Our Future Path!    A plan for a better world!

Knowledge (a Foundation)


There is an old saying that states “Knowledge is power”. This saying basically means that individuals who have a lot of knowledge (facts, information, and skills) have a lot more power than individuals who do not have as much knowledge. However, the facts, information, and skills that we have must be true for them to be knowledge and be useful to give us real power.

Knowledge gives us the power to figure out how we want to live our lives, and to guide us in making informed decisions about our health, education, work, finances, passions, future, and much more. With the acquisition of more knowledge, we can make better decisions, and we have a much better chance of creating and having a happier and more prosperous life. Therefore, it would seem to make a lot of sense to make the acquisition of knowledge a high priority in all our lives.

When we are deprived of knowledge or our knowledge is taken away from us, our power is also taken way. We can allow this to happen when we allow others to feed us misinformation or lies, allow others to manipulate us, put our trust in the wrong individuals or groups, or fall for logical fallacies. To guard against being deprived of knowledge and having our power taken away from us, we must understand how individuals and groups are trying to keep it from us and are trying to take it away from us.

Another old saying is “Ignorance is bliss”. This saying basically means that if we do not know about something, then we would not be worrying about it, and would therefore be happier. If something is beyond our control, then we could live our lives without it weighing on our minds. For instance, if an asteroid is about to wipe out all life on earth, then at least we could live our final days without worrying about it.

On the other hand, if we could control something, then knowing about it would allow us to do something about it before it potentially ruined our lives. For instance, if we had a form of treatable cancer, then knowing about it could spur us to get the needed medical treatment.

An interesting finding about knowledge is that the less someone knows about something, the more that person thinks they know about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is one of our cognitive biases that I talked about in the section on our worldview. If we think we know more about something than we do know, then we might think we have more power than we have but in fact others will have more power over us.

The following subsections describe some of the ways that individuals and groups may try to take away our power and to manipulate us along with some ideas for countering this manipulation.

Misinformation and Lies

In our modern world, one of the biggest threats to our democracy, freedom, finances, and lives is all the misinformation and lies that are being spread. In the past, it took a long time for misinformation and lies to be spread, which gave us some time to counter them before they spread too far. Today, social media can spread misinformation and lies around the world in seconds.

It is knowing the truth that gives us power. When we believe lies, we give away our power to those who lie to us. Today, it seems there are more and more individuals and groups spreading misinformation and lies. Their ultimate goals may be different, but they are using misinformation and lies to try to manipulate us into doing something that would help them but would harm us.

If we knew the truth, we might not do what these manipulators are trying to trick us into doing. To save ourselves from unduly harming ourselves and others, we must see through the misinformation and lies, and learn the truth. This will allow us to keep or to take back our power.

Given the vast amount of information and misinformation that bombards us every day, it is hard for most of us to analyze it all and to determine what is true and what is false. This is where our cognitive biases come into play. They help us with what to pay attention to, but our cognitive biases can lead us astray, so they can leave us vulnerable to individuals and groups who know how to manipulate us.

The best way to handle this is to stay aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there so that we can purposefully look for sources of reliable information. When I talk about sources being reliable, I mean sources that are not trying to manipulate us, that verify what they are reporting is the truth, and that are not just telling us what they think we want to hear or what they want us to believe.

However, even the most reliable source may still inadvertently repeat false information. Therefore, if we want to retain our power, we must stay vigilant and question everything. That means not only questioning anything that seems a bit out there or that just does not sound right, but even things that seem to fit our worldview, since our worldview may have been tainted by previous misinformation or lies that we have let in.

We may get our Information from many different sources. Chief among these may be friends and family, news outlets, and social media.

Friends and Family

Our friends and family may want to be helpful by passing on important information, but unless we know that they are getting their information from reliable sources, we need to verify everything. I had a friend who liked to pass on a lot of information, but with a little checking, I found that most of it was wrong.

News Outlets

News outlets should be the most reliable sources of information. However, our news outlets are controlled by individuals and groups who may use their control to distort the truth or even to lie to promote their agenda. This is especially true in some countries where an authoritarian government controls the news, and what their citizens end up getting is mostly propaganda.

In the United States and in many other democratic countries, some news outlets today are also little more than propaganda machines for someone's extreme agenda. Therefore, we need to know the news outlet's agenda and if it is not to present honest and reliable news, then we need to find a new news outlet.

