Greg Moffitt, the Placebo Effect is Consciousness |477|

Greg Moffitt explores the placebo effect and evil science.

[box]

Listen Now:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

[box]

Subscribe:

[one_third][/one_third] [one_third][/one_third] [one_third_last][/one_third_last] [/box]

Click Here for Greg Moffitt’s website

Click here for Forum Discussion

Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:00] Greg, we just wrapped up our interview and I thought we had an awesome conversation. I wanted to share it with the Skeptiko audience. We did part one and we’re going to do a part two and I’d love to share both parts with them. So as a way of an introduction because we didn’t really plan on completely doing it that way as kind of a swap cast kind of thing. Can you let people know a little bit more about, you know, who is Greg Moffitt, your background and what you do.

Greg Moffitt: [00:00:28] Just to keep it brief, Alex, if people go to legalize dash freedom.com, you can spell legalize with an S or a Z, they’ll find a bio there and that’s where I host most of my current work. Podcasts I’ve been doing since 2012. Over 300 shows there,Inquiry into Life, The Universe and everything If people are familiar with Skeptico, I think they’ll find a lot to interest in there. There’s also a series of free articles and yeah, so legalize dash freedom.com with an S if you’re in Europe with a Z if you’re in the US. That’s about it, I think. Hello and welcome Alex and thank you so much for joining us today on legalize freedom com.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:09] Great to be here Greg.

Greg Moffitt: [00:01:11] Alex, today we’re going to talk about your new book, it’s going to be out shortly. It’s entitled Why Evil Matters on science and religion, fumbled a big one. Probably dive into that just tell listeners a bit about yourself. You’re are of course host of Skeptico podcast, which many listeners will already be familiar with and just a little bit perhaps about how the book came about?

Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:34] Well, you know, the book came about really as just a product of me doing these interviews on Skeptiko and the Skeptico thing is always, I’ve been doing it for a long time long, long and it was really just a passion project for me, like I always tell people, it was kind of my Trojan horse for getting a chance to talk to really smart people, like you and like other people and I sense that same, you know, vibe in your work too, is that you want to have the conversations and you can frame them up however you want. You want to call it a podcast, you want to call it a book or magazine article, whatever, you know, you want to have the conversation and same with me ,so that’s how it came about and then, in particular, this book is really just an extension, really, of a book that I wrote before. Why science is wrong about almost everything and that’s really a book about consciousness and how if you fall for the scientific materialism you are meaningless, you are nothing kind of mean, then that is not only you know, crippling, philosophically and personally, but it doesn’t make for good science. So this latest book kind of says if you take that into the what I call extended consciousness realm of you know, near death experience, out of body travel DMT however you want to go, aliens, wherever you want to go with that. If you take that into the extended realm then you’re even more lost if you want to stick to this. You know, hold on to this really, really literal, materialist, stupid, stupid falsified idea and then the evil thing is just that, I think evil might be our lens you know, are kind of our entry point into waking us up out of how ridiculous that is and the consequences of the materialistic ,you are meaningless idea.

