Don't say what you believe about vaccines

[Yidaki]

It has become clear that when survival is on the line, our ability to think from a meta-perspective, in a non-ideological way flies out the window.

I know that many topics regarding vaccine policies have been created on this forum, and almost all of them have become ideological battlefields. People picking sides and throwing "arguments" at each other. Although some participants have tried to elevate the topic to a meta-level, above the actual content, they have not succeeded. This is a very complex topic.

I know that starting a new topic that dares to mention the vaccine stuff may be immediately annoying to some of you, but I want to try a way to do this in a careful manner, so that my thread doesn't go in the same direction than previous posts.

This situation is exposing the limitations of science, because there is no consensus among the scientific community regarding the vaccines, and this is not about "pro" or "anti". This is much more nuanced than that. There are highly qualified experts, such as virologists, immunologists and so on,  that disagree with each other with regard to boosters, how long to wait, and even if they are necessary at all. For example this man that clearly is not "anti", but is pointing to something worth considering.

I don't have the qualifications to adjudicate the validity of what he says. Please don't think I'm stating ANYTHING about vaccination measures themselves. I'm trying to go "meta". This is just an example of the fact that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. As Daniel Schmachtemberger has pointed out many times, this is a problem of sense-making, and sense-making is the basis for choice-making.

There is no consensus in science and it has never been, and that is not a problem, but what seems strange and not too earnest is the fact that there is a narrative that tells "there is undeniable consensus and powerful evidence of this", and whatever alternative ways to see the matter are regarded as conspiracy theory, or "anti", or stupidity of "rotted minds". I am aware that many lay people with no qualifications are talking with certainty about things that don't really know, but there are highly qualified people that are pointing to some "facts" and are being disregarded, underestimated, ignored, banned, mocked and so on.

SO, in conclusion. I see that the way to approach this issue have been lost in the CONTENT, and that leads to locked threads in the forum, polarization, name-calling, division, duality, fear, lack of love, and more. Therefore, I want to make an invitation to look at this from the level of STRUCTURE.

How to approach this issue so that our sense-making gets more integrated and less polarized/fragmented?

PLEASE ABSTAIN FROM TELLING WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT VACCINES. That is the content. I would like to keep this thread centered on the structure. I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINIONS ON VACCINES THEMSELVES.

This is a question on Sense-Making. We have a problem of not being able to unify our sense-making. The question is HOW CAN WE MOVE TOWARDS A MORE INTEGRATED VIEW ON THIS TOPIC AND UNIFY OUR SENSE-MAKING?

[Let's try to keep it "second tier" and not only blue/orange]

 

Thank you for taking the time to reflect on this.
 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Yidaki

[Danioover9000]

@Yidaki

3 minutes ago, Yidaki said:

It has become clear that when survival is on the line, our ability to think from a meta-perspective, in a non-ideological way flies out the window.

I know that many topics regarding vaccine policies have been created on this forum, and almost all of them have become ideological battlefields. People picking sides and throwing "arguments" at each other. Although some participants have tried to elevate the topic to a meta-level, above the actual content, they have not succeeded. This is a very complex topic.

I know that starting a new topic that dares to mention the vaccine stuff may be immediately annoying to some of you, but I want to try a way to do this in a careful manner, so that my thread doesn't go in the same direction than previous posts.

This situation is exposing the limitations of science, because there is no consensus among the scientific community regarding the vaccines, and this is not about "pro" or "anti". This is much more nuanced than that. There are highly qualified experts, such as virologists, immunologists and so on,  that disagree with each other with regard to boosters, how long to wait, and even if they are necessary at all. For example this man that clearly is not "anti", but is pointing to something worth considering.

I don't have the qualifications to adjudicate the validity of what he says. Please don't think I'm stating ANYTHING about vaccination measures themselves. I'm trying to go "meta". This is just an example of the fact that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. As Daniel Schmachtemberger has pointed out many times, this is a problem of sense-making, and sense-making is the basis for choice-making.

There is no consensus in science and it has never been, and that is not a problem, but what seems strange and not too earnest is the fact that there is a narrative that tells "there is undeniable consensus and powerful evidence of this", and whatever alternative ways to see the matter are regarded as conspiracy theory, or "anti", or stupidity of "rotted minds". I am aware that many lay people with no qualifications are talking with certainty about things that don't really know, but there are highly qualified people that are pointing to some "facts" and are being disregarded, underestimated, ignored, banned, mocked and so on.

SO, in conclusion. I see that the way to approach this issue have been lost in the CONTENT, and that leads to locked threads in the forum, polarization, name-calling, division, duality, fear, lack of love, and more. Therefore, I want to make an invitation to look at this from the level of STRUCTURE.

