Why do so many people still fall for the "whistleblower/insider" hustle?

[syrwong]

After watching many splendid videos of interviews of knowledgeable researchers and informers, the initial reaction must be shock and the urge to spread the information. Naturally there followed the thirst for deeper understanding. This was when the “empire strikes back”. They had no trouble in bringing out imposters, false whistle blowers etc. to give say 40% or more truths and 60% bulls to mislead and discredit us. There must be technology they possess to allow the actors perform very well, especially when the claimed whistle blower did not have to face the camera or to prove anything. Therefore it is very easy to fall for the trick, and excusably so.
We should not blame ourselves to much, or others who seem so gullible. Who has not fallen for deceit? Like children learning to skate, it is with each fall they stand up and become stronger. The game in this third density is long and takes many more falls before we advance.

[greybeard]

Tongue in cheek
I have to say that one has to be careful not to suggest that the object of admiration--the whistle blower is speaking a load of #### early on.
Best just to be quiet and watch the. "Such and such said--hanging on every word brigade."
Eventually the lack of consistency and of course the miss information, which might even be believed by the centre of attention, will be seen to discredit the former hero.
It takes time to develop discernment, so its ok to not see through story tellers immediately.

Chris

[Inmortal719]

I hope I have time this weekend but I'll post a big thread about ''Deception training'' something I have been into for quite a while now, it might open a lot of clues or tips into catching these hoaxes faster and easier, and will definitely help everyone here on avalon with their personal life..

[ghostrider]

Another reason the ETs stay hidden , earth humans will embrace fantasy and kill the truth quickly... Most earth humans do not want to be responsible for their thoughts , actions and feelings... Its much easier to look for higher powers, or people in the know , anything to keep from looking in the mirror... Remember we are genetically altered with short life spans , our Syrian creator overlords knew what they were doing, it kept us from learning the truth and made us easy to control and manipulate...We operate on 10 percent brain use, imagine us at 50% , or 80% ...

[mojo]

Discernment is great to apply but there are also other factors like history, motive, evidence. But also careful to keep from throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as there will be statistical outliers with testimony that sounds like WSFG (weird science & freakin magic) but authentic. Another factor is the audience, even with known hoax channels and evidence in this age of being politically correct we give these folks mostly a pass with their proofs and they are hardly challenged and continue to propagate the info.

[Delight]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
What inside info is given that makes one person's crazy sounding claims plausible and another's claims not?

I also think Calz makes a good point that many of us tend to rely on those who might have built up some trust with us (based on our assuming that those persons have had more experience with the seemingly implausible or more back-channel info to vet him/her/it etc.). So that if someone like you, BR, (or even one of your mods) is endorsing or "vouching" for someone whose claims are hard (if not impossible) to verify, even responding confidently to those who dare to question those vouched-for insiders/whistle-blowers, then we might have a more open mind towards the alleged "insider," despite our initial doubts or skepticism.

when the first interview came out with Shane (as an example), some of us were vocal in a way that made some PA members "cringe" (that word was used by one poster). That is because we are supposed to treat these fragile experiencers with kid gloves and especially if they are "one of us" IMO. But then if BR says so, it is then OK to be a "critic" or even a bit snarky.

I am always surprised to see a predictable first "held up" and then "pushed off" pedestal trajectory for the "appreciated insider". It isn't necessary to be mean to the one who claims but it is OK to challenge. One issue is that doubt is not a popular position at first because of how we view the "experiencers".

IMO, being like an investgative journalist is the best kind of position. One does not have to be brilliant, just a bit dogged to uncover cosistency and inconsistency and provenance and use that as a guide to avoid entanglement.

[Karpos]

One of the reasons that many of us still pay attention to insiders and whistleblowers is that much of our current or past (in my case) Conspiratorial World View is based on past insiders and whistleblowers, plus 'experiencers'. What we tend to forget is that some people are just crazy and have no intelligent motive to lie about their stories and experiences. Compulsive Liars and sociopaths have a perfect outlet on the internet even in forums like this. It's very sketchy, this game of befriending like minded people when you come in contact with experiencers or people who are only repeating what they've heard others experience, to get the same attention or run the same scam. (Some of your online friends are sociopaths and compulsive liars, and neither of you are willing to admit it.)

