The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
87 votes

Everyone sees what they want to see

In response to: Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Everyone sees what they want to see:

  • The truthers and the antitruthers;
  • The believers and the non-believers;
  • The Rah-Rah-Randers and the Rand-Can-Do-No-Gooders;
  • The statists and the anarchists;
  • The gold bugs and the paper pushers;
  • The carnivores and the vegans;
  • The Keyensianists and the Austrianists;
  • The IP defenders and the trashers;
  • The Republicans, the Democrats.

Isn't that clear enough by now? Doesn't all the data here on the DP point in that direction? There is no way we can have unity, nor is there reason to. People believe what they believe until they change their mind. Or rather, until their minds are mystically, magically changed.

Don't take it personally, and don't hold it against anyone.

People see what they want to see. Everyone does it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

Are there valid reasons for these beliefs?

The questions are, will people remain open to hearing another viewpoint and can they successfully defend their positions given this new information? People do see what they want to see, but can they defend their belief system with good enough arguments?

Very few see the truth

especially in the moment
The 'ground of being' filters it out
Ideology inoculates against it.
"What So-and-So said" creates bias against it.
Most people run everything through a sieve, shaded lenses and an operating system.

What is "Truth"? Who decides

What is "Truth"? Who decides what truth is? How can you prove truth without having exhausted every possible combination of experiences available to beings in this universe?

When thought conforms to reality, that is truth.

Reality cannot not be, no one decides, but many are free to discover and explore reality and adjust their thinking.

Subjective reality is true for me. I like chocolate.

Objective reality is universally true. Living things metabolize food sources for energy.

Einstein didn't change reality but human understanding. What was subjective reality for Einstein was proven to be objective reality.

It could have been objective reality for Newton if he had capable experimental and mathematical tools.

Intellectual honesty promotes real understanding. Only the individual can understand that the challenge is eternal and fraught with challenges.

Free includes debt-free!

I Don't Like 'Divisive' As A Negative Word

Why must we all be 'unified'?

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Michael Nystrom's picture

The only reason to be 'unified'

Is when a group of people agree to be unified, and work together towards a common goal.

To be coerced into being "unified" is a sham.

I'm not leaving DP; I'm too old and cranky for that--

and DP is my only source for news--

also, there are a lot of reasonable people on here--

but after this Boston 'thing' it's hard to post any questions or even simple comments without being called an "AJ whore" (whatever that is; I've seen very little of AJ) or a 'conspiracy theorist'--

I just don't take anything at face value.

And like the person below who said that they don't see what they want to see--

I've been looking for glimmers of hope in the world, and I'm not seeing it right now--

Michael, thank you for all your hard work all these years--

keep it up, and don't give up on DP, please. It's hard to think when there's 'noise' in any room, but I believe there are still many thinking people on DP--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

In an open forum

People ought to just sort of hang out and not take their personal views so serious where others are quite willing to stomp upon 'em.

Cypher sums it up for me

Why oh why didn't I take I take the blue pill.
I for one do not see what I want. Every day I search my environment for hope. Hope that people will care for others well being over shiny things and electric gizmos. That people will take control over their own faculties of reason and grasp a truth so obvious that when spotted it becomes almost comical. That the people espousing their various religious doctrines will actually live by those principles instead of using them as a weapon against others. I keep my gazed fixed for this and it remains elusive.
But every now and then I catch a peep and it spurs me on.
-Peace and love to you all.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke

Michael Nystrom's picture

Then what you want to see is hope

I for one do not see what I want. Every day I search my environment for hope.

Can you even see that from your own words? You see what you want to see, which is hope. You ignore all the crap, and see what you want. You have demonstrated my point.

Gangaji says give up hope. At the same time, give up hopelessness. They're both crutches.


Thank you for the candle.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke

Cats raised in rooms with horizontal lines painted on the walls

Can not see vertical lines. And vice-versa. Whether or not they want to. If food is placed on the opposite side of a surface with vertical lines the cat will 'see' nothing but empty space and will not try to get the food (if it is too far to jump).

first online source I could find to back this up -

Otherwise the book 'The Three-Pound Universe' explains this phenomenon well.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

If this post were true...

corrupt elites wouldn't have to spend trillions on propaganda as a means to divide and conquer the world's people. The vast majority of people share common values based on universally accepted notions of morality. These shared common values based on morality are the greatest threat to tyranny, that's why Hollyweird, politicians and the Global Military Industrial Complex, spend trillions fomenting corruption, division and hatred. Posts like this one support the divide and conquer agenda. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

For example Iowa straw poll

For example Iowa straw poll results as reported by the main stream media:

1 Michele Bachmann 4,823 28.6%

3 Tim Pawlenty 2,293 13.6%
4 Rick Santorum 1,657 9.8%
5 Herman Cain 1,456 8.6%
6 Rick Perry (write-in) 718 4.3%
7 Mitt Romney 567 3.4%
8 Newt Gingrich 385 2.3%
9 Jon Huntsman 69 0.4%

Did everyone get to see what they wanted? or what the mainstream media portrayed?

Your whole post made me LOL.

Your whole post made me LOL. For various reasons. Articulating two of them will suffice for my purposes.

"corrupt elites wouldn't have to spend trillions on propaganda as a means to divide and conquer the world's people."

First, this is a HUGE-a$$ assumption on your part here (on various levels). Are you in the minds of all those "corrupt elites" to say definitively that they all share the common goal of "dividing and conquering the world's people"? Did they get together at a round-table and lay that out as the ultimate aim? Was this on the agenda for aforementioned meeting, a copy of which you happened upon and wish to share with the DP community?

Of course not. Your vast and overly simplified conspiracy is more reasonably attributable to a complex confluence of selfish interests among big and small players alike. Only in your mind MUST there be a singular goal among all of these individuals "to divide and conquer the world's people."

Which brings me to the second of the points I will articulate:

Your comment, while openly calling into question the assertion of the OP, only goes to serve as perfect evidence for it.


I love me some irony.

Divide and conquer has been

Divide and conquer has been going on since Jesus was a bus boy. The same money changers have financed both sides of every major war in recent history. I can't imagine a bigger divide than war. The Democrats and Republicans are a pretty good example with wedge issues such as abortion always coming up when divide is needed yet year after year nothing changes.

To your question of common goal? No they have many tactics such as creating a problem (crises) and then offer the solution. Using a crises to accomplish goals that could otherwise never be accomplished. Without 911 or Sandy Hook none of the liberty taking laws would have passed (or been accepted).

Do they get together at Round Tables? Yes! Most notably: Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and the list goes on and on.

I understand what was meant by we have common values of right and wrong. These days it appears those lines are being blurred more and more. Bombing and killing is now okay in the name of democracy. Christmas must be x-mas, can't say Easter bunny yet must tolerate everything else. Think about if the NFL comes out of the closet on national TV but, in a school you can't use the word Easter Bunny! Morals are being turned upside down.

I don't know

pointing out difference doesn't bother me, but this is what concerns me because the difference are not being pointed out...imo

As a matter of fact, it actually scares me.


Everyone see's what they want to see...until they cant believe what they are seeing!

It is my feeling that Time ripens all things; with Time all things are revealed; Time is the father of truth. ~Francois Rabelais

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?


That is kind of can there be change if this is true?

Best advice - don't clump yourself into one group - diversify.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Tolerance is the

key to sustainable diversity. The greater the diversity, the stronger the health of the organism (collective humanity). I believe we should embrace this.

I Disagree - This Statement Is An Insult

To say that "we see what we WANT to see" is to say that:

1. We are wishful thinkers, and believe that the truth is dependent on OUR DESIRES, not reality.
2. We are dishonest, and we ignore reality in preference to OUR DESIRES.
3. We are irrational, and we do not reach conclusions through examination; we merely restate OUR DESIRES as our conclusions.

These are insults to our characters. And "agreeing to disagree" is equally dishonest; you either HAVE REASONS and you can state them, or you HAVE NO REASONS, and you ARE IRRATIONAL.

