"Imagination has its importance in creative innovation, entertainment, and escape. But its use as a generator of fictional narrative cannot substitute for the truthful perception and recognition of the actual factual, The Real. All That Is is only and always Real." - David Apollo

---

The Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble - hardens the embrace of (or commitment to) beliefs to the point that they will NOT be reconsidered.

• ConserveLiberty regards ANY learning that has occurred through our interaction with others or our environment, and thus that is not directly the result of genetically determined behaviors or perceptions, as Indoctrination.
• For almost all of us, our Imagination Facility comes into play with our Indoctrination Ensemble.
• Denial and Dismissal of things in conflict with our narratives (beliefs,) and especially narratives we have been indoctrinated with, is a hallmark feature of a highly expressing Indoctrination Ensemble. Alternate views are simply dismissed, ignored. No reconsideration is ever attempted or contemplated.
• Paradoxically, while the instinct to embrace indoctrinations enables perspectives that are helpful for us to persist, it is also true that these same instincts can lead us to accept indoctrinations that work to our disadvantage.
• Many mass indoctrinations are based on Imagination and Intention rather than on Credible Facts and Rational Logic. They are known to be Non-fact-based by the Leadership that advocates them. To gain acceptance they are paired with easy to embrace narratives that the Indoctrinations may not actually realize.
• Those with a strong Indoctrination Ensemble (set near one extreme) tend not to consider alternate positions that are in conflict with their indoctrinated beliefs. They consider themselves "practical minded" and "grounded" in the real world.
• Those with a weak Indoctrination Ensemble (set near the other extreme) will comfortably reexamine their narratives and beliefs. These are the innovators, inventors, optimizers, and true scientists.

Our mechanism and ability to become indoctrinated certainly depends on our genetic foundations. However, not everything we believe is believed directly because of a genetically determined instinctual behavior or perception. Much of what we believe is because we have learned it from other non-genetic resources. We have uncovered or discovered ourselves some of what we believe. In other instances, we have been taught our beliefs through the influence others. ConserveLiberty regards ANY learning that is not directly the result of genetically determined behaviors or perceptions as Indoctrination. Thus, on it own. the term "Indoctrination" has neither positive or negative connotations.

Hundreds (actually thousands) of examples can be given of how indoctrinations that we have received via social routes (or even our own personally contemplative routes) result in our NOT considering alternate positions that are in conflict with them. We are aware of indoctrinations that we regard as useful, and others that we regard as corrupted or less useful, even damaging. Some we regard as reflecting elements of Truth as best as we can know such, and others we regard as simply Untruthful and often used for other manipulative purposes.

We will not focus on those thousands of indoctrinations in this chapter's section. We are only interested in an example that we can use to illustrate the concept. Thus, we will pick just one example. An example that shouldn't cause difficult issues to be raised. On the other hand, since Indoctrination is involved, it will! Because in part, that is the nature of Indoctrination, the "math" (so to speak) of how it works with us.

Our example:

The picture of The Healed Knee nearby is what ConserveLiberty would consider a fact, or pretty close to it. Why only close to it? Firstly it's only a "picture of the knee". The knee itself is the actual fact. Secondly, the picture is only as good as the device recording it. Its brightness and contrast was increased a bit to make it easier to view and inspect. Aside from that, no additional alterations have been made to the photo.

And what do you see? You see a healthy knee. On close inspection, you will notice a minor skin imperfection, a scar, about 2 inches in length running horizontally about mid-picture. That scar does not feel different than any of the skin around it. Just as soft and flexible as any of the rest of the skin around it. I am not ever aware it is there, except for the creation this blog.

So what's the big deal with The Knee? Well, this knee and its very minor scar are going to be used as a most profound example of how even the most intelligent and fair-minded people you may ever know will completely avoid consideration of an entirely plain and unthreatening fact when that fact does not conform to the narrative they have come to believe.

Even when the fact is presented with a friendly and rational wrapper around it.

This behavior is facilitated by the Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble. For those who might prefer another term, we could also refer to it as the Embrace of Cultural Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble. ConserveLiberty will often abbreviate the name of this Filter as The Indoctrination Ensemble.

Generally, those who disregard actual facts that do not conform to the narrative they have embraced ... often are not aware that they are doing so. If confronted, they will deny that they are disregarding facts and sincerely believe that they are not doing so. Contradictory Irony is typical of many of The Filters we use that impact behavior and perception.

Many, many examples of "facts not influencing beliefs, especially when the undeniable facts are contrary to those beliefs" could be given. We are simply choosing the example of The Knee for today's posting. And, because of my own experiences with facts like these - that they are not believed even when they are so plainly true - I have come to understand that my role within the realm of the living is not to convince people, but rather simply to bear witness to Truth. Whether or not one considers something sufficiently to recognize its truth is not within my control. I cannot influence that. One's Filters are what one's Filters are.

Many may declare that I am mistaken, and that if only I had presented truths in a more convincing manner then they would have been better understood and accepted. Or, they may suggest (often fairly) that my facts may not be facts at all. I understand both perspectives. And most of my life I have accepted that either excuse could be credible, still do, and have strived to be more accurate and engaging rhetorically. But alas, I now understand that the assertion that "the fault lies with the Presenters that the truths they are sharing are not accepted" is ... actually ... bullshit.

It is certainly true that some presenters are just so far from credible that no intelligent person would take them seriously. On the other hand, many do take those "incredible" presenters quite seriously. And then there are those that are quite credible, and yet are dismissed and not taken seriously by quite a few as well.

We can observe this type of behavior (the dismissal of credible facts) every day, involving almost every interaction between two people or two groups, and independent of whether or not they are offered coherently or rationally.

And, of course, referring to the image of my knee ... well ... that knee is a fact whether one dismisses it as such or not.

The details of the example of The Knee are not actually important, overall, to the top-level message in this posting. Ordinarily I would not detail specific examples because I would not want to interfere with the communication of more important abstract concepts. In this case, the concept is, generally, that many people embrace beliefs or narratives that they will NOT reconsider when facts which are obvious and credible are offered that are in conflict with those beliefs.

I will, however, tell the story of The Knee because personal stories can make these posts more reader "friendly." But, alas, telling this story will usually not render its facts more embraceable for those with conflicting beliefs!

→ The Introduction above was last updated 30 Oct 2017 11:55 PDT ←

---

A few years back, I was on a camping trip. Coincidentally, it was one teaching wilderness medicine techniques, and was attended by dozens of physicians and their families. I enjoyed everyone - great to be with, lots of fun, bright people. Most of the days were broken up with time for hiking or rafting, and we all took advantage of that. A few days into the trip, I accidentally gouged my knee on a sharp boulder while quickly hiking past it.

This was no ordinary scrape or abrasion. The slice was deep and bled freely. And, since I was on a hike, it would be some time before I got back to the camp to take care of it. I wrapped it with whatever I could, continued on, and put a friendly face on the issue while our hike was completed.

On my return back to camp, many of the docs offered whatever they had, and it was amazing what I was able to collect. Bandages. Wound scrubbers. Anti-bacterial soap. Many offered to treat my wound. I had different plans - I wanted to take care of the wound myself. And, I wanted isopropyl alcohol (IPA).

All the docs and nurses recommended against the IPA, which is exactly why I wanted to take care of the wound myself. One of the docs did come forward privately and offered me a bottle of IPA he had brought along because he was also hunting and using it to sterilize the tools he cleaned his game with. I told him that that was exactly what I wanted it for - to sterilize my wound. I asked him why all the docs, including him, recommended against using the IPA on my cut. He'd already heard all the other reasoning given, but offered me one more, saying that most docs were averse to causing pain if they felt they didn't have to. I chuckled, told him I'd deal with it, and then we both laughed.

Most of the reasoning given by docs and nurses for avoiding the IPA (both then, and many other times before and after this event) are as follows:

• Hydrogen Peroxide is just as good.
  
  
• The IPA will damage the tissue that you want to heal.
  
  
• The IPA will not kill the bacteria like the other stuff they have.
  
  
• The IPA hurts a lot, and not for much benefit.

They've all been taught the above in the training they have received at all their schools. They have been positively rewarded by their mentors for repeating the belief. And so they also find that they all agree with each other.

My replies, which are factual, and the docs would know it if they were taught well, are usually as follows:

• The hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is NOT as good a disinfectant as IPA and is sold in a diluted formulation. Importantly, the body has circulating enzymes that begin to neutralize the H2O2 right away, which is why wounds fizz when hydrogen peroxide is applied. The fizz is the peroxide being converted to oxygen and water.
  