How to approach this issue so that our sense-making gets more integrated and less polarized/fragmented?

PLEASE ABSTAIN FROM TELLING WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT VACCINES. That is the content. I would like to keep this thread centered on the structure. I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINIONS ON VACCINES THEMSELVES.

Thank you for taking the time to reflect on this.
 

   Very good post. I guess some topics are too hot to have a decent meta discussion that they might have to percolate in history a bit to cool off. We're too deep in the thick of the issue that we can't just disassociate and go meta, because too many lives are at stake and have been lost to the virus. I hope something good comes out of this situation, for those effected by the virus, and those effected by the vaccine.

[Terell Kirby]

@Yidaki Seems like your attempting to push an anti-vax stance, while at the same time not trying to get flagged for it. It is hypocritical to passively share your views, and simultaneously deny others from sharing their views.

[Danioover9000]

@Terell Kirby

20 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

@Yidaki Seems like your attempting to push an anti-vax stance, while at the same time not trying to get flagged for it. It is hypocritical to passively share your views, and simultaneously deny others from sharing their views.

   Where in this person's post is anti vax? This post is the most neutral about this entire situation I've read so far.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Yidaki said:

Please don't think I'm stating ANYTHING about vaccination measures themselves. I'm trying to go "meta".

If that is so, why are you making this specifically about vaccines?

 

1 hour ago, Yidaki said:

This is just an example of the fact that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. As Daniel Schmachtemberger has pointed out many times, this is a problem of sense-making, and sense-making is the basis for choice-making.

"There is no consensus in science" is not a vaccine thing. You already said that yourself. In either case, it's not an excuse to lay down and die with respect to pandemics or generally lose trust in the scientific process. It feels very cheesy to quote Elon Musk like this, but "fuck that, we're gonna get it done." In other words, we gotta act.

[Salvijus]

My ayurveda doctor who I consider God at health and she's also a medical doctor chose not to get vacinated. Not everyone agrees with vacination path im saying.

I myself did 2shots of Pfizer. So I'm neither against nor for vacation. But there are definitely some inteligent people out there who don't agree with it. 

In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, nothing more. It's wiser to focus on improving the immunity to deal with the virus naturally. That would be ideal. But ideal is not always a realistic solution given how lazy and unconsciously most people live their lives. For most people vacination path is inevitable almost. 

But what do I know. In the end everybody makes a descision according to their own level of insight. And none of us have a full picture understanding of what is best thing to do, would be a fair thing to say i think.

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Salvijus

[Raptorsin7]

@Salvijus Do you see your ayruveda doctor in person or is it online? What do you learn from her?

It seems like the highest conscious people are either ambivalent or anti-vax, at least that's what I noticed. I'm also unsure, but it makes sense to get the vaccine out of necessity to function in society because of the regulations in most developed countries.

 

[Salvijus]

7 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

but it makes sense to get the vaccine out of necessity to function in society because of the regulations in most developed countries.

That's the reason 50% of the people take the shots imo ? myself also.

8 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Do you see your ayruveda doctor in person or is it online? What do you learn from her?

Online, but after the consultation she became very dear relation to me. Almost like my health guru. She's the only person I take advice on health matters lol. 

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Salvijus said:

That's the reason 50% of the people take the shots imo ? myself also.

Same here.

Just now, Salvijus said:

Online, but after the consultation she became very dear relation to me. Almost like my health guru. She's the only person I take advice on health matters lol. 

Can you pm me her info? My health sucks and maybe it's time to address it seriously.

[Epikur]

4 hours ago, Yidaki said:

It has become clear that when survival is on the line, our ability to think from a meta-perspective, in a non-ideological way flies out the window.

I know that many topics regarding vaccine policies have been created on this forum, and almost all of them have become ideological battlefields. People picking sides and throwing "arguments" at each other. Although some participants have tried to elevate the topic to a meta-level, above the actual content, they have not succeeded. This is a very complex topic.

I know that starting a new topic that dares to mention the vaccine stuff may be immediately annoying to some of you, but I want to try a way to do this in a careful manner, so that my thread doesn't go in the same direction than previous posts.

This situation is exposing the limitations of science, because there is no consensus among the scientific community regarding the vaccines, and this is not about "pro" or "anti". This is much more nuanced than that. There are highly qualified experts, such as virologists, immunologists and so on,  that disagree with each other with regard to boosters, how long to wait, and even if they are necessary at all. For example this man that clearly is not "anti", but is pointing to something worth considering.

