The Media.info News and Infomation board

Inspector Sands
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 00.37
Location: London

cityprod wrote: You see, this is part of the problem that I've identified in recent years. There are two forms of reality, co-existing in the same space at the same time. One is actual reality. The other is conservative reality. Actual reality is based on actual evidence and logic. Conservative reality is based mostly upon fears and thoughts and maybe occasionally a little hard evidence, but most evidence presented is at best circumstantial and wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
So you're living in actual reality and the rest of us are conservatives?

Whereas your theory can be applied to a lot of political discourse especially in the US, I really don't see how it applies to TVF. You seem to be arrogant enough to think you are the sole person with the 'sword of truth' fighting against the conspiracy of untruths...

You're no Jon Stewart, Ian, and everyone else isn't Fox News.
I appreciate that some people will find that hard to believe, but that is my level of thinking. And when people continue to espouse theories and ideas, that the evidence does not support, I get angry about it.
How many times has someone actually provided the 'evidence' which has made you change your mind on something? I don't think I've ever seen you admit that you were wrong about something no matter how many people are giving you a well thought out constructive factual argument as to why you are wrong.

It sounds like your 'anger' gives you blinkers

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that your two forms of reality are actual reality and Beaumont reality?

To continue the US media analogy, in terms of attitude (not politics) you're Glenn Beck - the lone wolf outsider shouting your own ideas and theories, convinced that you're the only one seeing things how they actually are
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

There is a God!
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

Using Glenn Beck style debating on broadcasting forums is quite simply baffling.
TVF's London Lite.
cityprod
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu 31 Mar, 2011 12.43

Inspector Sands wrote:
cityprod wrote: You see, this is part of the problem that I've identified in recent years. There are two forms of reality, co-existing in the same space at the same time. One is actual reality. The other is conservative reality. Actual reality is based on actual evidence and logic. Conservative reality is based mostly upon fears and thoughts and maybe occasionally a little hard evidence, but most evidence presented is at best circumstantial and wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
So you're living in actual reality and the rest of us are conservatives?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I wasn't talking specifically about particular people, I was talking in broad terms, general terms.
Whereas your theory can be applied to a lot of political discourse especially in the US, I really don't see how it applies to TVF. You seem to be arrogant enough to think you are the sole person with the 'sword of truth' fighting against the conspiracy of untruths...
This is something I've learned recently. Our brains actually filter the world in specific ways. How they filter the world is in accordance to the things we value the most. It's not one filter for political and one filter for everything else, or even different filters for different things. It's actually the same filter. Another thing I've learned is that because of this, only about 1/5th of the world's population see the real world or something pretty close to it. The rest are distorted visions, distorted by the various filters. But, it is possible to undo the biases in those filters, and essentially "unfilter", as I call it. What that means is that you remove all the editorialising, the emotion, everything that isn't the basic facts.
I appreciate that some people will find that hard to believe, but that is my level of thinking. And when people continue to espouse theories and ideas, that the evidence does not support, I get angry about it.
How many times has someone actually provided the 'evidence' which has made you change your mind on something? I don't think I've ever seen you admit that you were wrong about something no matter how many people are giving you a well thought out constructive factual argument as to why you are wrong.
It happens no more than 10% of the time. That's mainly because if I don't actually know about a subject, I've been caught out before expressing an opinion, and basically getting creamed for it, because I had no basis for that opinion. So everything I talk about, I have some evidence and basis for what I'm saying.
It sounds like your 'anger' gives you blinkers
Anger gives everyone blinkers. But if you get me angry, then you have no chance of changing my mind, on anything.
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that your two forms of reality are actual reality and Beaumont reality?
That would be confusing reality, with our perspective on reality. Because of the filtering we do, we all have different perspectives on reality, but when you have the right wing completely selecting their own "facts' as opposed accepting actual facts, that where you get the new "Conservative reality" that I talked about earlier.
To continue the US media analogy, in terms of attitude (not politics) you're Glenn Beck - the lone wolf outsider shouting your own ideas and theories, convinced that you're the only one seeing things how they actually are
That's laughable. To say I have similarity to "Lonesome Roads" Glenn Beck, is like saying a monkey is similar to a flea, because they're both animals. I'm no lone wolf when it comes to these ideas. Plenty of other people I know share these thoughts and ideas. The difference is, they don't talk about them on internet forums. That's all.
Inspector Sands
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 00.37
Location: London

cityprod wrote: No, that's not what I'm saying. I wasn't talking specifically about particular people, I was talking in broad terms, general terms.
Well why didn't you use broad general terms then?
This is something I've learned recently. Our brains actually filter the world in specific ways. How they filter the world is in accordance to the things we value the most. It's not one filter for political and one filter for everything else, or even different filters for different things. It's actually the same filter. Another thing I've learned is that because of this, only about 1/5th of the world's population see the real world or something pretty close to it. The rest are distorted visions, distorted by the various filters. But, it is possible to undo the biases in those filters, and essentially "unfilter", as I call it. What that means is that you remove all the editorialising, the emotion, everything that isn't the basic facts.
Citation needed.... please I'm interested in your 'actual evidence' for this.

