تغريدة مثبتة
If you are a @ScottAdamsSays disciple, and learned a ton from him, I would love to follow you.
Let me know.
English
Bill C., CFP®
18.9K posts
Bill C., CFP®
@BillyCuth
“Be useful.” Scott Adams
Keystone State انضم Haziran 2014
286 يتبع603 المتابعون
Make of this what you will.
It certainly has angered quite a few people. grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5…
English
@chkdg8 @ZR1Trader @p_pers008 @RickSanchezTV This actually does seem convincing @thirdgenwidget
That suit coat dropping more so than the white sleeve slowly emerging.
English
Bill C., CFP® أُعيد تغريده
Bill C., CFP® أُعيد تغريده
New Tesla Roadster unveil. Late April.
The quiet before something stupid fast.
Supercars checking their group chat.
Clear your calendar.
@Tesla
Elon Musk@elonmusk
True. New Roadster unveil probably in late April.
English
@thirdgenwidget Now seeing the community note, I get it
Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t have sound on either so I had no idea what he was supposedly saying.
English
@BillyCuth Oh… did you see my earlier post with it talking about Jesus?… that was my reference that I had hoped it was AI.
English
I was really hoping so... but clearly I didn't catch it.
pers1 p@p_pers008
Above left hand palm shirt and suit hand sleeve sudden appears... it's AI @RickSanchezTV
English
@thirdgenwidget I really don’t think it is.
Still doesn’t mean he’s not dead. Though I’m not sure what that will ultimately solve.
English
@thirdgenwidget I see the movement, but that’s not definitive AI
English
@BillyCuth It oddly creeps out so that you can clearly see the shirt in the next second or so...
Everything is gross.
English
I see clowns saying, 'I don't mind paying a few extra dollars at the pump to free Iranian women.'
Wake up. That 'few extra' is already $3.88/gallon, the national average (up 70–80¢ in the weeks since the Iran mess). Groceries are exploding, and inflation is biting families hard. Keep escalating? Full economic collapse, WWIII risk, blood & treasure gone again.
As a Veteran who's buried brothers in pointless wars and a pastor who reads Luke ('count the cost'), I pray for Iranians crushed by mullahs. But the fairy tale of them electing George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? Odds: NIL. Zero. Fractured opposition, history of chaos (Iraq/Libya/Syria), polls craving 'strong leaders' over real liberty.
Anyone thinking this is still 'a few dollars' is delusional or virtue-signaling while American families bleed. America First: Protect OUR wallets, OUR troops, OUR future. Smart pressure, not pointlessl war.
God give wisdom. Enough idiocy. #AmericaFirst #NoMoreEndlessWars #RealityCheck"
English
I have never successfully stopped a sneeze using @ScottAdamsSays method…
Neither mimicking it nor thinking it.
Anyone else?
#reframeyourbrain
English
@MarioNawfal So he’s looking to start Skynet. Do I have that right?
English
Woke is Back AND TSA Held Hostage by Dems x.com/i/broadcasts/1…
English
Bill C., CFP® أُعيد تغريده
Warren Buffett's plan to eliminate the deficit sounds good about now:
"I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.”
English
Bill C., CFP® أُعيد تغريده
Tucker Carlson asked Joe Kent why the Thomas Crooks surveillance tapes haven’t been released.
Kent’s answer blew him away.
He explained the government deliberately withholds information to create noise with conspiracy theories, so the “actual question never gets answered.”
TUCKER: “The current president was the subject of a near-successful assassination attempt.”
“And we’re just not going to look into very obviously or divulge information that everyone knows they have.”
“For example, the surveillance tape from the shooting range at which Thomas Crooks trained, because it would answer the question, was he training with somebody?”
“And if so, who? They have that footage, and they won’t release it. What could possibly be the explanation for that?”
KENT: “I know what the result is. The result is people come to their own conclusions. And this is where crazy conspiracy theories come from.”
“And then those conspiracy theories usually are easy to ‘debunk’ or make the people saying them sound crazy. So then the actual question never gets answered.”
[Tucker laughs in awe]
TUCKER: “Sorry. Can you say that for people who haven’t lived in Washington?”
“I try to explain this to people all the time because this has been ongoing since at least the Kennedy assassination.”
“But this is a very serious and recurring thing. It’s a tactic. And you just explained it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. Can you just do that again?”
KENT: “So basically, you give no information whatsoever on something that’s obvious, that there should be information.”
“You outlined there’s potentially footage of Crooks at the shooting range. Again, police, 101, go get the tapes. Let’s figure it out.”
“If you don’t want to address that question, then you just go silent. You say, ‘you can’t ask that question,’ which then creates people who come out of kind of nowhere, and they start drawing their own conclusions.”
“Knowing the way the internet works, half of them, if not more, are probably going to be so far off in left field... that then you can just be like, Oh, these people asking these questions about that tape at the video range. Crazy conspiracy theorists.’”
“And so then you’ve just diverted all attention away from the thing that you’re trying to conceal. And now everyone’s focused on the crazies.”
TUCKER: “Man.”
KENT: “And then the second someone asks a legitimate question, they’re ‘crazy.’”