I don't have the qualifications to adjudicate the validity of what he says. Please don't think I'm stating ANYTHING about vaccination measures themselves. I'm trying to go "meta". This is just an example of the fact that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. As Daniel Schmachtemberger has pointed out many times, this is a problem of sense-making, and sense-making is the basis for choice-making.

There is no consensus in science and it has never been, and that is not a problem, but what seems strange and not too earnest is the fact that there is a narrative that tells "there is undeniable consensus and powerful evidence of this", and whatever alternative ways to see the matter are regarded as conspiracy theory, or "anti", or stupidity of "rotted minds". I am aware that many lay people with no qualifications are talking with certainty about things that don't really know, but there are highly qualified people that are pointing to some "facts" and are being disregarded, underestimated, ignored, banned, mocked and so on.

SO, in conclusion. I see that the way to approach this issue have been lost in the CONTENT, and that leads to locked threads in the forum, polarization, name-calling, division, duality, fear, lack of love, and more. Therefore, I want to make an invitation to look at this from the level of STRUCTURE.

How to approach this issue so that our sense-making gets more integrated and less polarized/fragmented?

PLEASE ABSTAIN FROM TELLING WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT VACCINES. That is the content. I would like to keep this thread centered on the structure. I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINIONS ON VACCINES THEMSELVES.

Thank you for taking the time to reflect on this.
 

This is not the right forum for this imho



 

[Tim R]

5 hours ago, Yidaki said:

There is no consensus in science and it has never been, and that is not a problem, but what seems strange and not too earnest is the fact that there is a narrative that tells "there is undeniable consensus and powerful evidence of this"

@Yidaki Where did you get that from? Of course there is cosensus in science. Scientists agree more than they disagree.

Almost all disagreement among scientists happens on the level of their ultra specific field of research. But on stuff like vaccination, there is consensus, there's no question whatsoever about this. 

That narrative you're referring to is, at least in the context of vaccination, pretty valid tho. As I said, there is consensus among scientists about the efficacy of vaccinations and that is undeniable - and there is powerful evidence. 

[JosephKnecht]

A world that is increasingly more and more polarized must be united again. 

To become united, it must create a common enemy. 

Is there a better enemy than a virus? 

Vaccines are an attempt of the current establishment to ameliorate the threat to humanity.

What is becoming apparent is the fact that the current establishment is not capable of killing the virus. 

They keep doubling down on their vaccines, but after getting the 7th booster, people will realize that it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 

By then, all credibility in the establishment will be lost. Then, we have to establish a new establishment.  

[Blackhawk]

There is consensus in the scientific community about the vaccines.

[Consept]

So this is a common trope of mis-information, it weights the dissenting voices much higher than the scientific consensus. In this case a huge majority of scientists have found vaccines to be effective, there maybe disputes on the technical details but they are in general agreement, however their voices are not amplified anywhere near as much as those that completely disagree. 

I found a research paper from UCL that goes into this in more detail -

"The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a slew of misinformation, often described as an “infodemic”. Whereas previous research has focused on the propagation of unreliable sources as a main vehicle of misinformation, the present study focuses on exploring the role of scientists whose views oppose the scientific consensus. Using Nobelists in Physiology and Medicine as a proxy for scientific consensus, we analyze two separate datasets: 15.8K tweets by 13.1K unique users on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, and 208K tweets by 151K unique users on COVID-19 broadly which mention the Nobelist names. Our analyses reveal that dissenting scientists are amplified by a factor of 426 relative to true scientific consensus in the context of COVID-19 vaccines, and by a factor of 43 in the context of COVID-19 generally. Although more popular accounts tend to mention consensus-abiding scientists more, our results suggest that this false consensus is driven by higher engagement with dissent-mentioning tweets. Furthermore, false consensus mostly occurs due to traffic spikes following highly popularized statements of dissenting scientists. We find that dissenting voices are mainly discussed in French, English-speaking, Turkish, Brazilian, Argentine, Indian, and Japanese misinformation clusters. This research suggests that social media platforms should prioritize the exposure of consensus-abiding scientists as a vehicle of reversing false consensus and addressing misinformation stemming from seemingly credible sources."

Full paper - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.10594&ved=2ahUKEwjW5LPSuov1AhULYsAKHXuECrwQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw31LVkDjeFZJ1ahoyTbAr6D

So to have a meta discussion it would first have to be accepted that there is an overwhelming majority of science that agree vaccines are effective and then that the dissenting voices are actually highly amplified. Then you can debate from that point. 

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Consept

[Yidaki]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If that is so, why are you making this specifically about vaccines?

