Heather
Dagobah Resident
Note: if you are doing this kind of research there's a lot of uncertainty. As @SummerLite said, sometimes a source can be intelligent and useful, but then you find out the person pays attention to Q -- Amazing Polly comes to mind. As most of us are aware, she was recently purged from Youtube. My sense of why she poses a threat and therefore was purged is that she is quite good at connecting the dots on things. That's a skill in itself. If there's one thing the PTB hates, it's someone with a knack for doing that, as it starts to reveal too much. On the other hand, her interest in Q put me on guard. And yet she was out there doing her own research -- it wasn't all about Q; not by any means.
Really, to do this kind of research you have to almost have a philosophy about source. Obviously, no one source is going to be perfect. But what you come to understand is what a source might be useful for. Monkey Werx gives you this compelling flight map to follow and think about, for example. However, you wouldn't turn to him for his interpretive analysis -- or only in a fairly limited way, based on what we are seeing on the flight map.
In other words, you start to get a feel for what a source's uses are, and what its limitations are. You also have to be on guard for misinformation, as always. But there's a difference between a well intentioned source making a mistake, or having certain shortcomings, and a source deliberately out to mislead.
In using discernment you can over time develop the ability -- subtle, at times -- to distinguish between the two. But we are ALL going to get tripped up at times.
Again as @SummerLite was suggesting, to discount what a source may be good for just because it falls short in another way isn't so great either. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, in other words. Again, no one source is going to provide everything you would ideally want. Just work on knowing who to look to for what sort of information.
Also, I think there is almost an art to staying of two minds with things. You need to be open enough to take on new material and try it on for size, at the same time you have to argue it the other way, see what its limitations may be. Even if you momentarily think you've found "a perfect source," you need to remain mindful that you might be being seduced, that you could very possibly be missing something. So, it's to remain open minded about both the pros and cons. That's the art of it, I'd say. And the discipline.
I don't think this thread has to have a perfect track record. We are all working to refine our discernment, and that's going to have some missteps. But that can also be how we come to improve.
Really, to do this kind of research you have to almost have a philosophy about source. Obviously, no one source is going to be perfect. But what you come to understand is what a source might be useful for. Monkey Werx gives you this compelling flight map to follow and think about, for example. However, you wouldn't turn to him for his interpretive analysis -- or only in a fairly limited way, based on what we are seeing on the flight map.
In other words, you start to get a feel for what a source's uses are, and what its limitations are. You also have to be on guard for misinformation, as always. But there's a difference between a well intentioned source making a mistake, or having certain shortcomings, and a source deliberately out to mislead.
In using discernment you can over time develop the ability -- subtle, at times -- to distinguish between the two. But we are ALL going to get tripped up at times.
Again as @SummerLite was suggesting, to discount what a source may be good for just because it falls short in another way isn't so great either. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, in other words. Again, no one source is going to provide everything you would ideally want. Just work on knowing who to look to for what sort of information.
Also, I think there is almost an art to staying of two minds with things. You need to be open enough to take on new material and try it on for size, at the same time you have to argue it the other way, see what its limitations may be. Even if you momentarily think you've found "a perfect source," you need to remain mindful that you might be being seduced, that you could very possibly be missing something. So, it's to remain open minded about both the pros and cons. That's the art of it, I'd say. And the discipline.
I don't think this thread has to have a perfect track record. We are all working to refine our discernment, and that's going to have some missteps. But that can also be how we come to improve.
Last edited:
