Rebel5soul
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2024
- Posts
- 6,437
I really don't care where the 'expert' originates from but if the make sense and the premise stands up to observed behavior then some credibility has to be attached and that's why I felt it was worth sharing.More than a few, and they aren't the ones accused of it, either. They're the 1 + 3 = 13 crowd who cherry-pick a statement from the text, out of context and/or incompletely, and make a sweeping generalization from it. They're the ones who discern a pattern from one or two observations and erroneously see causation and draw conclusion. The funny bit is, there is evidence here to put that shoe on other feet.
I am still wary of Fibbie "experts," like the one who talked all the stuff about what they can track through the mail that they learned from Bomber Ted, forgetting that he'd still be out there if his brother didn't rat him out.
Just like the U-boat spies . . . .
You notice how the internet was tied into that ball of wax? From another source back in the late 2000's, about the time Obama was elected (and that is for time reference, Obama was not a 'causitive' agent here) the internet metrics regarding responses to content were getting more sophisticated and it was determined that if content could illicit a response of anger then the content would get more engagement.
Taking the two observations and mixing them together we have a generation of socially detached individuals who have been purposely fed a diet of information specifically designed to make them angry. These are very bad combinations.