Social Media

Social media is too much of a free for all with little control over who says what to be very reliable. Not only are there many fake accounts and bots, which allow anonymous individuals and groups to spread whatever misinformation, lies, hate speech, etc. that they want, but even individuals and groups with legitimate accounts will often do the same. Therefore, we need to be very careful with which social media accounts we follow.

There are many things that social media companies could do to filter out misinformation, lies and other hateful or threatening content. Of course, each one of us should still be free to decide what we want to allow through or to filter out. Therefore, the social media companies should rate content and set up various filters based on those ratings, but then give each of us the ability to decide which filters we want to use, and in general, what content we want to see.

We should be given a wide range of appropriate options so that we can fine tune what we want to receive and what we want to be blocked. For instance, we might always want some types of content blocked, but maybe we want to be notified when the blocked content came from certain individuals, groups, or sources. On the other hand, we may always want to get content from certain individuals, groups, or sources no matter what it contains.

However, even if we did want to see everything, the content we receive should still always show how the media companies rated that content, which would allow us to decide whether we agreed with that rating or not, and to provide any appropriate feedback. To help standardize how content is rated and filtered, and to ensure that all media companies provide all possible filtering options, the federal government should set some rules. I will talk more about this later.


For us to become and to stay well informed, it is very important to understand how individuals and groups will try to manipulate us by feeding us misinformation and lies, and by using other means. There are many tricks that con artists, scammers, authoritarian leaders, and others use to try to get us to believe what they are saying, or to get us to do what they want. The following are just a few of them.

First Thing Heard

We tend to believe the first thing we hear about something. If that was a lie, it can then be hard for us to believe the truth when we finally hear it. For instance, we rarely hear that a person is not guilty of something, before we hear someone say that person is guilty of something. Therefore, it is easy for someone to smear a person by accusing that person of a crime that that person did not do.

We need to remember that someone is innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent. In addition, we need to try to keep an open mind until we get all the facts.

Repeat, Repeat, Repeat

We also tend to believe things that we hear repeated “over and over and over again”. In life, we are inclined to believe that if we get a certain result repeated “over and over and over again”, then that result is a fact. This is a result of our predictive bias where we see a pattern in what is being repeated.

Therefore, individuals and groups trying to manipulate us will repeat a lie “over and over and over again”, even if what they are repeating has been proven false or has been debunked. For instance, some individuals and groups keep saying “over and over and over again” that the 2020 election was stolen, even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked.

To counter a repeated lie, we need to remind ourselves each time we hear the lie that it is a lie. Then we should answer back “over and over and over again” with the truth.


Con artists, scammers and others will also try to impart a sense of urgency to get us to act quickly without thinking. Every day, we could be faced with a situation where we need to react without really thinking about it. For instance, if we took the time to think about what to do when a car is careening towards us, then we might die. On the other hand, someone saying we need to buy now or lose out on some great deal, they could be trying to get us to buy something that we do not really need or want.

Unless we are in a real life or death situation, we should have time to think, and we should not let someone force us into a premature decision. We should take whatever time we need to make an informed decision and not be forced into acting too quickly out of some fabricated sense of urgency.

Threats and Intimidation

Some unscrupulous individuals and groups will also use threats and intimidation to try to manipulate us into doing something that the manipulator wants us to do, but that we may not want to do. For instance, if someone threatens us with jail time unless we do what they say, then they are most likely trying to scam us. One example of this is a call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, who threatens us with jail time unless we pay up now. Legitimate organizations, like the IRS, would never do that, so we need to ignore or to report those threats.

Nowadays, threats and intimidation are becoming more common in politics. Individuals and groups are now yelling and screaming at our representatives, election officials and others telling them things like they know where they live, and even threatening them with death in text or phone messages. These individuals and groups may claim their free speech rights, but those rights end when they resort to threats and intimidation. When this happens, we should report them to the police or FBI, so they can be held accountable.


In addition to trying to create a sense of urgency or to create fear through threats and intimidation, the individuals and groups trying to manipulate us may also try to stir up other emotions like outrage and anger. When we let our emotions take over, reason goes out the window and we can be more easily manipulated. To combat this, we need to get our emotions under control, so that we can think logically about the situation and make good, informed decisions.

Flood of Lies

In some cases, the individuals and groups trying to manipulate us may not be able to come up with a believable lie. In this case, they may try to flood us with many different lies. They are hoping something sticks, even if different individuals end up believing different lies. Even when we do not believe any of these lies, they may have thrown so many different lies at us that we may not know what to believe, and therefore not even believe the truth.

