Excellent point. You could look at it as very resilient diversion -- even calling out the diversion becomes a diversion.

I'm wondering how often it happens organically, and how often it has some conscious help.

It is a narrative, yes, but are you asserting that the narrative is not substantially true? I struggle to think of anyone I know of, let alone know personally, that is mostly on the systems analysis side of the spectrum vs the story telling and bickering side.

Culture is constantly running in the background, teaching us not only what to think, but also how to think. And changing culture is hard.

I assert that there is no good evidence that it is true and that in lieu of good evidence it’s a limiting perspective to propagate.

I know how the real world works and am not fooled by the bread and circus—of course I am! :) And how often do I reveal that in real life? Very rarely because I don’t have any sympaticos in my life right now. But how many people do I know who are like me? And to how many people do I look like an unconscious NPC on this issue?

It’s a limiting perspective because you stay stuck in the mode of bickering among yourselves about who has seen the light and who hasn’t. Instead of the more useful perspective: that a non-insignificant people already know or that if they don’t then it won’t take much to convince them (X years of brainwashing does not take X years to undo).

> I assert that there is no good evidence that it is true

And what evidence could you provide (say, a description of your methodology, hours of search, resources searched, notes you've taken along the way, etc) can you offer to support your "is no good (how convenient) evidence"?

> It’s a limiting perspective because you stay stuck in the mode of bickering among yourselves about who has seen the light and who hasn’t.

That may seem to be the case, but maybe ~no one has seen the light (perhaps due to a culturally infused unwillingness to try)?

> Instead of the more useful perspective...

You have no way of knowing the utility of either approach. Realizing this (including how to realize it) is highly useful.

> then it won’t take much to convince them (X years of brainwashing does not take X years to undo).

I agree with this, except for the "won’t take much to convince them", as it could be mistaken to mean that finding the method also won't take much. But I will always upvote optimism!

> And what evidence could you provide (say, a description of your methodology, hours of search, resources searched, notes you've taken along the way, etc) can you offer to support your "is no good (how convenient) evidence"?

What evidence do I have prepared for random strangers on the Internet who are as disagreeable as me? None!

I will protest bare (uncited, shooting from the hips) “common wisdom” and counter with my own uncited perspective; mine is on the face of it no less wrong!

Why the hell would I just let such misanthropic, holier-than-thou garbage philosophies remain unexamined?!

EDIT: Three sentences in a row with exclamation marks might have been overkill. :smile:

And what in your opinion is the real source?

I didn’t dispute the source. I questioned the assumption that “people” (whatever that means?) are oblivious to it.