English
We have not forgotten that ICE killed Renee Pretti and Alex Good
😷✊🏿🏳️⚧️🌈🇨🇳🥕
English
@ImperiumFirst I’ll never understand why people take Nick Fuentes seriously.
He sounds kind of jealous here.
English
@OwenGregorian Evergreen.
The ego loves to tell a good fairy tale.
English
You may be overestimating how much other people are thinking about you.
Owen Gregorian@OwenGregorian
People consistently overestimate the social backlash of changing their political beliefs, new psychology research shows | Eric W. Dolan, PsyPost A recent study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that people consistently overestimate how much their political peers will judge them for changing their minds on polarizing issues. This inflated fear of rejection tends to make individuals hide their shifting views, which deprives the public discourse of diverse perspectives. The research provides evidence that the social penalty for political dissent within one’s own party is generally much milder than expected. In highly polarized environments, people often treat political beliefs as strict markers of group loyalty. When an individual’s opinion evolves on a divisive topic like gun control or immigration, they face a difficult choice. They can voice their new perspective and risk being ostracized, or they can stay silent to protect their social standing. Because humans have a deep, evolutionary need to belong to groups, they are highly sensitive to the threat of social rejection. This sensitivity could lead individuals to adopt a “better safe than sorry” mindset, causing them to expect a much harsher backlash than they will actually experience. When people conceal their true thoughts based on these exaggerated fears, it creates a false illusion that everyone in a political group completely agrees with the party line. This illusion is known as pluralistic ignorance , a situation where a majority of group members privately reject a norm but assume everyone else accepts it. The scientists designed a series of studies to test whether these expectations of social punishment are systematically miscalibrated and to explore how this fear influences communication. “Two trends really stood out to me. The first is that Americans are becoming increasingly afraid to speak their minds about politics — polling shows this fear has grown substantially over the past two decades. The second is that people tend to perceive their political parties as having a uniform set of beliefs, when in reality, private polling reveals much more diversity of opinion underneath the surface,” explained Trevor Spelman , a PhD student at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “This got me thinking: if people misperceive how uniform their party actually is, they might also be overestimating how much backlash they’d face for voicing a dissenting view. And if that’s happening, it could mean people are staying silent based on fears that are out of proportion with reality — which might have real consequences for the quality of political discourse within parties.” To explore this dynamic, the researchers first conducted a pilot survey with 131 American partisans who had recently changed their minds on a political issue. The data showed that individuals who anticipated severe social penalties were more likely to self-censor their updated views. To test the accuracy of these expectations, the researchers then conducted Study 1 with 500 Democrats and Republicans. Participants were divided into a predict group and a react group. The predictors imagined adopting the opposing political party’s view on abortion, immigration, or gun control, and then estimated how much another member of their own party would reject them. The reactors evaluated a hypothetical peer who had actually made that ideological shift. The findings revealed a perception gap between the two groups. Predictors consistently expected more exclusion, criticism, and disrespect than the reactors actually reported feeling toward a dissenting peer. Next, Study 2 examined whether this perception gap persists during live interactions with real financial stakes. The researchers paired 278 participants in live, anonymous text conversations. After a brief getting-to-know-you chat, predictors were told their partner would learn that they had slightly decreased their agreement with their party’s typical stance on a specific issue. Predictors then guessed how their partner would react in a subsequent cooperative task. The reactors, meanwhile, were given the news of their partner’s slight ideological shift and were asked to make choices about the upcoming task. The researchers found that predictors overestimated the behavioral rejection they would face. Specifically, predictors guessed their partner would choose to work with a new person 18.7 percent of the time, but reactors only abandoned their partner 7.9 percent of the time. Predictors also expected their partner to withhold more money in a bonus-sharing game than the reactors actually kept. While the first two studies relied on hypothetical or slight belief changes, the researchers conducted Study 3 to investigate what happens when people genuinely alter their political stances. In the first phase, 494 participants wrote persuasive essays arguing for the opposing party’s view on a specific topic. This exercise successfully induced a genuine shift in beliefs for 147 of the participants. These individuals then predicted how another party member would react to their newfound stance, and their estimates were compared against the actual reactions of an evaluating group. Once again, predictors anticipated harsher judgments than reactors delivered. Two months later, the researchers recontacted 93 of the participants whose beliefs had changed. Half of the group was reminded of their previous ideological shift, while the other half received a generic reminder of their participation. Only the participants who were explicitly reminded of their belief change overestimated the social sanctions they would face. This suggests that the perception gap is driven by the immediate psychological awareness of the dissent, rather than a permanent personality trait. “We were surprised by how strongly the effect held up across different contexts,” Spelman told PsyPost. “Whether participants were strangers or had just gotten to know each other through a live conversation, whether the belief change was hypothetical or real, and whether we measured reactions through survey items or actual financial decisions — the overestimation was consistently there.” In Studies 4a, 4b, and 4c, which included 393, 282, and 596 participants respectively, the scientists sought to identify the underlying psychological mechanism. They compared expectations of rejection for shifting views on highly partisan topics against nonpartisan topics, such as postal service delivery schedules. The gap between expected and actual rejection was larger for