Again, much of our World View when it comes to believing in Illuminati and Aliens has come through others' experiences and testimonies, like Alex Collier and Billy Meier on the ET side, or Svali and Cathy O'Brian on the Illuminati side. Then we forget or never even knew that some of this is craziness that has been going on before our era, with George Adamski and Van Tassel on the experiencer side, and then William Cooper, who for all his mania only regurgitated and revived an older Christian Hysteria about the Illuminati being Satanic and living beyond their 18th century roots*.

In light of Corey Goode gaining audience on the experiencer side, and Shane Bales on the illuminati side, we can see how in these two cases-- CRAZY PEOPLE can spark hysterias and create narratives that are then repeated and turned into gospel, like the older narratives about aliens and illuminati.

We want to believe anyone who says they KNOW about aliens or evil illuminatis because it confirms our beliefs that have been built upon by the unproven testimony of others before them, who may have been just as crazy or shady.

And yes, we want to KNOW if something is going on with ETs and Satanic World Rulers, but the fact may be that it's all hysteria, as many people have looked into these things and found it all lacking. I used to believe but I'm now a skeptic, though somewhat open minded only because I have psychic experiences. But having psychic experiences does not confirm my old beliefs about Aliens and Illuminatis ... they are just mysteries still, and I'm glad to be on this forum with like minded people, as these things obviously still interest me, even though I'm often VERY critical of the latest batch of insiders and whistleblowers, and for good reason. They fail to convince, and a place like Avalon should set the bar instead of being considered a den of gullible 'believers' ... it could go either way.
----------------------------------

*This is my current belief about Illuminati, simply stated from another source:

The Illuminati was an organization (1776-1785) of enlightened intellectuals whose goal was the overthrow of an oppressive monarchy. They were very unsuccessful in their endeavor because that monarch successfully destroyed the organization and imprisoned their leadership.

The only Illuminati that exists today is the invention of writers and bloggers who enjoy feeding the imaginations of paranoid and reality-challenged individuals who are unable to grasp real social issues.

The only goal of these perpetrators of the myth is inflating their own egos and sense of power. It's as simple as that.

The Ruiner saga confirms this for me.

[Kari Lynn]

Posted by workingactor (here)
Real talk. After the shane fiasco, after so many others who just made stuff up..why are people still so gullible?

I'm not denying the subject matter. I have no problem believing in Illuminati. and my own direct experiences validate that we are being visited by offworlders, etc..but WHY,are people so willing to believe in every person who swears on a stack of bibles that they have the inside scoop, then proceed to regurgitate info that's been in the public domain for decades, in some cases? Why does Corey Goode have a following? Or Wilcock? or any of the other hucksters?

I don't get it. there are people here who are psychic, shamans, remote viewers, lightworkers, etc etc etc. People on this forum should be the HARDEST critics, the toughest to fool..yet,again and again some keep falling for the same old tricks.

Someone, please, explain to me why, because, with all due respect, I don't get it.

For most people, myself included, it's just as Bill had stated. I've been searching for answers for so long, that when someone comes in claiming to be in position of knowledge, I listen. Fortunately, so far I seem to be able to sense when someone is not what they say. I didn't realize I did language analysis until Bill wrote about it, but then realized I do that quite a bit. I also seem to be able to sense things in their writing. Part of my remote viewing ability maybe? Not sure. Never sure about that gift/curse that I have. Always pops up when I least want it to. Though I've never read anything about Shane's stuff, so I can't stand in judgment of it. I never judge other's stuff anyway. I just usually leave them be, and others will see it for themselves eventually. Is better they see that for themselves. It sharpens their own skills of discernment.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

the process by which you decide that someone like Bill Deagle ... is worthy of taking seriously

I've listened to all four very dense hours of Dr Bill's seminal Dec 2006 Granada Forum lecture seven (or is it eight?) times through, and also had the entire thing transcribed. That may be a world record.

(I've also met him at his house twice, once when Kerry and I interviewed him for three hours.)

