> It causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for me. Why? To understand what is actually going on one doesn't have to be in the "dissonant" state. What's needed i

> It causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for me. Why? To understand what is actually going on one doesn't have to be in the "dissonant" state. What's needed is just the understanding that simplifications we use to "model" the surroundings are just that, and be aware of the cases when our models are too wrong to even be the right simplification in the given context. In short, in some contexts, a "spherical cow" is approximate enough, in some others, it isn't. And both the "model" and what is "enough" can be checked for validity of the assumption. The same should be done for the sources of your information: are they biased by design? Do they have an agenda? Can you directly confirm that the information they present is valid? Sometimes even a lot of "information" hides some basic facts that, when considered, would invalidate the whole premise of the specific "presentation." Politically, you don't have to believe in everything the "messenger" stands for to check and accept that some specific information is true. An example, one thinker noted: - The effective political definition in the USA media of the "peace process" is simply "whatever option the USA wants in the moment." Therefore, it's by definition impossible that the USA is "against the peace process" and such news you will never read, even if the USA actively supports the war for years. This claim can be verified. And if true, it gives you a different perspective of the news you read. Orwellian, in 1984 sense? Sure. People always think that such works of fiction are "simply a fiction." In fact, they are very much based on the real-life experiences of the author in his world in the time he lived. The ways humans interact doesn't change fast, the same patterns can be traced through the centuries. Another example: I've found out that Tom Lehrer sung "The Wild West Is Where I Want to Be" in 1953. (Knowing the lyrics is needed to be able to follow). Not knowing enough, I didn't understand that he was able to make such a song then. But checking his biography (on the internet) it seems that he as a mathematician before he wrote the song worked for the NSA (or whatever the equivalent was called then) in the places where actual atomic bomb tests were prepared. He personally seems to confirm that in some of his recorded appearances cheerfully saying something like "I was in the West working as the spy." Understand that gives you a new view to his lyrics. The third example, real life actually has enough "movie like" stories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg