Why People Can’t See Themselves Clearly and the Benefits of Accurate Self-Perception

For more information visit:

Stock footage from Canva.

Unless otherwise noted, scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[kentwoodpd]

Excellent piece! PLEASE KEEP these types of videos coming. It was eye opening!!

[ryansuki]

You have a knack for creating content that happens to be about things that are on my mind. My favourite saying to say to my Dad in my teens when he was being difficult was, “I wish you had the ability to view yourself from where we all sit”. I’ve always wanted to be able to see myself from an outside perspective, because I never wanted to go down the same path he did. It’s hard though, extremely hard. So I ask others to keep me humble as much as I can, and I try as hard as I can to deal with the pain associated with that as it happens. And I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but you’ve kept me humble and on a straight path more than a few times, and I’m crazy appreciative of your honesty. 😊

[missinformation]

This is also known as ‘The Tigger Syndrome’ unrelenting self confidence unfettered by any ability. Great video.

[LivingOnPurpose]

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾‼️
Well done expository.

[castigousmetamageus]

Axiom-1= You probably put that dude at the mirror in the beginning of the video because you like him.
Axiom-2= I *think* I look a bit like that dude --but _way_ hotter :)

...Therefore I *am* a dude you most likely would be jumping on.

See? Perfect Logic!

Now for the less serious part, "All animals have 4 legs" is NOT Incorrect for a significant part of the population, even though ethimologically & in (most?) cultures it is, at least when people ignore "All", replace it for "Some" or just ignore it altogether.

But the problem here is not of logic but of belief & representation of reality (language).

valid≠true is a proposition with the express & precise *purpose* of illustrating that _logical-only_ paths cannot reflect truth per se even when being perfectly valid *within* their logical framework.

valid≠true is formulated to illustrate that discrepancy and as a warning that to try to figure out _true_, logic is needed but an outside representational system or _language_ is required.

Since 'animus' is a latin word that in spite of being classical, is NOT _Universal_, there might be (or have been in the past) cultures where they consider that the main attribute for living beings is their association with the ground not the air, so they could have a limited grasp for the significance of the 'anima' part and/or or the relative significance of the 'air' element as essential part of the definition of "animal".

It's not logic but language(s) the main factor in shaping our _perception_ of what is _true_, what is _false_ and what is _null_ or _unable-to-be-determined_ (mainly because the particular language doesn't have a word, symbol or way to represent it).

Obviously on top of it, although secondary, there's the logical fallacies you describe, *all*, *some*, *most*, hierarchies of sets, sub-sets et al.

But even when the logic is flawless, the main obstacle to _approaching_ true is Language and being able to have/produce symbols or representations of reality that are _Accurate-Enough_, or more commonly, availability of complementary languages that by themselves are flawed but in combination can work much better in trying to represent reality.

I don't put much credit into "debunking" or "fact-checking" precisely for the same reasons, as they're ways to determine truth by the use of necessarily limited or enclosed symbols, meanings, representations and beliefs that the "debunker" use as base to formulate the axioms they start with (many times in a knowingly dishonest way) and obviously ends-with, and which obviously lead to misleading conclusions.

Even with all their logic being flawless, they might "debunk" something within the framework or language they use (or sub-set language) but not when using a bigger set or a different altogether language or set of meanings.

They might be worthy of having in the back of your mind but with a big pinch of salt.

This is precisely the conundrum of today's politization of everything, different people having allowed themselves to be led into accepting different/opposite meanings for the same words that their social contexts coerce them into accepting.

e.g. Like "rasicm" and the toxic notion that it's linked to "power" however that word is defined too by their social contexts: Ax1= A rasict is someone with/in power that is also a discriminatory/ateful person, Ax2= Blank people have no power even though they can be discriminatory, Conclusion = Blank people _cannot_ be rasicts.

[trykdragon]

I was going to itemize all the great things about this video...would take too long...Absolutely Outstanding Everything. };}]~