So "agreeing to disagree" is truly of no value and would devalue "agreements."

You just proved the

point of the statement. You have chosen to see is an insult, which is not what I see and nor do many others see it that way. The 3 statements you produced are projections coming out from within your mind but you mistakenly think it is contained within the author's statement while it clearly is not. This further demonstrates that each of us only sees what we choose to see or select the evidence that supports the beliefs which we hold within our minds.

This is the reality we face. It's part of the human experience. Let's do our best to recognize it and then perhaps develop improved communications with each other.

Well said.

Well said.

Obviously not everyone is going to agree on everything...

but the problem is that certain groups can't handle opposing views on here and gang up, bully, and downvote those who disagree with them. There seems to be a mob/clique mentality here and it's largely driven me away from this site. It's a shame, because the DP used to be my top source for news and liberty discussions. Now it seems to be a congregation of conspiracy theorists with everyone else shut out.

I don't play, I commission the league.

It is too bad. But every

It is too bad. But every unmoderated forum on the internet eventually devolves into cliques running the show, especially if there's a way for people to downvote or "neg" each other's posts.

Another feature of large internet forums is they're a honeypot for some of the weirdest people on the planet who are obsessed with certain topics. The more popular the forum, you don't get normal people talking casually and rationally about a subject, you get the most extreme ones. I was thinking for a while that it's like they're in a competition for who can come up with the wackiest new conspiracy theories, but I'm starting to think they believe them and it's just a matter of the site attracting some of the .0001% or whatever of people worldwide who are like that.

Alex Jones contributes some good info, but at times he seems to leap to conclusions, and I think a lot of people on here try to imitate him. Sometimes things come about not because of a great elaborate plan to do so but just because things came together and nobody really had an interest in stopping the weird path the various interests collectively pushed events down.

Personally I'm mostly interested in Austrian economics. I tried starting economic threads, to no avail. So although there are a number of brilliant people on this site who do make great posts, I'm losing interest in wading through the rest, and I plan on spending that time reading more economics books instead.

I am in exact tune with your

I am in exact tune with your first and third paragraphs. Thanks for saving me the time and risk of blogging-while-working.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

Trouble Is

Some of the people here DEMAND that we ALL see things their way or no way. I got enough of that from a Baptist preacher father-in-law to last a life time! Makes me nuts.


I don't see...

the activism.

Specifically, at the moment, I don't see people taking
the golden opportunity to confront the hypocrisy on the
issue of:

Prohibited Persons

(and yes, I want to)

The gun grabbers, at present, are framing the whole issue in terms of "gun safety"
and "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" - how could anyone be against that?

When the issue of "prohibited persons" - the forty or however many million Americans who are prohibited - on pain of ten years in federal prison - from their 2nd Amendment rights altogether.

You're an elderly disabled person wanting to protect your couple of medical marijuana plants from marauding thugs with a single shot shotgun? Makes no difference at all - you're a felon - Eric Holder and Diane Feinstein say so, and so does 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

So does this sound defensible? Of course not, but does DiFI have to worry about this? Of course not, because we are letting the control freaks define the debate and not making the slightest attempt to call them on this blatant hypocrisy.

Thousands of people asking the simple question, "Do you support the existing definitions of "prohibited persons" barred from the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights to the possession of firearms?" of their representatives would be a huge step toward redefining the whole debate.

If they agree that marijuana consumers are felons if they exercise their RKBA well, let them defend *that *. And if they answer otherwise, then ask them what they are doing to fix the system and decriminalize freedom.

Yeah, I would *love* to see this, but I don't...

Yes! +1 a thousand times.I

Yes! +1 a thousand times.

I just responded in a similar vein to a Forbes article that is getting positive vibes around here:

Hegelian dialectic at work, and nobody's the wiser. The parameters of the debate have been defined, and, in the words of Tom Woods, if it's not on the "3x5 index card of establishment approved thoughts" then it is not allowed to be discussed, and most will never consider anything not on the card.

This is bar none the biggest obstacle to the paradigm shift most of us seek.