This is easy: if you are saying or doing something transgressive you'll be shunned or attacked in some manner for it. The more transgressive, the greater the pushback will be.
Unless you're specifically stealthing or greymanning, and doing so well, people will socially clock you way before any cognitive element kicks in. If you stand next to someone weird then the odds of you being ostracised go up. They generally won't even know what's happening within themselves, just that you are outside acceptable parameters for the group.
I realized I am not very strategic, and I want to improve.
The have structure, sufficient complexity, and clear win conditions. They also have opponents.
That obviously won't answer all your questions but it will point you in a helpful direction and build skills.
There are a number of places, assuming you don't just build one, where people are locked up and eat what they're given. No, that's not a perfect experiment, but it's better than no experiment at all.
I'd also imagine that coma patients are really cooperative experimental participants.
Those leaders are mostly worse for the globalists and those on their coattails, not everyone. There are always winners and losers in everything, and that very rarely maps neatly to partisan lines.
As for the elites, that depends on who you mean. If you mean the 1% then they know. We know they know because of the coordinated deplatforming of essential services on ideological grounds. I think we'll have to wait until Biden has warmed his chair for five minutes before we see any real violent retaliation from them for the insolence of the peons.
As long as people don't understand a situation then any attempt to change it will only succeed through blind luck. It's not difficult to find people holding up Trump as a bogeyman and completely refusing to address the wave he rode in on. He has support and that support will move if he is incapacitated or killed, it won't just evaporate.
You, who have read so much history, believe that words cannot cause harm? That's an interesting conclusion.
Lots of things cause tangible harm but speech isn't one of them. Even if speech could cause tangible harm then its utility in preventing the same would far outweigh any cost incurred by that. The public forum must be open to so-called harmful speech because the solution to that is more speech. You kill bad ideas with good ideas, not with censorship.
Now, if you are talking about speech as a (mistaken) synonym of persuasion and indoctrination that's a different story. It's not the tool that is the problem here. The words don't matter nearly as much as you'd think. What matters is psychology married with malignant intent. This is something I have had done to me. I know how to do to others, and won't, even to the smallest degree and even though it would benefit me greatly. I do not invite evil into my own house.
It's very important to acknowledge all the conditions when participating in any conversation, if at all possible.
Irreconcilable differences and permanent animus are the conditions here. This is about how to negotiate with others when tolerating their evil within your tribe is never going to be on the table.
I don't know what the most hostile negotiation you've ever been involved in consisted of, but mine wasn't at a table and it lasted less than a couple of minutes. When you credibly tell someone "Go ahead and I'll fucking kill you" and that ends without homicide then that's a successful negotiation between parties with fundamentally irreconcilable differences. They wanted to hurt me, I told them I'd hurt them far more, neither party ended up hurting either. All fangs get bared more than used for a very good reason.
Rather, we should work to avoid creating new animosity, partly for the sake of communication and partly to avoid being even partly responsible for the harms that come to others as a result of our words.
In this context, it's too late.
When you know your opponents want to harm you (as demonstrated by concrete actions like silencing your speech, denying your access to basic market services like banking, constant fighting words from their talking heads, etc.) then when someone comes along on that side and says "I don't think animosity helps" then my response to that is "Roll back your harms immediately and I'll respect your claim of good intent".
You show good faith with action, not empty lip service. It would be trivial for team blue to create peace on the spot:
Everything else can be squabbled over afterwards, you just need to give people enough of a crumb that they can at least see the possibility of working this out without violence.
I find that the exchange of ideas meets less friction when I try to not antagonize others. That's the goal of conversation, is it not?
Not here. It's too late for civility when you're already in the middle of a war.
This is about organising the breakup of America. You can do that amicably or violently, but it's a divorce either way.
Peace isn't a product of liking others, or agreement, peace is a product of having alternatives to killing people you hate. Peace doesn't require concord, only armistice.
Is the equipment functioning properly?
I would run with a default yes on the grounds that avionics are a big deal in planes in general, and anything big enough to be supplying this data also gets constantly checked, stripped down, and reassembled.
Furthermore, a lot of the avionics data comes from military craft. All the standard maintenance above applies plus additional measures. When you're firing missiles having your sights off by even a fraction is unacceptable.
Ground based radar (etc.) data has similar operational conditions as military craft do. You tell a plane to go in the wrong direction and then it isn't a plane anymore, it's a missile.
As an aside: if ufo are craft then their maintenance schedule would be a million times worse than even the most sophisticated planes we have. Planes break themselves as a routine part of flying, mainly because of the forces involved and the materials they're made from. We take planes apart and replace anything that has been in use too long or that looks suspect in any way. Every plane you've ever been on is a Ship of Theseus.
Are there other plausible interpretations of the data gathered by that equipment?
That's the crux of the problem: physics applies, so what's going on here? We don't have answers for what we're seeing here. Excluding some sort of illusion (which is possible) then we can only be looking at massive amounts (presumably, given the presentations) of energy that we can't account for.
Some of the best UFO sightings seem pretty similar to 'ball lightning' which also isn't either well-explained or particularly well observed. (I think there's one plausibly somewhat-detailed observation of it to-date.)
There's a ton of weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly. It is far more likely that the majority of ufos are actually this.
Ball lighting is a perfect example of a seemingly physics defying presentation. St. Elmo's Fire is another good example, auroras are too. Charged particles, plasmas, etc. are all things that emit light, seem to move contrary to conventional forces, and only exist in the presence of massive energy discharges.
As I keep yammering on about: physics must apply. It might be peculiar high energy physics, but physics nonetheless.
Physics still applies to energy. Light has to come from somewhere.
Footage is optical/IR. Radar is radio waves. If we can observe a thing, then as long as the equipment is functioning properly then something has to be there. What that thing is is a different question.
You'd expect to see light, but radar and other sensors won't work on light (neither will bullets). If you have the gun cam footage from some fighter plane then you also have all the other sensor data pointing the same direction. I don't know enough ufology to know what the deal is there.
Any time I've dictated something it has been far less coherent than if I typed it. That being said, I type a hell of a lot more than a I speak, so it's reasonable to assume that unfamiliarity is a factor.
If you are repeating something on a computer often enough to notice it you need macros.
Because doing so aligns with a principle of avoiding unnecessary harm, for a start.
Words are not magic spells. You don't just say something and magically change a person's psyche. Magic isn't real (but tricks can be).
There is literally nothing I could ever say to you that will cause you tangible harm. Furthermore, I can't cause you offence because that's a voluntary choice (or at least one that can be made so with mindfulness).
Also because it facilitates better communication when you are making an effort to avoid creating more animosity.
Ignoring that animosity is a fundamental aspect of this particular conversation regarding how to deal with negotiation in the presence of that very thing, what makes you think I can deceive you that well?
My mantra on LW seems to be we are not friends, nor will we ever be. I don't think I can successfully lie about that, furthermore I don't think I should have to lie about that, both for my own benefit as a matter of honesty, and for you because I don't think lying to people is a good way to have good faith conversations.
You and I are very different. Probably neurobiologically, now that I think about it. You seem like you have a fully functioning limbic system, I probably don't (as a result of mental illness and medication for the same). I say I don't care, but an interesting question is whether I even can care in the way you do.
The fastest way to end animosity is to resolve the causes rather than focus on the animosity itself. I have been in many situations where people want to tell me how they feel and their life story when it is a situation that can be fixed without reference to that and they can be sent on their way. I can appreciate why not everyone would favour that, but it has worked many times for me. That being said, I'm mentally ill and I'm very used to my emotions having nothing to do with reality. As such, I place very little value in them.
Improving typing speed
I berate my GP about this on a regular basis.
The real question of course is whether someone that types already should alter layout or go full stenography? A shitty stenographer can easily type 150 wpm. Good stenographers can do over 200 or more. Live transcribers can hit upwards of 300 wpm.
You can easily boost that to 80 wpm by learning to touch type. That's a 4x productivity boost for life.
Learning speed reading may have similar productivity benefits, even if you just double or triple your reading rate, given how much text we read now.
As someone with a high reading speed (the last time I was locked up with a library I read 24 books in about two weeks, including some I read twice) I can tell you that comprehension is often more valuable than raw speed in daily life. Reading some article swiftly certainly has utility, but simply shoving more words into your head hits limits as the complexity of the content increases.
Sometimes going slower is better. When I write comments on the internet then unless it's some one liner I'm easily going to re-read it at least a dozen times during drafting and editing. The bigger the post gets the more re-reading that goes on. Being succinct is not my forte.
"If hear alarm, then get out of bed."
Change your alarm to birdsong so that you don't want to stick a gun in your mouth as your first act of consciousness.
This is similar to my choice.
I'm struggling to come up with many more things though.
Figure out what the rules are, then break them.