lol “just saying” a point that influences maybe all human behavior past present and future… loving it

Honestly there is no such thing as “Your OWN perception”. Perception is conceived from emotion/thoughts which we were taught. They are not OUR thoughts but a culmination of every single person that we interacted with or just overheard.. We are taught someone else’s thoughts which shapes our Emotions gives us our perception that creates our Reality…just saying.

Our thoughts are not our OWN. We do not have individual thought. Starting a blank slate EVERYONE who’s had contact with you has written in/on it. The same applies to them. That is billions of people creating your/my thoughts. Even if you search out new information that new info. is automatically altered by your perception. Thoughts we were TAUGHT shapes the Emotions we feel..gives us our Perception which creates our Reality. This is all deeper than most want to grasp. Thank you for sharing. Lorraine

Kelly’s, “In an uncertain atmosphere, all ambiguous behaviors will be interpreted negatively,” certainly describes what we have in our news today when headlines use quotes that speak ambiguously or with use the quote out of context.

A very helpful discussion. Many thanks.

these two questions are what i was addressing in particular:
” ‘What could I do that would be visible and meaningful? What would create new data points that would help individuals realign their perceptions with reality?’ ”.

when you say “new data points … realign perceptions with reality” i think it should read “new data points … demonstrate the value of a certain perspective” (…since data points imply a certain framing of the issue).

i addressed these in my invisible post (I emailed it to “info” at vitalsmarts; you can pick and choose if you’d like to respond to anything, make a weekly prompt of it, trash it with prejudice, etc).

fully in agreement that the statements should be supported by living proof…

…, but what i think is being withheld (depending on your position: e.g. bosses can withhold more intangibles that impact careers under their stewardship than non-bosses, agreement on a shared perspective/reality being probably the biggest one) is a common or collaborative framing of the issue; withholding that, imo, defines the quintessential political mechanism, with all its nasty connotations of “politics”.
(you said it exactly: “i’m … withholding until you change your perspective.”, i.e. stubbornly keeping my own perspective, the implication being “because it’s the ‘right’ perspective!”)

you could also say, if those who disagree with an issue’s framing are forced out, that consequences were thus imposed… but then i think it’s more about aligning values (i.e. they weren’t pushed out as much as not in the right niche with which to begin …, but by using “niche” i’m trying to imply a misalignment between the community’s –and not one individual’s– perspective/reality and those who were removed or removed themselves).

finding common ground, values and goals is great starting point, and then you have to ask yourself what would I need to do in order to breathe life into those statements. Coercion would suggest I’m imposing a consequence if you don’t believe me, or withholding until you change your perspective. Whereas with symbolic actions, it requires time and patience, and there is not guarantee that perceptions will change today or even next week.