To counter a flood of lies, we need to take the time to filter out all the lies so that we can get to the truth. Once we have learned the truth, we must counter each lie with that truth.

Reluctance to admit when we were wrong

One additional thing that works in a manipulator's favor is the fact that we are reluctant to admit when we were wrong about something for fear of looking bad. Therefore, once we have been manipulated into believing in a lie, many of us may not like to admit that we were wrong, even when presented with otherwise convincing evidence of the truth.

However, continuing to believe in a lie is what really makes us look bad. I have learned that it is always better to believe in the truth, even if I need to admit I had been wrong before. I even admitted in an earlier section that I have been wrong before. When we admit when we were wrong, it is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength that can help others be strong as well.

Trust Me

Many individuals and groups, including our friends, business acquaintances, representatives, and others, will often tell us to trust them. They may say that they know what is right or what is best for us. However, that is not always the case. They may instead be trying to manipulate us, or they could simply be wrong. Therefore, we need to stay well informed, to question things and to do our own due diligence to learn the truth.

I learned early on to question things when someone tells me to trust them, and this has helped me many times. To illustrate, I would like to relate a couple of the many instances of this from my programming career. This will demonstrate the benefit of questioning things and let me show off some of my problem-solving abilities.

I was looking into an issue where some data was not being processed correctly. When I looked at the program that processed that data, there was an especially complex bit of code, that included a comment that said that the code had been thoroughly tested, had been shown to be correct, and should not be changed. My fellow programmer also said the code was correct. However, I could not find any other reason for the data to be processed incorrectly, so I dug into that code. I ended up finding a critical flaw in the logic, and after fixing it, the data was then processed correctly.

On another occasion, an overnight batch processing job had failed. Our manager assigned our other 4 team members to investigate the failure and asked me to continue with another critical task. Near the end of the day, I had finished my task, but my teammates still had not been able to find a solution to the data processing failure. Therefore, I jumped in to help. After about 10 minutes, I had seen a possible cause in the code. If the data had contained a "5" in a specific place in the data record, then that would have caused the failure. Everyone said that it was impossible for the data to have a "5" in that position. However, I persisted until the business manager looked at the data and found that I was correct. The data was corrected, and the batch processing job was successfully rerun.

Whenever individuals or groups say that we should thrust them or that there is no need to question something, then your first thought should be to question it. They may not want us to look too closely at what they are saying, because they know it will not stand up to scrutiny, or that we could uncover something that they have done wrong. They may even try to make us feel guilty about not trusting them, but if it is something important, then we must persist.

Individuals and groups may also try to distract us from questioning what they have said or done by trying to get us to look at something else. This is a Red Herring, which I will talk more about in the next subsection on logical fallacies. When an Individual or group tries to distract us from one issue by bringing up something else, then that is when we should look even closer at the original issue.

Logical Fallacies

When we try to solve a problem, we often need to use logic. We first need to understand the problem and then logically work out a solution using valid facts and valid arguments. Just as we would not want our accountant to use faulty math (like adding 2 and 2 and getting 5), we do not want others, including our representatives, to try to solve our problems using logical fallacies. We should also look out for them when we try to solve our own problems.

When we, our representatives or others use logical fallacies to solve our problems, we cannot be sure that we are getting a good or valid solution. Therefore, we need to be able to recognize these logical fallacies to guard against coming up with or being fed invalid results. The following are the two main types of logical fallacies.

A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and a conclusion that do not hold up to scrutiny. In other words, the form of the argument is not valid. If the form of an argument is invalid, then the argument is automatically invalid. For instance, we start with the true premise that “all humans are mammals”, where “humans” is the antecedent and “mammals” is the consequent. A valid argument form would be to "affirm the antecedent". Therefore, if we know that John is a human, then we can make the valid argument that John is a mammal.

However, "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequence" are both invalid argument forms. In the first case, we might make the argument that since Fido (a dog) is not human, then Fido is not a mammal. In the second case, we might make the argument that since Fido is a mammal, then Fido is a human. In both cases, we can easily see that these arguments are invalid. Unfortunately, some arguments that use invalid logic forms may not be as easy to see.

An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument. In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy cannot be identified without understanding the concepts involved in the argument. That is, the form of two arguments may be the same, but one argument may be true and the other may be false. It is all a matter of what concepts are involved.