  Thus, the already diluted H2O2 is not active very long to kill the microorganisms that may have found their way into the wound. The IPA is active much longer.
  
  
• I am not worried about the IPA damaging tissue that is already damaged. In fact, the damaged tissue is not going to be used in the healing process. It will be clotted, and eventually eliminated.
  
  
• Isopropyl alcohol kills a broad spectrum of bacteria. In fact, none of my wounds treated with IPA and kept clean afterward during my entire lifetime have ever become infected.
  
  
• If infection does happen because a wound is not adequately disinfected, that will be uncomfortable for much longer than the few seconds of pain I will feel with the application of IPA. And, the infection will be much more likely to cause larger scarring.
  
  
• 
  While the application of IPA can cause pain, the pain is not generally due to actual harm being caused to me. I've never seen any damage result after the application of IPA. Healing, however, is always observed after sanitation of the wound with IPA. I generally apply IPA, and repeat the application until doing so no longer causes pain - usually by the second application. A moment after the first application, the pain is often gone, and the quicker healing is most welcome.

Upon realizing that nothing I am saying is changing any minds, or influencing any previously held indoctrination or belief, I then say something similar to, "I understand that you may have been taught otherwise, and who am I to suggest that a biochemist's thoughts on this should take priority over what you have been taught by others. So check out my knee. What do you think of the way that it has healed? What was originally a very deep cut now looks fairly normal. How does that square with your experience and what you have been taught?"

The opinions among medical personnel regarding the use of IPA for wound sanitation never change, regardless of evidence or factual presentation. At most, the medical people I discuss this with decide I just need to be tolerated until I shut up. I easily pick that up, and once I do I cease what is clearly a futile endeavor. Again.

→ We are all built differently. Some are able to perceive Fact and Truth more fully than others. ←

→ The section above was last updated 31 Aug 2016 14:15 PDT ←

---

What would explain the resistance of intelligent people to reconsider their beliefs in the face of clearly real, and credible evidence? Actually, resistance is not an accurate verb in this context. No consideration of the newly presented facts or thoughts is happening. There is no resistance, or even refusal, taking place at all. It is as if, instead, what is actually being presented is dismissed as anything that would be productive considering. Resistance implies effort. No effort is being expended to ignore what is contrary to the existing belief. The only effort being expended is in the polite banter that takes place as "the other" offers all the reasons (see the example above) why their view is correct while the perspective that is in conflict with their view is at best a misinterpretation.

Thus, no real dialog is taking place. Rather, its more like two monologues, one in reply to the other, with no generation of thought provoking insights occurring at all.

Does that not remind you of thousands of examples of other interactions that you have observed in your own life? Topics that range broadly into every area of human interest. Every area:

• Many not really such a big deal.
• Many others having enormous impact on huge numbers of people.
• Many helpful.
• Many, ultimately, hurtful.

---

To dismiss an obvious fact implies at the very least that someone who believes themself rational (and almost all do, whether or not they actually and factually are!) is imagining that what is being presented to them is either not an actual fact or is not a relevant fact if it is a fact. One would not think that such a perspective could be arrived at, but imagination is an amazing thing. The Imagination Facility that almost all of us have is capable of actually suspending disbelief. Using imagination while watching a movie or reading a story, one can pretend that the fiction being depicted is actually real, whether it is simply a fabricated story or is depicting actions that one understands are not possible in the real world that we live in. For a moment, one believes that the fiction is really happening or did, and thus we become immersed in the story, participating in it as an observer.

For almost all of us, our Imagination Facility comes into play with our Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble.

What would make it so easy to believe the obvious fiction over the obvious fact? In our example, to believe that the healthy knee being shown is either not actually a fact or not rationally related to the point being made, despite its actual relationship to that point. Why would such a perspective be so easy to adopt? Why would considering The Imaginary as more credible than The Real be an instinctively preferred reaction? We categorize the reaction as instinctive because no consideration or thought appears to have been drawn upon to generate or inform it. The reaction happens with as much conscious effort as does the beating of our heart. Are we addicted to prioritizing The Imaginary over the The Real? What does Addiction mean in this context?

Consider the possible evolutionary pressures that may have been important historically to our selective survival ...

→ The section above was last updated 20 Dec 2016 17:00 PST ←

---

← Previous - First Page       Next - Selective Advantages of Indoctrination →

Consider thoughtfully.