If The Truth Really Be Known

[HARDCORE]

9-25-2019

What is life really all about – or haven’t you ever really given this any genuine thought? Or is it really, as many a fool now believes, just a rip and run to the top (but more than likely to the bottom)? Or is it a place where success (at any cost) is applauded and failure is hissed and booed, regardless of the amount of blood, sweat, tears, labor and talent that went into the attempt?

Or have you ever taken a moment to contemplate the real fragility of life, or the actual matrix and mortality of mankind? And have you ever given any real thought to the true nature of things – to why some creatures (even within the same species), are endowed with more talent, better looks, far more capacity for creativity or even luck? The real question is:

“What Do They Really Do With The Splendid Gifts That They Were Granted?”

Do They At Least Try to perfect and advance the entirety of mankind with these Almighty or Nature-Given gifts? “Or do they cower in cliques, and only come up for air, when they are gathering in odious mobs to engage in a little mayhem or blood-letting?”

“IF THE REAL TRUTHS WERE EVER TO BE KNOWN????”

BUT THEN YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THIS, BUT HAVE BEEN SOCIETALLY CONDITIONED “NOT” TO BELIEVE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE WITNESSING WITH YOUR VERY OWN - TWO LITTLE EYES?

AND WHO REALLY KNOWS WHAT ABSOLUTELY TRUE IS THESE DAYS – “AND WHAT IS NOT?”

Hardcore

[Boats]

Topic: They say Truth is the eye of the beholder.

"That's not what happened." How often have you heard or uttered this phrase, as you reminisced with siblings, friends or colleagues? You have to wonder, sometimes, whether your colleague can really have been at the same meeting as you, if that's what she thinks you all agreed. And whose parents is your brother talking about? Certainly not the ones you remember from your childhood.

Sometimes we feel that if only we could bring out our memories, like photographs, and pore over them together, then the truth would be revealed. But even if we could, the pictures that each of us brought out would not necessarily help to resolve the dispute: like the six blind men and the elephant, each of us may have experienced only one misleading part of the whole. And even if each of us did have access to the whole, there would be no guarantee of our agreeing with each other about its interpretation. We all know those Gestalt pictures that flip between different images as we look at them (rabbit or duck? two faces or a vase?). They are unusual in that the same person is capable of seeing both versions, and of alternating between them. They are quite ordinary in that they consist of lines on a page that can be interpreted in different ways. Meaning is always in the eye of the beholder.
It's in the ear of the beholder, too, amongst other sense organs. The receiver of any type of information -- visual, auditory, olfactory or whatever -- plays a much more active role in communication than many people have been accustomed to acknowledging. It is traditional to think of communication as a process in which the source actively determines the meaning of the message, and the receiver is a passive target for incoming information. In speech, for example, the speaker is seen as the source of a message that is encoded in sound waves and then decoded by the hearer's ear. But in reality there are multiple ways in which a receiver can interpret information, and decoding will not necessarily be a mirror image of encoding (Chandler 1994).

Faced with a page of Cyrillic or Gurmukhi script, for example, I see only squiggles, where a Russian or Punjabi reader sees words with meaning. I see ‘some plants' where my mother-in-law sees cotoneaster and southernwood. My husband hears ‘complicated violin music' when I hear vibrato, harmonics, double stops and left-hand plucking. I taste ‘red wine' while my husband tastes grenache.

Why should we vary so much in our interpretations of the same sensory input? Our ability to identify and understand what we experience relies on our capacity to notice the differences between the continuously varying input that our senses receive. If we are to receive information from this input, then we need to learn to discretize its continuous variation by slicing it into identifiable chunks.

Think of a child just learning the words for colours: he's seen plenty of blue things before, of course, but now we help him to notice the difference between blue things and things of every other colour. We teach him, in effect, to take the continuously varying spectrum of colours, break it off at this point and call everything up to that point ‘blue'. He has to discretize the spectrum by learning to pick out the points at which our language slices it into different colours.

It's the same when we learn to speak a new language. Conversation in an unknown language is perceived as meaningless babble. We can't begin to take information from what's said until we learn to discretize the stream of babble, slicing it into a pattern of individual words.

The points at which we learn to slice the stream will determine the ways in which we interpret what we hear. The child who interrupted her History teacher's dictation, to ask how to spell ‘Stayan Age', did so because she had been slicing the stream of the teacher's speech in the wrong places: the teacher had not been commenting on what happens ‘in the Stayan Age' but ‘in this day and age'.

The ways in which we decode and interpret incoming information will always be determined by what we have learned and experienced to date. As we go through our lives, each of us builds up a unique range of interpretative methods. This means that different people's experience, interpretation and memory of identical sensory input can vary enormously. And when disagreements arise from differing interpretations of the same events, feelings are heightened by the sincerity of each side's conviction that this is what happened - not that.

What happens next, of course, is determined by the grace with which we are able to handle the situation. Do we care more about proving that we're right or about maintaining our relationship with the people who disagree with us? The answer isn't always straightforward - but it can be helpful to bear in mind the possibility that, for the other person, really, "That's not what happened."