For instance, let us look at a couple of arguments that are both in the form "Every part of X has feature Y, so therefore the whole of X has feature Y". In one case we may argue that every part of a toy is made of plastic, so therefore the whole toy is made of plastic. In a second case we may argue that every part of a toy weighs less than an ounce, so therefore the whole toy weighs less than an ounce. Although the first argument is valid, the second argument is not valid since it contains a "composition fallacy". It may or may not be true that the whole toy weighs less than an ounce, since it all depends on how many parts are in the toy and how much each part weighs.

In many cases, the arguments that individuals and groups use in various settings, including in political and policy debates, may sound convincing. However, their arguments may contain logical fallacies that they may be using as rhetorical tricks to try to manipulate us. There are dozens of different logical fallacies that rely on a logic flaw to deceive us. The following are some logical fallacies that are often used in political and policy debates.

Red Herring Fallacy

A Red Herring argument is one that tries to change the subject or to distract the audience from the real issue to focus on something else where the speaker feels more comfortable and confident. This fallacy is also known as misdirection, smokescreen, clouding the issue, beside the point, and the Chewbacca defense.

For instance, I have observed numerous cases of a Red Herring fallacy when certain politicians are asked why they do not want to allow an abortion exception for cases of rape. In one case, the politician changed the subject to crime and talked about how we must get rapists off our streets, which is a noble goal, but does not address the issue at hand. In another case, the politician changed the subject to illegal immigration by pointing out that the subject rapist was an illegal immigrant, even though far more rapes are done here in the U.S. by citizens, and again does not address the issue at hand.

Straw Man Fallacy

A Straw Man argument is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, which sets up an easy (and false) target for the speaker to knock down. This fallacy is also known in the U.K. as Aunt Sally.

An example of this fallacy might be the first person saying we need tighter gun control laws, and then the second person says that this first person wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The first person may simply be asking for better background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. However, that would be hard to argue against, so the second person misrepresents what the first person is saying to make it an easier target to knock down.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

A Slippery Slope argument is a version of a Red Herring. Specifically, this is a claim that a policy which takes a small step in one direction will lead to a chain of events that will result in drastic change. This fallacy is also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, and camel’s nose under the tent.

An example of this fallacy might be arguing that teaching about slavery in our schools would lead to children believing that they are all racists, which will make them feel so bad about themselves, that it ruins their whole lives. There is no proof that any of this would happen. If taught correctly, children would learn about the horrors that some individuals and groups inflicted on others and make them want to help to ensure that this never happens again.

Begging the Question Fallacy

In a Begging the Question argument, the conclusion is assumed in one of the argument’s premises, and that premise is not supported by independent evidence. This is often called circular reasoning since it begins and ends at the same place. This fallacy is also known as assuming the initial point, chicken and the egg, and circular reasoning.

An example of this fallacy might be someone arguing that he is innocent of a crime because the prosecutor has failed to indict him for it. This begs the question because this person is not answering the question or providing evidence as to why he is innocent. It may be true that he is innocent, but not being indicted may only mean that the prosecutor has not yet found enough evidence to prove that he is guilty.

Post Hoc Fallacy

A Post Hoc argument is one where the speaker confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the argument seeks to claim that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. The name of this fallacy comes from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which means “after this, therefore because of this”. This fallacy is also known as a false cause.

An example of this fallacy might be arguing that inflation was caused by the current administration's policies, because inflation became a problem after the new administration took over. Given that it can take a long time for something that causes inflation to kick in and that inflation's roots can be global, it may require a lot of digging to find the true causes of this inflation. Maybe the current administration's policies were the cause, but it could also be more likely to have been the policies of the previous administration or something entirely different.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

An Ad Hominem (attacking the person) argument is one where the speaker irrelevantly attacks the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument instead of addressing the person's argument or position. This fallacy is also known as name calling or personal attack.

An example of this fallacy might be where a Republican labels all Democrats as Socialists, or where a Democrat labels all Republicans as Fascists. Each of these labels may be true for some individuals, but not all, and is irrelevant to a debate of the issues. We need to debate the issues and not use labels, which may or may not be true and are totally irrelevant to the issues at hand.

Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy

An Appeal to Hypocrisy argument is one where the speaker deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. The idea is to get individuals to concentrate on what the accuser may have done and not on what the accused has done. This fallacy is also known as Tu quoque, which is Latin for "you also".

An example of this fallacy might be where someone is accused of accepting donations from bad individuals and groups, and the accused responds by accusing the accuser of having done the same thing in the past. Whether or not the accuser had done so in the past or not is irrelevant to the current accusation. Maybe the accuser also needs to answer for what he or she has done, but the accused needs to answer instead of trying to deflect.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy

An Appeal to Ignorance argument is one where the speaker claims that a conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it, or claims that a conclusion must be false, because there is no evidence for it. The reason individuals and groups like to use this type of argument is that it shifts the burden of proof to others. One big problem with this type of argument is that it can support multiple contradictory claims at the same time. This fallacy is also known as an argument from ignorance.

An example of this fallacy might be where someone claims there was fraud in an election because no one has proven there was not fraud. Likewise, someone might claim there was not fraud in the election, because no one has shown any evidence there was fraud. Although both claims are logically fallacious, the second claim is legally valid since we must make the legal assertion of innocent until proven guilty.

Appeal to Pity Fallacy

An Appeal to Pity argument is one that relies on provoking our emotions rather than on factual evidence. The goal is to evoke our pity, sympathy, or guilt, so that we are distracted from the fact that their argument does not hold water and to side with them anyway. This fallacy is also known as sob story, Galileo argument, and Ad Misericordiam, which is Latin for "to mercy".

An example of this fallacy can be seen in our recent elections. A political candidate will try to get our vote by complaining that the criminal investigations against him are politically motivated to hurt his chances of being elected. This political candidate wants us to vote for him because we feel pity for him instead of because we think he is the best candidate. If this political candidate is guilty of a crime, then that is a valid reason not to vote for him. However, even if he is not guilty and his accusation is true, then that is still no reason to vote for him. We should vote for him only if we think he is the better candidate.

False Dilemma Fallacy

A False Dilemma argument is one that presents limited options. This is typically done by focusing on two extremes, when in fact more possibilities exist. This fallacy is a manipulative tool designed to polarize individuals into two opposing groups by promoting one side while demonizing the other side. This fallacy is also known as False Dichotomy.

An example of this fallacy might be arguing that you either vote for a given person or bill, or you are un-American. There may be countless reasons that someone does not vote for a given person or bill, while still being a true American. We should not allow someone to limit our options, we have the right to consider all the options.

False Equivalence Fallacy

A False Equivalence argument is one that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics and despite there being notable differences between them. These arguments generally exaggerate some similarities and ignore the important differences. They are often used in debates to suggest there is a moral equivalence between two or more things. This fallacy is also known as Unreasonable Comparison.

An example of this fallacy might be arguing that since a musket, a pistol and an assault rifle are all firearms, then if we are allowed to carry one of these firearms then we should be allowed to carry any of them. The problem is that although they are all firearms, they are very different in how lethal they can be and under what circumstances someone would reasonably use them.

This fallacy is often used in conjunction with Ad Hominem and Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacies. For instance, someone convicted of dumping toxic chemicals points out that his opponent was once seen littering in the park. This is a fallacy trifecta. This person is attacking the other person's character by accusing that person of also being a criminal, while using an example of a criminal act that is nowhere near being equivalent.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

A Hasty Generalization argument is one where a claim is based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. These arguments do not hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence. The claim may be true in some cases, but that does not mean it is always true. This fallacy is also known as over-generalization or faulty generalization.

An example of this fallacy might be where a person has a friend that got sick after getting vaccinated, so this person argues that the vaccine will make you sick. In this one case, the friend may have had a bad reaction to the vaccine or got sick before the vaccine had a chance to work. We need to look at far more vaccination results before being able to make any generalization.

Bandwagon Fallacy

A Bandwagon argument is one where something is assumed to be true because a lot of other individuals agree with it. The argument says that if others think a certain way, then we should too. In some cases, we may just have a lot of friends or family that believe the same way, but they may be the exception. On the other hand, even when a lot more individuals do believe the same way, they may be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. This fallacy is also known as appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses.

An example of this fallacy might be where some individuals of one religion believe that everyone should believe as they do, since all their family and friends believe as they do. One problem is that some individuals of other religions think the same about their religion. For most of us, our religion is dependent on the religion of our parents and not on any objective evaluation of other religions. If we were to have been born into a different religion, then we would probably think others should believe in that religion instead.

Equivocation Fallacy

An Equivocation argument is one that occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. The argument may use vague or unclear language or may call two different things by the same name or the same thing by two different names. This fallacy is also known as Doublespeak.

An example of this fallacy might be where a representative states that he has never voted for any bill that included any excess spending. The problem is that the term "excess" could mean different things to different individuals. Another example might be where a candidate says that his opponent wants to spend more on our bloated government, but he wants to invest more in programs that help individuals. The problem is that the speaker is unclear as to what each candidate wants to spend money on, and it could even be that both candidates want to spend more money on the same things.

Pay Attention

It is up to each of us to pay attention and to guard against logical fallacies and other forms of manipulation. We need to do that whether others use them, or we fall prey to using them. Not only do we need to do this in political and policy debates, but when involved in any argument, debate, or discussion.

Our best defense is to learn as much as we can about using common sense and logic in our arguments and in using critical thinking and logic in evaluating arguments made by other individuals or groups. What I have presented here may be a good starting point, but additional reading or classes on the subject would be helpful to all of us.

We can also make a game out of identifying when individuals and groups use these logical fallacies, or any of the other ways that some individuals or groups use to try to manipulate us. For instance, I have always liked taking apart advertisements to see how companies are trying to manipulate us into buying their products. Not only can this be fun, but it can save us money by not letting ourselves be manipulated into buying something that we do not need nor want.

This is especially valuable when we listen to politicians so we can identify their attempts to manipulate us. Unfortunately, many politicians use so many manipulative statements that it can often be tiring trying to identify all of them. When a politician tries to manipulate us, I want to know why. To me, the answer seems to be that our politicians care more about getting and keeping power over us instead of working for us and representing our best interests.

Suspension of Disbelief

We often use our ability to suspend disbelief when we read, hear or view works of fiction, especially ones involving fantasy or science fiction. That is, we willingly avoid critical thinking and logic so that we can believe that unreal or impossible things could be real, at least as they apply to the storyline, so that we can improve our enjoyment of the story.

However, we need to know when to reengage our sense of disbelief, so that we can return to using critical thinking and logic in the real world. Too many individuals continue to use their suspension of disbelief in their actual lives. That is, they live their lives as if they were living in some fantasy world instead of the real world.

This is not to be confused with LARP, which is a live action role playing game where the participants portray characters in some fantasy world. With LARP, the participants know they are playing a game and can return to the real world at any time. Our problem lies with those individuals who have let themselves come to believe that their fantasy world is the real world.

We are also not talking about individuals who are suffering from some form of mental illness. In these instances, individuals may not be suspending disbelief but may instead be delusional or paranoid. For instance, they may think that they are Napolean Bonaparte or a horse or think that the government or space aliens are reading their thoughts. In these cases, these individuals may need some form of psychological or medical care, or they may need to be locked up to protect them and us from the harm that they could do while living out their delusion or paranoia.

With suspension of disbelief, some individuals may just be bored with their real lives and get caught up in some conspiracy theory that makes their lives seem more interesting by letting them live out that fantasy. Others may just not like their own lives or the lives that others live, so they want to believe that they or others can somehow magically make things different. Some other individuals may simply be overly susceptible to being manipulated by all the extra misinformation and lies that has become too prevalent today.

Living a fantasy does not always mean that we see things as being better than they really are, it can also mean seeing the world as being worse off or more dangerous than it really is. This all ties back to the flaws in our worldviews resulting from our lives being too rosy or too dark. No matter where the flaws in our worldviews came from, they can cloud our judgment or allow others to manipulate us into suspending our disbelief.

On the one hand, we may try to pretend that some problem does not exist or is not as bad as it is. For instance, we may believe that prejudice is not a problem, so we do not think anything needs to be done to fix things.

On the other hand, we may see dangers or conspiracies everywhere. For instance, we may think that everybody is out to get us, which may also make us believe that there is some superhero out there who can save us.

To fix the problems we cause ourselves and others when we suspend our disbelief, we need to reengage the use of our critical thinking and logic. To fix the flaws in our worldviews we need to recognize misinformation and lies, and to find ways to cut down on the amount of misinformation and lies that are being spread.

Our Path

When we are finding and following our path through life, knowledge is the key to finding the best path. By being able to distinguish between all the true and false road signs along the way, we will stand a much better chance of staying on, or getting back to the best path that we can follow.

Next Section

Life - Some facts about Life to keep in mind on Our Future Path.

Last Updated:
Friday, February 09, 2024
WebMaster@OurFuturePath.comCopyright © 2006-2024
All rights reserved.