Because I am astounded by how much this issue has fragmented our collective sense-making, and the more we are at the level of the content, the more we separate from each other. So, the purpose of the topic is to reflect on possible ways to integrate our sense-making about this. That is not a question on vaccines, but it is a question on HOW TO SOLVE THE FRAGMENTATION PROBLEM, which has become painfully obvious regarding this subject, more than any other.

 

 

[TDLH]

11 hours ago, Yidaki said:

It has become clear that when survival is on the line, our ability to think from a meta-perspective, in a non-ideological way flies out the window.

Thanks for sharing!

Stop wasting your time trying to bring heighten, or Meta awareness to the collective Pro-Vax vs Anti-Vax narrative that most people in these forums are clinging to and are unwilling to step out of. 

They do not Know, that they "do not Know"! 

They are caught in extreme dualistic ideologies and are unwilling to go beyond the Pro-Vax vs Anti-Vax narrative!  They are unwilling to see the psychic collective madness and devilry that has consumed them.

As long as people are stuck in Fear and Survival, such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they will be incapable of going into Tier Two Spiral Dynamics, such as Yellow and beyond, or function from a level of Actualized awareness.

This is a classic case of spiritually minded individuals that have reached some levels of Tier Two Spiral Dynamics through meditation and/or psychedelic levels of God Consciousness, but are still heavily anchored in blue, orange and green levels of Dogma.

I’ve mentioned this numerous times in past posts, and I will repeat it again; I don’t care how many DMT trips you have take, how much you meditate, how may retreats you go on, what intellectual words you know!  If you fail to do the “WORK” you will continuously fall into degrees of “Spiritual Bypassing” (Google).  I know, because I have fallen in these trap’s countless times on my own journey.

Sadly, there is a lot of “Spiritual Bypassing” and narrow minded thinking happening here, and people are not willing to step out of the collective paradigm and narrative that has consumed the Masses on both sides of the fence.

History has obviously not taught many people the potential dark path that can occur when we demonize, dehumanize, segregate, and censor POV’s, which in the past have ended up in authoritarian/totalitarian narratives.  Not saying we are heading in that direction, but we sure as hell are swimming and playing in the shallow end of the pool with it!

Just a friendly WAKE-Up call, and a sharing of thoughts, ideas and beliefs!

[Consept]

@TDLH What would be your meta analysis of the situation?

[TDLH]

 

1 hour ago, Consept said:

What would be your meta analysis of the situation?

4 hours ago, Consept said:

So to have a meta discussion it would first have to be accepted that there is an overwhelming majority of science that agree vaccines are effective and then that the dissenting voices are actually highly amplified. Then you can debate from that point. 

As long as you continue to hold this belief, there is no point in presenting a perspective that addresses the narrative that you are clinging to, such as the majority in science have all the answers. 

The Meta thinking required here, IMO, which I believe most people have dismissed, or are purposely ignoring, is to consciously step out of survival and fear and evaluate and discriminate how Governments, Politics, Scientist, Media, and Big Pharma are operating from there own Survival and Fears!  They are caught-up in the collective madness and devilry, which they have fuelled.

We need to openly evaluate and discriminate how Governments, Politics, Scientist, Media, and Big Pharma are conceivably, with, or without awareness, projecting those fears onto the Masses and are influencing division, demonization, dehumanization, segregation, and censoring of POV’s.

As long as you are unwilling to entertain these possibilities, there cannot be an open healthy discussion from a more Meta platform, IMO….

Edited December 30, 2021 by TDLH

[Yidaki]

31 minutes ago, Consept said:

@TDLH What would be your meta analysis of the situation?

Even when the questions was not for me, I want to share something I was thinking. I got inspired by a conversation between Daniel Schmachtemberger and Tristan Harris. The idea and challenge is to be able to capture what are the values from which each person or group is operating. From there, it could be possible to generate a proposal or solution that integrates and honors those values, because probably all people act from good intentions... And this should apply to all hot topics, not only vaccines.

Artificial Intelligence could be used to generate that proposal. In the same way that artificial intelligence can be used to generate non-existen faces, based on the data of all the existing faces.

 

 

[Yidaki]

7 hours ago, Epikur said:

This is not the right forum for this imho



 

Why not?. This is a matter that concerns society, environment, government and politics. This is a problem not only of health, but also of collective sense-making (or lack thereof). We as a collective, and also governments and authorities have failed to promote global coordination and that has global consequences, in health, mental health, social trust, division, instability, and so on.
This is a problem of design.

@Leo Gura in his episode of conscious politics has talked about the challenge that represents to be able to design a government and policies that integrate all people, because you cannot kick people out of society (as you can do in a club or other collectives entities). So the question here remains the same: How can we move towards a collective approach that integrates, rather than divides people?

Of course it is not easy, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are