[Boats]

Political relevance ins the eye of the beholder
RE: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.ph...view/7031/6093

Abstract
Addressing the call to move beyond a simple genre classification of TV shows as either substantive (hard) news or non-substantive (soft) infotainment, we propose using social media reactions to determine a program’s political relevance. Such an approach provides information that goes beyond genre or content characteristics and reflects what really reaches an audience. Analyzing tweets about two Dutch talk shows and four U.S. primary debates, we show that audience responses to television programs differ considerably regarding their political relevance. Thereby, we demonstrate how examining online audience reactions can be employed as a sophisticated and valid way to assess the political relevance of TV programs.

Contents

Introduction
Theoretical background and related research
Method
Results
Discussion and conclusion

Go this the site above for more detailed comments on the subjects listed above.
It's quite enlightening and to the point.

[Boats]

RE: https://theglobepost.com/2019/04/08/...-donald-trump/

It goes to say at 72 even I am not always able to quickly recall or retain information like I was in my 50's.

We know that this is very dangerous for our Country.

We also know that the electioneers for the Dem's wants to bring in Biden is 76 year old.

Alternate(s) also running we have a similar quandary:
To this Elizabeth Warren is also 70 years old.
Bernie Sanders is 78 years old.

Here's some history:

America's 5 Youngest Presidents:

- Barack Obama. > Elected: 2008. > Age: 47.
- Ulysses S. Grant. > Elected: 1868. > Age: 46.
- Bill Clinton. > Elected: 1992. > Age: 46.
- John F. Kennedy. > Elected: 1960. > Age: 43.
- Theodore Roosevelt. > Became president: 1901. > Age: 42.

Here's an interesting article to read:
RE: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-t...r-a-president/

Youth and age impact one's perception of the optimal presidential age, however. Only 9 percent of those under 30 said a president should be 60 or older - something 30 percent of those over 60 believed. But few young people were willing to have a president just a little bit older than they were - in his 30's. For all age groups, the 50's were best.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouGov’s latest polling finds that, when asked directly, the vast majority of Americans would set the “ideal” age range for a new president much lower than Clinton’s or Sanders’s age. In fact,

a. less than 1% of Americans say the “ideal” is 70 years old or higher,
b. and 92% put the ideal range below 60. A candidate can also be too young –
c. only 9% want a president under 40 –
d. and most want him or her to be 40-49 (38%) or 50-59 (44%)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say 50-59 would be my pick. How about you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report made on Jan 15th, 2019
RE: https://psmag.com/news/research-sugg...-mental-health

The causal relationship between a Trump-related anxiety and health problems is relatively clear; the culpability of the Trump administration in "making" Americans crazier is less so. The Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health study notes that, following the 2008 presidential election, supporters of Republican presidential candidate John McCain showed a higher stress-related cortisol than those who voted for Barack Obama. And a 2010 study, also in Psychoneuroendocrinology, notes that "Societal shifts in political dominance can impact biological stress responses in voters whose political party becomes sociopolitically subordinate." Put simply: To the victor go the physiological spoils.

Except that, in the case of the Trump administration, those spoils came with significant consequences for the "sociopolitically subordinate"—namely, those minority or marginalized populations who didn't vote for Trump. It's not just the promulgation of public policies threatening traditionally targeted populations (see: the so-called "religious liberty" doctrine), or the rollback of civil rights protections. It's also the culture that's increasingly emerged following Trump's presidency: Inter-social oppression, from bullying in the schoolyard to hate crimes in the streets, have only increased since Trump took office.

This creates a constant environment of stress, one that "can have negative health effects on people who have been direct targets of what they perceive as hostility or discrimination and on individuals and communities who feel vulnerable because they belong to a stigmatized, marginalized, or targeted group," according to a New England Journal of Medicine survey of research. Heightened racial hostility has a documented impact on cortisol levels among vulnerable populations.

While Trump supporters may have experienced a boost in "psychological well-being, pride, and hope for the future," in the words of the New England Journal of Medicine researchers, his presidency has been a pit of despair for others.

TAGSPOLITICSAMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONMENTAL HEALTHANXIETYRESEARCHDONALD TRUMP

[reconeil]

Boats,
It doesn't matter how much extremely lengthy rhetoric you paste up stating that: "They say Truth is the eye of the beholder",...such is Flat-Out-Wrong and quite typically Democrat Deceiving.

Truth is Truth, is Truth, is Truth, and will always be Truth,...no matter whose eyes witnessed by.

Whereas the typically Purposeful Democrat BS and/or: "President Trump Bashing" Lies & Deceit we Americans are sadly bombarded with daily,...will always be just Purposeful (Malicious & Vindictive also) Democrat BS. Nothing more - nothing less.

For what it's worth, Boats.
What people ACTUALLY SAY is: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Check it out.

Neil

[Boats]

Let's just wait and see what happens

Boats

[reconeil]

Boats,
Hopefully and quite differently all TRUTHS will prevail, instead of the multitude of Dem Deceits and Deceptions daily perpetrated on We Americans.

Perhaps then, just maybe, the U.S. Congress might then once again work to benefit US (both ways), and NOT just work to benefit (plus achieve Power & Control) The Democrat Ruling Elite Party (their norm).

Hey. "I can dream. Can't I"

Neil

[Boats]

Reco - whatever makes you happy - its your right!

Boats