For anyone who's never seen this, I would personally very highly recommend it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8RX61WA8Ow

[Karpos]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

the process by which you decide that someone like Bill Deagle ... is worthy of taking seriously

I've listened to all four very dense hours of Dr Bill's seminal Dec 2006 Granada Forum lecture seven (or is it eight?) times through, and also had the entire thing transcribed. That may be a world record.

(I've also met him at his house twice, once when Kerry and I interviewed him for three hours.)

For anyone who's never seen this, I would personally very highly recommend it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8RX61WA8Ow

Bill Deagle?

Dr. William Deagle is a physician, a prophet, a government insider/whistleblower, and one of the two witnesses described in the Book of Revelation. He knows what really happened at Columbine, the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City. He could be the ruler of the world, but he has chosen to enlighten the masses instead. Thanks to him, the world may someday be safe from Modified Attack Baboons.

For more on Bill Deagle, http://swallowingthecamel.me/2008/02/27/456/

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

the process by which you decide that someone like Bill Deagle ... is worthy of taking seriously

I've listened to all four very dense hours of Dr Bill's seminal Dec 2006 Granada Forum lecture seven (or is it eight?) times through, and also had the entire thing transcribed. That may be a world record.

(I've also met him at his house twice, once when Kerry and I interviewed him for three hours.)

For anyone who's never seen this, I would personally very highly recommend it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8RX61WA8Ow

Ok thanks, Bill, but posting yet another Deagle video without explaining why you find him so credible -- despite all the outlandish claims he makes about himself and his own importance -- isn't very enlightening to me about how you distinguish between someone like Deagle and someone like Shane. Perhaps you meant for this video to answer the question, but I just can't subject myself to this man one more time. I've tried -- and have watched other Deagle videos you have recommended, but honestly, I find it incredible that anyone is giving this man the time of day, let alone someone as well-respected as you. Among other things, the man HAS claimed to have been offered the Chief Pindar position, to have spoken frequently with archangels, and to have hung out with Jesus personally. You express alarm/concern/doubt about Shane's claim that he trained Putin at 13 years old, but the things this guy claims does not raise any concerns for you? Or do you just overlook those claims because the rest of what he says makes sense to you? I just don't understand the distinction. And if Deagle hung out with Jesus, isn't it just as possible that Shane hung out with Putin, trained him in psychic powers, and is also the bastard son of Anu to boot?

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, and yes, Nasu, I agree that we are all just fallible humans, but since so many members respect BR's opinion, and are often persuaded by his thumbs up/thumbs down on any particular whistleblower/insider (again because of the presumption of back-channel intel the rest of us don't have), I think it would be really helpful to know why some people making seemingly bat-**** crazy claims about themselves and who they are/were/will someday be are still found to be plausible, credible, etc. while others are not.

[Nasu]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

the process by which you decide that someone like Bill Deagle ... is worthy of taking seriously

I've listened to all four very dense hours of Dr Bill's seminal Dec 2006 Granada Forum lecture seven (or is it eight?) times through, and also had the entire thing transcribed. That may be a world record.

(I've also met him at his house twice, once when Kerry and I interviewed him for three hours.)

For anyone who's never seen this, I would personally very highly recommend it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8RX61WA8Ow

Ok thanks, Bill, but posting yet another Deagle video without explaining why you find him so credible -- despite all the outlandish claims he makes about himself and his own importance -- isn't very enlightening to me about how you distinguish between someone like Deagle and someone like Shane. Perhaps you meant for this video to answer the question, but I just can't subject myself to this man one more time. I've tried -- and have watched other Deagle videos you have recommended, but honestly, I find it incredible that anyone is giving this man the time of day, let alone someone as well-respected as you. Among other things, the man HAS claimed to have been offered the Chief Pindar position, to have spoken frequently with archangels, and to have hung out with Jesus personally. You express alarm/concern/doubt about Shane's claim that he trained Putin at 13 years old, but the things this guy claims does not raise any concerns for you? Or do you just overlook those claims because the rest of what he says makes sense to you? I just don't understand the distinction. And if Deagle hung out with Jesus, isn't it just as possible that Shane hung out with Putin, trained him in psychic powers, and is also the bastard son of Anu to boot?