I appreciate that some people will find that hard to believe, but that is my level of thinking. And when people continue to espouse theories and ideas, that the evidence does not support, I get angry about it.
See above... and by the way I'm not getting angry about the lack of evidence!

That's mainly because if I don't actually know about a subject, I've been caught out before expressing an opinion, and basically getting creamed for it
It still happens to you all the time though doesn't it? Tough you won't admit it
Anger gives everyone blinkers. But if you get me angry, then you have no chance of changing my mind, on anything.
You must be angry all the time then....

That's laughable. To say I have similarity to "Lonesome Roads" Glenn Beck, is like saying a monkey is similar to a flea, because they're both animals. I'm no lone wolf when it comes to these ideas. Plenty of other people I know share these thoughts and ideas. The difference is, they don't talk about them on internet forums. That's all.
How do you know that lots of other people have the same opinions as you? Do they all contact you off-forum to support you?

You are a lone wolf on these forums, whenever you're backed into a corner and everyone is proving you wrong I never see anyone coming out in support of you

The more I think of the Glenn Beck analogy the more I think it is correct.... I can see him now on TV writing on blackboard spewing forth theories on the nature of 'reality'
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

My head hurts.
TVF's London Lite.
User avatar
dosxuk
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu 07 Feb, 2008 21.37
Location: Sheffield

cityprod wrote:This is something I've learned recently. Our brains actually filter the world in specific ways. How they filter the world is in accordance to the things we value the most. It's not one filter for political and one filter for everything else, or even different filters for different things. It's actually the same filter. Another thing I've learned is that because of this, only about 1/5th of the world's population see the real world or something pretty close to it. The rest are distorted visions, distorted by the various filters. But, it is possible to undo the biases in those filters, and essentially "unfilter", as I call it. What that means is that you remove all the editorialising, the emotion, everything that isn't the basic facts.
Would you mind indulging me. I would like to know what "filter" is causing people to think that The Day Today, which came after the C4 Daily, using some of the same people and clearly has big similarities, has used elements of the C4 Daily for inspiration, when according to you that's completely made up nonsense?

As far as I can see, (my view is obviously filtered), the only person ignoring evidence that doesn't fit it yourself. Yes, Chris Morris didn't name it as a source material, but there's a huge number of people involved, and they have never been asked to extensively divulge their inspirations for the series. You don't seem to be able to accept that the graphic design team, who worked on both shows, and produced graphics which closely resemble each other, may have used their experience on the C4 Daily to guide their ideas for The Day Today, and I (and I believe everyone else involved) can't understand why you can't see that.
jamescridland
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 16 Apr, 2016 20.30

My head hurts more.
DTV
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 19.27

To be fair to cityprod, half of what he is saying regarding filters is largely true - in that people do have an unconscious confirmation bias towards their own point of view which is affected by their own ideological and religious views. The part about 1/5 of the population being able to 'see clearly' though is about as much bollocks as 3 1/2 pence sausage - and is ironically, for someone who gave me this label the other day, the kind of statement often used by conspiracy theorists whom tend to believe that only a select few are living in the 'real world' and everyone else is living in a world perverted by propaganda and their own stupidity.

Also to be a bit of a grammar fascist - but on something that does actually affect the meaning - you've used the term 'Conservative reality' as opposed to 'conservative reality' and I'm assuming you are referring to reality as perceived by people who are ideologically conservative rather than the reality of the Conservative party - they can be two very different worlds. And don't even get me started on the misuse of the term 'conservative' when dealing with ideologies particularly regarding America.
Inspector Sands
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 00.37
Location: London

DTV wrote:To be fair to cityprod, half of what he is saying regarding filters is largely true - in that people do have an unconscious confirmation bias towards their own point of view which is affected by their own ideological and religious views.

Yes that is true, there are a number of cognitive biases that people have that create their own reality. Confirmation bias is the most well known I think, which is essentially ignoring evidence that is contrary to your view or opinion.

The Day Today debacle is a good example: 1 person defiantly saying that something couldn't have happened when the evidence is that it might well have (and that, unbelievable as it sounds, was the assertion everyone was making... not that something did happen, but that something could have happened!)

Although of course both sides of an argument can accuse each other of having a confirmation bias towards their view. In that case however there wasn't any evidence to reject for the side trying to prove a negative... That's the problem with proving a negative
The part about 1/5 of the population being able to 'see clearly' though is about as much bollocks as 3 1/2 pence sausage - and is ironically, for someone who gave me this label the other day, the kind of statement often used by conspiracy theorists whom tend to believe that only a select few are living in the 'real world' and everyone else is living in a world perverted by propaganda and their own stupidity.
Yes, hence my analogy at the end of my post above. It's the sort of thing you hear a cult leader say too
Martin Phillp
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed 11 May, 2011 01.28

Someone has posted on the site as 'James Bond' asking for more BBC Two 90s idents.
TVF's London Lite.
Please Respond