the partisan issues. To understand why, the scientists measured signal amplification bias. This is a psychological concept describing the human tendency to assume our actions send a much stronger message to observers than they actually do. The researchers found that predictors expected their political dissent to be viewed as a massive betrayal of group loyalty. The reactors, however, did not view the belief change as a severe indicator of disloyalty. This exaggerated fear of appearing traitorous helped explain why predictors expected such intense social backlash. “The average effect size across our studies was d = .87, which is considered large by conventional standards in psychology,” Spelman noted. “To put that in more concrete terms: in our studies, roughly 8 out of 10 people in the predictor role overestimated how much rejection they would face relative to what their partner actually reported.” Finally, Study 5 tested a potential intervention to reduce this exaggerated fear. The scientists recruited 620 Democrats and Republicans who had genuinely changed their minds on a polarizing topic in the past year. Predictors were divided into two groups for a brief psychological exercise. One group completed a loyalty-affirming exercise, where they listed three actions they had taken to support their political party. The other group listed three actions that went against their party. Afterward, all predictors estimated how much rejection they would face from a peer who had also changed their mind on a different topic. The intervention was effective. Participants who reflected on their past loyalty anticipated less social rejection than those who reflected on their disloyalty. By affirming their secure standing within the group, participants felt less threatened by the prospect of sharing their dissenting views, leading to more accurate predictions of social acceptance. “The main takeaway is that the fear of speaking up within your own political group is often worse than the reality,” Spelman said. “Across our studies, people consistently anticipated moderately harsh rejection for breaking from their party’s position on issues like abortion, gun control, and immigration. But the people actually doing the judging reported much milder reactions. We saw the same pattern emerge across survey, behavioral, and qualitative measures – predictors consistently and robustly overestimate how much other group members would socially punish them for expressing dissent.” “This matters because when people self-censor dissenting views out of fear, they deprive the information environment of their point of view. When only conforming views are expressed, it can create a false impression that everyone in the party agrees. That false impression then makes the next person even more afraid to speak up. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle, and our findings suggest the entry point is miscalibrated expectations about how others will react.” “That said, social backlash is real, and the experience of rejection is genuinely painful,” Spelman added. “We’re not saying there’s no cost to dissent — but these findings suggest that people tend to overestimate that cost.” As with all research, there are some limitations. The studies were also conducted entirely within the United States during a period of intense political polarization. The social dynamics of ideological dissent might operate differently in other cultural contexts or political systems. Additionally, the interactions in these experiments primarily took place between strangers or loose acquaintances. Disagreeing with close friends, family members, or colleagues carries different relational stakes, which might alter how people predict and experience rejection. “The most important thing to emphasize is that we’re not saying social backlash doesn’t exist or that dissent is cost-free,” Spelman said. “The costs of dissent are real. What we’re showing is that people systematically overestimate those costs, and that this overestimation predicts self-censorship.” Future research could explore how these interactions unfold in established relationships and organizational settings. The scientists also plan to develop and test broader interventions that can correct these social misperceptions on a larger scale. By helping individuals calibrate their expectations, they hope to encourage more authentic communication and foster a healthier public discourse. “This paper is part of my broader dissertation work, which examines how the overestimation of social costs for dissent plays out not just between individuals but across groups and at the societal level,” Spelman told PsyPost. “When many people simultaneously overestimate backlash and self-censor, the cumulative effect can distort entire information environments — making political parties, organizations, and communities appear far more ideologically uniform than they actually are.” “A major focus going forward is developing and testing interventions that can correct these miscalibrated expectations, increase people’s willingness to disclose dissenting views, and ultimately contribute to healthier public spheres and more representative discourse. The loyalty affirmation exercise in this paper is a promising starting point — simply reflecting on past demonstrations of group loyalty was enough to reduce overestimation significantly. But there’s much more to explore in terms of what kinds of interventions are most effective, how durable they are, and how they can be scaled beyond the lab into real-world contexts.” “Healthy democratic discourse depends on people being willing to voice dissenting views within their own coalitions,” Spelman concluded. “When people systematically overestimate the social costs of doing so, we end up with a distorted picture of what people actually believe — and that undermines the quality of political deliberation within parties. Our hope is that this research can help people calibrate their expectations and feel more comfortable speaking up when they disagree, even on issues that feel risky.” Read more: psypost.org/people-consist…
English
@PabloNomorales @sues86453 I think he’s just asking questions that he thinks are worth asking.
Quite frankly, I saw huckabees answers to be a little underwhelming in terms of evidence or proof.
We have to stop allowing confirmation bias to override our ability to think critically and skeptically.
English
Tucker is getting paid, he pulled in Candace and probably Megan Kelly and who knows what other “influencer”. Just listen to certain ones, it’s obvious. Same bs talking points just like the liberals that we’ve been saying have been paid for years, this is no different. Just that the shoe is on the other foot and some can’t cope
English
Why happened to Tucker Carlson?
There can only be one or two answers. Either he’s completely brainwashed and lost his way or he’s taking money from the opposition to spew nonsense. Smh
English