I was merely providing a research pathway, as there is no simple answer, only complex ones that take time to discern.
As well, as you might and probably do know, there is no way to communicate a complex long form answer to a question..to another..that those individuals will have to put the work in themselves.
The end game is that entrenched positions of individuals as compared to a group....simply do not bring about change en masse. The given entrenched position changes one person at a time, like grains of sand on a beach.
Which is why any $25k challenge will be a waste of time, for both parties and for anyone else outside of a few given potential attendees.
for example beyond all the complexities of the quality of the test, and so on....there is something more problematic. Something a layer deeper in or down. Something that is most difficult to swallow, or deal with is that objectivity has been scientifically proven, through and by hundreds of vetted tests, to be a non existent thing. This is now coming at us, as a group, from multiple directions in finished works and cutting edge physics revelations.
Point being, that an ’objective test’ now has to be modified to deal with the new understandings of the fundamentals around the now falsified idea of objectivity. Otherwise the regimen as it stands ---is likely to be found as invalid.
Getting the people involved to understand that new emergent fundamental (objectivity being falsified), is going to be tough sledding at best. How does one get objectivity in science to reform itself? Fundamentally? It’s a human ego/emotions/hind-brain problem, not just a complex and deep question of logic and data. The problem has never been the logic or idea of logic, it has always been the human filter and carrier.
As usual, it is more complex than it looks.
As well, as you might and probably do know, there is no way to communicate a complex long form answer to a question..to another..that those individuals will have to put the work in themselves.
The end game is that entrenched positions of individuals as compared to a group....simply do not bring about change en masse. The given entrenched position changes one person at a time, like grains of sand on a beach.
Which is why any $25k challenge will be a waste of time, for both parties and for anyone else outside of a few given potential attendees.
for example beyond all the complexities of the quality of the test, and so on....there is something more problematic. Something a layer deeper in or down. Something that is most difficult to swallow, or deal with is that objectivity has been scientifically proven, through and by hundreds of vetted tests, to be a non existent thing. This is now coming at us, as a group, from multiple directions in finished works and cutting edge physics revelations.
Point being, that an ’objective test’ now has to be modified to deal with the new understandings of the fundamentals around the now falsified idea of objectivity. Otherwise the regimen as it stands ---is likely to be found as invalid.
Getting the people involved to understand that new emergent fundamental (objectivity being falsified), is going to be tough sledding at best. How does one get objectivity in science to reform itself? Fundamentally? It’s a human ego/emotions/hind-brain problem, not just a complex and deep question of logic and data. The problem has never been the logic or idea of logic, it has always been the human filter and carrier.
As usual, it is more complex than it looks.