In the last post, we saw a tape from NASA that proved UFOs were out in space along with the space shuttle Columbia. Proved, that is, until that interpretation of the tape was easily debunked.
Sue Houston left a comment on that post that is a perfect segue to what I wanted to share today:
…clearly the space guys [from NASA] are not excited by these objects. They know what they are, as they are familiar with the optics of the situation. That should have been reason enough for “true believers” to take pause.
As we will see, one person’s lack of excitement is another person’s stunned silence.
I actually encountered the NASA tape as part of the following video by David Sereda.
At time 57:43 of the video (yes, I watched that far), UFOs are starting to swarm around the tether that the space shuttle has deployed. The NASA commentator says, “This view showing, uh… <long pause>,” and then David Sereda inserts, “He’s stunned.”
The NASA commentator could not have sounded less stunned. He is so slow-paced while describing a scene where almost nothing is happening that I’m surprised he had not fallen asleep.
Unfortunately, David Sereda was not aware of the Truth-Loving Test for Amateur Psychologists:
A truth-lover does not think he knows what’s in other people’s heads.
This is so important that I made it my New Year’s Resolution in 2013. As I said then, often our assessment of people’s motives has more to do with us than with them.
If David Sereda had been silent while viewing the tape, it would have been because he was stunned. but that doesn’t mean the NASA commentator had the same motive for being silent.
I struggle to pass this test all the time, particularly with respect to people I disagree with.
To take a current example: let’s say I meet someone who seems inordinately hostile to immigration. Is he racist? Is he truly afraid that the immigrants will “steal” jobs from Americans? When he says he’s only against illegal immigration, is that true? Is he unthinkingly lapping up whatever his political party or a radio personality feeds him? Or has he read rigorous, academic studies that show immigration is harmful to the country? If so, has he considered rebuttals to those studies and found them wanting?
Without further conversation, I don’t know, and I shouldn’t let myself think I know.
Next time: If there’s anything more risky for a truth-lover than being an amateur psychologist, it’s being an amateur scientist.