Why do people get entrenched in their views to the point of discarding anything that challenges those views? I would suggest that our ideas and our opinions do not necessarily arise from critical thinking, but from our well established world views. We believe certain things about the universe, about ourselves, about faith issues, about government, about how to raise children, and the list goes on. If an idea is directly opposed to our world view, we outright reject that idea because it will put into question some of our assumptions about other ideas (beliefs) and those things which we hold dear, and, in fact, base all our opinions on.
An avowed atheist, for example, sees the world quite differently than does a Christian or anyone who holds to the belief that there is actually a God. What happens when an atheist is confronted with what he believes to be irrefutable proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists, created the world, and is indeed watching over it and controlling it? Well, he has to change his mind and adjust his thinking on absolutely everything. He is faced with what is called 'ontological shock'. Ontological shock refers to a profound cognitive and existential jolt experienced upon encountering phenomena that drastically challenges existing world views.
When faced with an idea or ideas that put our entire world view into question, we tend to reject the idea rather than explore it. It is much easier to wrap our minds around the status quo than recalibrate so much of what we have believed to be true all our lives.
So this is why the opposing views on COVID shots are so controversial. The common world view which has been around for at least all of my life, is that governments, health care systems, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and our leaders in general, have our best interests at heart and would never do anything deliberately to harm the citizenry. If the COVID virus was a result of 'gain of function' research at Chapel Hill University in the USA and then shipped to Wuhan China for further study, and perhaps release, and if the "vaccines" were actually developed before the virus was released (escaped) and if it was known by Pfizer's own research that the "vaccines" were very dangerous and needed another 3-4 years of testing, and it was known that Ivermectin was a treatment but a "no treatment available" scenario was necessary in order to facilitate emergency use of the untested "vaccines", then it would follow that the very people we trusted were out to do us great harm. (The above facts were once deemed conspiracy theories but are all proven to be true). I am not suggesting that all of the above players were out to do us harm, as many of them were duped into thinking that certain actions were for the "greater good". What I would suggest is that the profit motive for many of the above players was so great that they were willing to roll the dice and take a chance on a very questionable product.
Being confronted with this information would certainly be a dilemma for most people so it was rejected outright and the topic was off the table and anyone who questioned the motives of the above players was 'out to lunch' and was labelled as a conspiracy theorist. It certainly happened to me many times. But, if you have read my previous posts on this subject, you will know that I came by my skepticism honestly and over a period of years, so it was no great leap for me to realize that my government did not care one lick about me, with the exception of seeing me as a tax payer. It created in me a keen awareness that I should be a critical thinker in all things.
No comments:
Post a Comment