I'm convinced the most powerful insight that one can have, in order to see the world in the most a dispassionate analytical lens possible, is to fundamentally come to understand where value-judgements enter our human arguments and understanding about the world. These things are what philosophers call normative arguments. 

They are everywhere in your thinking. 

Every argument you make about politics, economics and culture, has a normative argument hiding in there. No matter how "evidenced-based" or "objective" you think the position is. 

When you learn to parse for that, you immediately see through a lot of the narrative-based reasoning traps that people fall into. 

But still, no matter how analytical you are, you're going to have to show up with your own normative arguments, yourself. But being aware of them is critical to intellectual honesty. 

 Reads like you should take your own advice 

 It sounds like you think what Mike wrote is disingenuous? 

 There’s no sound… it’s only txt.

Also, reread why I wrote. 

 Wrong doesn’t imply disingenuous, does it? 

 What of my own normative arguments do you think I'm not self-aware of? I'd be happy to address them for you. 

 If you took your own advice you wouldn’t ramble nonsense but provide a simple and normative argument.

Instead word salad drivel. 

 If you find my prose to be too prolix for you, I apologize. If you'd like to say something substantive or constructive, I'm happy to engage. But otherwise, I'll just step away from this thread. 

 Your wiriting is great, Mike 

 Why hold on to false cored constructs to justify a false cored perspective? 

 Our of the echo chamber 🧡 

 To me the biggest insight is that I would never understand more than at most 1 or two topics really, and deeply. And that this is okay. So I spend a lot of time to understand finance, banking and monetary economics. But I have no opinion on most other matters. I don't consume any news. Feeling much more healthy that way.