality and conspiracy, and it is exceedingly easy to cross back and forth over that line - sometimes multiple times. One person's reality is another person's conspiracy, and one person's conspiracy is another person's reality. Often the line becomes so blurred that it becomes impossible to distinguish between reality and conspiracy.
So then you have the conspiracy theorists that make inferences without using sufficient statistical and probability theory and often without enough critical thinking. But even so, they are right every so often because they are willing to question prevailing narratives and propaganda. Also, there is often some kernel of truth as the basis of many conspiracy theories.
Then you have the conspiracy theory deniers - which often includes people that have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the "consensus wisdom" or the "common-sense" argument, or the narratives of the "power elite" that they fail to question themselves and their belief structures rigorously enough.
The human mind is a pattern-seeking machine - humans love to find patterns in everything - even if those patterns don't exist. Humans have a hard time grappling with randomness and chaos. It is no coincidence that people with "conspiratorial mindsets" often have superior pattern-recognition skills (and these pattern discerning skills are a positive evolutionary adaptation). But sometimes they perceive patterns where non exist.
Humans have an innate need to make sense of a world that they have little control over. They have a need to feel safe & secure in the environment in which they live, to have a sense of control over the things that happen to them. But our world is exceedingly complex - full of complex events, processes, and systems - full of random events, unexplained events and random coincidences - full of complex connections that are not easy to comprehend. Hence, in their all-too-natural thirst to satisfy the above human needs, many conspiracy theories offer a way to resolve this cognitive dissonance - theories that seem to offer what look like meaningful explanations of what could otherwise be random events. Often these theories provide a feeling of certainty, of knowing, of rationalizing the world, of providing easy explanations for complex or unexplained events. Hence the allure of conspiracy theories and grand theories that connect everything into a coherent, often easily-digestible explanation.
My issue is not really with the "conspiracy theories" themselves, but rather with the rational thinking processes of believers of conspiracy theories. Often conspiracy theorists regard the existence of a plot not as a testable hypothesis and something that needs to be verified with hard, cold evidence (as in evidence-based medicine), but as a fundamental and unshakable principle from which all other evidence gathering and evidence interpretation and analysis begins.
IMHO, the problem lies with the methodologies used by many "conspiracy theorists". Most are lacking in the rigorousness of their analysis, the inadequate use of scientific methodology, statistics, and probability analysis, and even critical thinking. The conspiracy theories that have successfully exposed the truth about our smoke-and-mirrors world have managed to surpass the limitations of many of the flaws of "conspiratorial thinking" highlighted above.
I think what you are describing is an example of "availability heuristic/bias" or "personal experience bias".
It's common for a person to weigh their own personal experiences at a higher level and with more relevancy than what is statistically present in the wider population (something that also applies to base-rate neglect).
I'm not saying that personal experiences are incorrect or should be ignored or anything remotely to that effect. What I'm saying is that to arrive at an objective evaluation, a statistical analysis of events needs to be done - and any personal experiences should be evaluated in the context of this larger dataset.
What you describe is an example of anecdotal fallacy (An informal fallacy where personal experience or a singular example is used to support an argument or position instead of compelling evidence. People often gravitate towards using their own experiences or those of people around them as evidence in arguments.)
I am extremely guily of doing the same myself - using my own experiences to make judgements and arrive at conclusions instead of evaluating my experiences in a broader context. I work at it constantly - it's challenging - but I've found that placing less importance on personal experiences helps me make more objective and accurate assessments.
Apologies if this comes across as patronizing or pedantic - that's not my intention.
Also I just asked my girlfrind if she remembers those drills that went on downtown and she described it back to me exactly what I was saying..
So yeah maybe the bunkers and the drills don't add up to much other than a interesting hmm?...but I never said more than that... And yeah maybe filling in the blanks is not always wise but they are cercomstantial evidence that should not just be fluffed off and ignored either..
The trick of the way our clandestine world works is it's too outlandish to believe so it must not be real or must be seen as ridiculous...it's like the con artist saying oh don't be ridiculous I'm not stealing from you im your friend,, trust me.
I'm not disbelieving your experience. How could I? I wasn't even there.
I'm not even talking about ignoring or omitting any evidence, however microscopic or circumstantial it may be.
I'm talking about drawing connections and inferences between different events.
I'm talking about evidence of the connections, not evidence of the experience.
I'm talking about the evidence and the justification for making the leap, from your experience of the event, to your analysis of how the US might want WW3 - of how it ties in to your statement of "All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this."
If you saw what I did you might change your mind...
I think it interesting that the asumption you took was that I misinterpreted some normal goings on with maybe police helicopters as somthing more neferios and thus you came to the conclusion it's all in my own conspiratorial head.. I find it interesting that you kinda did exactly what you described you are working on not doing.
Our world is so fucked up, so messed up - that it is becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between true and false, truth and lies, etc. Different people's realities start competing with each other for "who's reality represents the truth?"
In such situations, who's version of reality does one believe?
IMHO, what most people fail to realize, is that there is a very thin, invisible line between reality and conspiracy, and it is exceedingly easy to cross back and forth over that line - sometimes multiple times. One person's reality is another person's conspiracy, and one person's conspiracy is another person's reality. Often the line becomes so blurred that it becomes impossible to distinguish between reality and conspiracy.
So then you have the conspiracy theorists that make inferences without using sufficient statistical and probability theory and often without enough critical thinking. But even so, they are right every so often because they are willing to question prevailing narratives and propaganda. Also, there is often some kernel of truth as the basis of many conspiracy theories.
Then you have the conspiracy theory deniers - which often includes people that have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the "consensus wisdom" or the "common-sense" argument, or the narratives of the "power elite" that they fail to question themselves and their belief structures rigorously enough.
The human mind is a pattern-seeking machine - humans love to find patterns in everything - even if those patterns don't exist. Humans have a hard time grappling with randomness and chaos. It is no coincidence that people with "conspiratorial mindsets" often have superior pattern-recognition skills (and these pattern discerning skills are a positive evolutionary adaptation). But sometimes they perceive patterns where non exist.
Humans have an innate need to make sense of a world that they have little control over. They have a need to feel safe & secure in the environment in which they live, to have a sense of control over the things that happen to them. But our world is exceedingly complex - full of complex events, processes, and systems - full of random events, unexplained events and random coincidences - full of complex connections that are not easy to comprehend. Hence, in their all-too-natural thirst to satisfy the above human needs, many conspiracy theories offer a way to resolve this cognitive dissonance - theories that seem to offer what look like meaningful explanations of what could otherwise be random events. Often these theories provide a feeling of certainty, of knowing, of rationalizing the world, of providing easy explanations for complex or unexplained events. Hence the allure of conspiracy theories and grand theories that connect everything into a coherent, often easily-digestible explanation.
My issue is not really with the "conspiracy theories" themselves, but rather with the rational thinking processes of believers of conspiracy theories. Often conspiracy theorists regard the existence of a plot not as a testable hypothesis and something that needs to be verified with hard, cold evidence (as in evidence-based medicine), but as a fundamental and unshakable principle from which all other evidence gathering and evidence interpretation and analysis begins.
IMHO, the problem lies with the methodologies used by many "conspiracy theorists". Most are lacking in the rigorousness of their analysis, the inadequate use of scientific methodology, statistics, and probability analysis, and even critical thinking. The conspiracy theories that have successfully exposed the truth about our smoke-and-mirrors world have managed to surpass the limitations of many of the flaws of "conspiratorial thinking" highlighted above.