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, and yes, Nasu, I agree that we are all just fallible humans, but since so many members respect BR's opinion, and are often persuaded by his thumbs up/thumbs down on any particular whistleblower/insider (again because of the presumption of back-channel intel the rest of us don't have), I think it would be really helpful to know why some people making seemingly bat-**** crazy claims about themselves and who they are/were/will someday be are still found to be plausible, credible, etc. while others are not.

The mom makes sense, she makes a good point, i'd say she is now as fully awake, at least as the rest of us, so called!!!

Not run into this fellow before, so have no dog in this race.. Why one over another is a very good question Bill, clearly in this case, you know him personaly, what gives you the vibe / feeling that he is legit??

I hope you can find the time to explain your thoughts.....x... N

[meat suit]

its a question of exposure...
when the Berlin wall and internal barb wire border in Germany came down in 1989, west Germany got flooded with east Germans looking for 'shopping salvation' ...puzzled trying to make sense out of misleading advertising and product descriptions..it was amazing to watch... I still now have family members struggling to see thru it...
same with the 'whistle blowers'.... luckily 2012 wiped a lot of them...

I somehow updated my internal 'bull****ometer' ... learning new skills via exposure...

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

the process by which you decide that someone like Bill Deagle ... is worthy of taking seriously

I've listened to all four very dense hours of Dr Bill's seminal Dec 2006 Granada Forum lecture seven (or is it eight?) times through, and also had the entire thing transcribed. That may be a world record.

(I've also met him at his house twice, once when Kerry and I interviewed him for three hours.)

For anyone who's never seen this, I would personally very highly recommend it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R8RX61WA8Ow

Ok thanks, Bill, but posting yet another Deagle video without explaining why you find him so credible -- despite all the outlandish claims he makes about himself and his own importance -- isn't very enlightening to me about how you distinguish between someone like Deagle and someone like Shane. Perhaps you meant for this video to answer the question, but I just can't subject myself to this man one more time. I've tried -- and have watched other Deagle videos you have recommended, but honestly, I find it incredible that anyone is giving this man the time of day, let alone someone as well-respected as you. Among other things, the man HAS claimed to have been offered the Chief Pindar position, to have spoken frequently with archangels, and to have hung out with Jesus personally. You express alarm/concern/doubt about Shane's claim that he trained Putin at 13 years old, but the things this guy claims does not raise any concerns for you? Or do you just overlook those claims because the rest of what he says makes sense to you? I just don't understand the distinction. And if Deagle hung out with Jesus, isn't it just as possible that Shane hung out with Putin, trained him in psychic powers, and is also the bastard son of Anu to boot?

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, and yes, Nasu, I agree that we are all just fallible humans, but since so many members respect BR's opinion, and are often persuaded by his thumbs up/thumbs down on any particular whistleblower/insider (again because of the presumption of back-channel intel the rest of us don't have), I think it would be really helpful to know why some people making seemingly bat-**** crazy claims about themselves and who they are/were/will someday be are still found to be plausible, credible, etc. while others are not.

Well, Dr Bill really has been an insider medical doctor, really is qualified in many areas of biochemistry and medicine, really has talked to many others in the military who have confided in him as a doctor, and really did work in black projects. He's also exactly who he says he is, and I've met his wife and family at his own house in Southern California, twice. He's spoken on record many many times, in huge detail, has his own radio show and has a full intention to try to help the world be a better place in any way he can, and cites documentary evidence for a fair number of things he refers to.

As best I know, he has never lied, changed his story, or tried to maintain as a get-out-of-jail caveat that his stories are fiction. He is straight, detailed, and consistent. If you ask him questions, the answers you get are likely to be too long rather than too short. (That counts, too!)

If you don't like his personal style very much, of course that's fine. Some people don't like Alex Jones, David Icke, Kerry Cassidy, David Wilcock, or me. I do understand that someone who is as way out a character as him is pretty easy to lampoon. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're not trying to lampoon anyone. I never do that... that's cheap.

So — comparing him with Shane is kind of comparing chalk with cheese. (At least! )

Dr Bill has some wild personal claims, but those aren't part of the overall, very detailed mass of hard information which (personally) I find an important contribution to the big picture we're all trying to assemble. Comparing his core information with that of others, it checks out. See my earlier post #3 here:

One has to cross-check them with other answers, look for logical inconsistencies or anomalies (or, sometimes, impossibilities!), look to see what personality they appear to have and what their motives might be, if they have any credentials to support them being an authority, or someone who has experienced what they say they have... and so on.

Often, claims or assertions just can't be proved. Some whistleblowers have little or no documentation to prove a thing. (See the famous Bob Lazar case, for instance — though proof has recently emerged of some of his claims, 25 years later. That's a long time to wait!)

But 'proof' isn't everything. Consistencies, correlations, evidence of good character, no evident ulterior motives (profit, narcissism, self-aggrandizement, pranks), not changing one's claims or one's story, no evidence of plagiarism (copying previous stories), being willing to answer questions in detail, willing NOT to know certain things (strict compartmentalization in black projects leaves people in 'silos', where few people know much more than their own specialty) ... these all count for a very great deal, especially when taken in combination.

[awakeningmom]

Ok, thank you, so now we are getting somewhere.

I can appreciate that, to you, Deagle has more legitimacy because you verified his medical/insider credentials through various sources and that you perhaps triangulated some of his information. I will assume, then, that you also tried to verify Shane’s claims and found that his claims could not be triangulated and/or that his credentials were not as alleged? (i.e., that he’s not from a known illuminati family, has no verifiable connection to any known projects, cults, or programs, and/or that there’s no basis for him to know anything that he alleged in his blog). Ok, fine, if that’s the case (haven’t seen any real evidence presented of that yet).

But back to Deagle. In an earlier post you mentioned your concern that there might be a mind control program going around where legitimate whistleblowers/insiders are talking about things they never really experienced, perhaps to throw the rest of the alternative community off. You gave Andrew Bassiago as an example. (saying, if I recall, that Andrew probably was legitimately in a special military black ops program as a child but that his trips to Mars (with Obama) had been some kind of false memory later implanted).
So then, how do you deal with Deagle’s claims of being buddies with Jesus and archangels (and apparently, according to Karpos’ posts above, “one of the two witnesses spoken of in the Book of Revelation” ? I hope you agree that these Deagle claims are fairly outlandish and that I’m not just having a problem with his “personal style.” These are claims he is making about who he is and what he’s experienced. They ARE part of his overall presentation about how the world works. You cannot separate these “wild personal claims” from other claims he makes -- unless you think (or know) that he’s just joking around about those parts to mess with people?

So assuming he’s made these “wild personal claims,” and he HAS, I’m wondering: do you see these wild personal claims as part of a mind-controlled program affecting Deagle? And if so, how can you separate truth from fiction? When is he lying and when is he telling the truth? Or, do you give credence/leeway to even these wild personal claims in this instance because of your personal relationship with him and the apparently verified medical/military credentials he has (and so maybe he HAS walked alongside Jesus and maybe he WAS offered the Chief Pindar position?).

I’m not trying to pick on Deagle (or you) here, but I am trying to understand how you in particular draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate insiders and information. Do you take what is valuable from someone and leave the rest, even if some of their story is extremely hard to believe? Or do you grow wary/suspicious when someone who sounds plausible on certain points suddenly veers into woo-woo territory, particularly where they are personally at the epicenter of some world-changing drama? Is that grounds to suspect Mind Control or an agenda of some sort?

I know many members of PA have experienced much woo-woo in their lives and so maybe Deagle’s claims are plausible to them, but for me, personally, when I start listening to someone – let’s use Harald Kautz-Vella for a change in example --as soon as the person starts talking about how he/she is some reincarnation of some big important historical figure or is the KEY to the entire world’s salvation, or is the only son of the Draco King, major red flags go up for me. I don’t care what information they previously brought to the table – it is now ALL suspect. Could it all be true? Sure, I guess. But doubtful….(to me).

But it seems this is not the case with you. It seems to me that Shane was de-throned in large part because he couldn’t possibly be telling the truth about Cassandra or training Putin. He was caught in what you believe to be lies. That may be true. However, I assume there is also no way to verify Deagle’s claims of his Chief Pindar opportunity, his conversations with Archangel Gabriel, or his friendship with Jesus, but yet, those “wild personal claims” are compartmentalized for you in a way that allows you to see him and his other information as truthful, rather than suspect. Is it just because Deagle has a verifiable background in black ops? Is it a gut feeling since you personally met him and his wife? I’m still having a hard time understanding why Deagle passes the smell test with you (i.e., “no…narcissism, self-aggrandizement….”) where others have failed.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the sincerity (and mental soundness) of Dr. Deagle. And that's fine. It's just that your opinion matters a great deal to a whole lot of people on this forum, so it's helpful to understand how you personally reconcile or explain issues like the above "wild personal claims" while still supporting the claimer.

[Silo]

I wonder how these conversations went in the 1300-1400s about sailing off the edge of the world (some seem to think it's still possible--I'm not sure, I've never tried )

Epistemology is pretty tough--we're such group/consensus creatures that I'm pretty sure, as a species we could believe that a white dress is blue.

Bill asks the question "how does one discern"?

I would take it a step further and ask "what is discernment"?

I'm a big fan of asking your heart, your inner-self, whatever you conceive of your spirit or your soul is this true?

Usually, if you listen close you will have your answer. Other times, you will have to honestly say "I'm not sure".

I think it's this last part that bothers us. Most of us are tired of being unsure. Most of us don't have the patience to sit and wait.

Cheers.

[greybeard]

I think discernment comes from getting it wrong--getting it right.
Basically its a lot of exposure to the kind of situations that require some kind of assessment as to validity or otherwise that gives the experience necessary to have good discernment.
Its very like the early guided missiles that snaked after take off, Initially too far to left then too far right till they got on target.

Emotions, gut reactions, feelings to my mind are not to be trusted--to be accurate and consistent in your assessment one has to be virtually clinical and not be too quick to judge.
Cant say that I get it right that often--laughing.

Chris

[Silo]

Posted by greybeard (here)
I think discernment comes from getting it wrong--getting it right.
Basically its a lot of exposure to the kind of situations that require some kind of assessment as to validity or otherwise that gives the experience necessary to have good discernment.
Its very like the early guided missiles that snaked after take off, Initially too far to left then too far right till they got on target.

Emotions, gut reactions, feelings to my mind are not to be trusted--to be accurate and consistent in your assessment one has to be virtually clinical and not be too quick to judge.
Cant say that I get it right that often--laughing.

Chris

I very much appreciate your response Chris.

I’d like to expand your analogy of dialing-in, via experience, some craft or other.

When you begin a journey, you make lots of mistakes only one who knows nothing about what they are doing will make.

Overtime, you get to a place of comfort and consistency.

What happens when you start to get out in front of the curve?

Too far out, there may be nothing to guide you but intuition and there seems to be a point of diminishing returns.

Melville offers us a hint:

the wild watery loneliness of his life did therefore strongly incline him to superstition; but to that sort of superstition, which in some organizations seems rather to spring, somehow, from intelligence than from ignorance.

In fact, I would recommend going and reading that entire chapter (It’s not that long), where Starbuck is described and how a person draws on everything there is about them to handle precarious situations.

Here’s a link

I agree with you Greybeard, we must avoid knee-jerk reactions.

However, once you have watched all the youtube videos, listened to all the interviews, read all the forums, taken your own notes, had dreams, conversations, and crises of conscience…whither do you go then?

I don’t advocate sitting on one’s hands. But I would advocate (and therefore agree with you) proceeding cautiously.

As Browning rightly observes:

“My first thought was, he lied with every word”

Enjoying the conversation,

[Jhonie]

I don't believe anything in the bible anymore so when someone claims to be one of the two witnesses it raises a red flag for me. But that is just me. Religion is just a belief system.

[grannyfranny100]

Here's another concept that I feel is important to understanding one's self: ambiguity. Some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity especially in this age of sound bites. They want instant resolution- "instantitis" as I call it. So they feel the need to end their ambiguity about the issue and post some very hostile comments. It is sort of a don't question my discernment because I don't want to feel the discomfort of cognizant dissonance. It comes off as challenging another member's viewpoint with great hostility.

Here is a a "tolerance of ambiguity scale" test with answers below. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/p/p...0ambiguity.pdf. Understanding your tolerance of ambiguity sure beats popping high blood pressure pills!!