Greg Moffitt: [00:03:53] Well, as you alluded to a lot of your inquiry and a lot of the material you produce, Podcast in particular you’re looking at, your new guests, you’re looking at that like reality through these overlapping lenses, shall we say, Science, Religion, Philosophy. That many people for a long, long time and still today regard as completely separate and mutually exclusive in many ways. Of course that’s a feeling in itself because they’re, kind of like three prongs of sin fork really, in my mind, but you’ve come up against this, the question of evil multiple times, as I have, call it what you will, you know, evils a name for something. No, because we can’t think in terms of language we have to name things and you say the word evil and people have preconceptions about what they think it is or what they think it is not, whether it exists or not based just on everything that they’ve gathered, in their mind, in the consciousness about evil up to this point, but you said evil could be a lens there a moment ago and I think I understand what you mean. It’s something that’s, when you look into it, is.. It’s almost the other areas of inquiry. In the three disciplines I mentioned, they all have their, limits it seems and, but there’s the question of evil seems to be one of those issues that’s pushing us further to look at some of the, some of the matters, some of these overlaps and look at the whole idea of extended consciousness for example, that you speak so much about, that actually could be, it could be the key to unlock this particular mystery in itself and it’s almost like these issues come along to prompt us, it’s almost like we’re being prodded and pushed I thought this many times, to understand or to keep going with our inquiry and when we’re not looking in the right place that we get almost like a school child getting a rap over the knuckles, you know, with a ruler, by a stern teacher, you know, like our, maybe a torch is being shown in another corner and we’re being enjoined to look over here. So that’s what I thought of when you said evil could be a lens.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:06:11] Yeah and I’d take that even further, because I really like your point in your analogy about overlapping lenses and, you know, there’s a really interesting point that you made there about, we have the Trident of Science, Religion and Philosophy, you know, and you pointed out how, hey, how curious that is that they want to stay separate and boy, I mean, that has been one of, I guess my fundamental realization findings in all this stuff, is that that’s preposterous and it’s hard to believe that, that isn’t somewhat by design. I mean, there where only two questions, Who are we? Why are we here? Oh, the only questions, think about in all three of those realms. Science, who are we? Why are we here? Philosophy, Who are we? Why are we here? Religion, Who are we? Why are we here? Why would you want to separate those? Why would you want to pretend this game, you know, when you get into religion that it’s, is it fundamentally intertwined with those. Science, you know, pulled themselves out and said, Hey, we’re gonna rescue you from that crazy religion and all the rest that. But the interesting thing about consciousness and the reason that you and I are both so interested in even doing a lot of shows on it and like your interview recently with Bernardo Kastrup, is consciousness, as you said is the rap on the knuckles, that pulls us back in it says, blah, blah, blah, wait a minute, now. Everything you’re kind of making here as some assumptions on it and ever since you’ve left that old, double slit experiment, which I always like to tell people because like, this is like such a great little entry point into some of this stuff. Double slit experiment, double slit experiment, we all know it. You can stop calling it a double slit experiment, the framing up of that as some type of photon measurement experiment. It’s not! It’s a consciousness experiment. That’s what it is. It’s an experiment that says, Does consciousness exist? Is there such a thing as an observer effect that we have to worry about? And the answer is, yes. That is the rap on the knuckles of science. But what science had to do, really to pretend there, to defend their turf and also maybe for some other reasons, was they had to do the shut up and calculate thing. They’ll say, Well, no, no, that’s not really what it’s about. Come on, let’s just kind of work out these equations over here and see if we can build some iPhones and stuff like that. So that’s kind of, that’s where I go with your overlapping lenses which I think is a much bigger point then, you know, we could spend an hour talking about that.

Greg Moffitt: [00:09:07] Well, it’s like the Placebo effect. We, I’m reminded of that when you mentioned the double slit experiment. It’s like it’s been given a name and therefore in science quite often does this, even when it doesn’t understand something, It names that like dark matter, dark energy. Oh okay we didn’t know what all that stuff was. It’s dark matter. But that doesn’t mean that you know what it is you just call it something. So the Placebo effect is this amazing thing with incredible implications, basically, mind over body implications, like the double slit experiment which by the way, if listeners are not sure what that is, it’s a famous experiment in quantum physics, which have been repeated again and again and again and tweaked and varied and the implications are vast. But it’s with quantum physics in general, it’s always been, not always but It has increasingly been changing, but often is not, you know, mainstream interpretations have been that well, there are no implications and if there are, it’s purely in the realms of shut up and calculate, as you say and for me, the shut up and calculate thing is like, would be, I don’t know, like, just chopping vegetables in a kitchen and never making any stew. Like, just keep chopping vegetables, we’re never gonna have something to show for this, you know, what, what are we doing this for and, of course, the one of the reasons that a lot of people will if they’re satisfied with that is because of the byproducts of a lot of scientific inquiry and you mentioned the iPhones and just think, since the scientific revolution and then the Industrial revolution, which was able to put a lot of that into practice on a wider scale, just think of all the benefits, you know, material benefits for people’s lives and, you know, health and welfare, material benefits, just our general standard of living has changed so much because of the benefits of science and industrialization. But you mentioned the trade and that was your phrase, which I like, because like any trade and you go back down the prongs and you get to the handle, which is one, it’s the three, you know, it’s all one piece of metal if you know what I mean or whatever it’s made of and I think that the thing that you said about science rescuing us you know, from the sort of religious you know, pole of ignorance. That is, it’s all been like a bit of a pendulum swing I’ve made this analogy before, is that it was a relief to be able to, to have the scientific revolution, the Renaissance, just to free up people’s thinking and their consciousness and their lives, from the sort of the drudgery of living under you know, religious oppression. But then, we have a tendency, I think, as, as a species to ritualistic behavior and routine and ways of seeing the world and going too far. With one thing, the whole idea of the Renaissance man was supposed to be, you know, scientists, philosopher, you know, spiritual dimension as well. But I think that kind of got lost. So now we’ve been living in a scientific age, it’s been all about that and anything to do with spirituality at best is seen as a very private matter. Religions are just seen as like, either just irrelevant or actually a source of ongoing problems and so when you perhaps try to bring together some of these disciplines then people are very resistant because you try and bring a spiritual dimension or some other word, let’s just extended consciousness dimension into science. People are worried about God getting in again by the back door. Oh, hang on a minute, this this sounds a bit too religious for my liking, I don’t like it you know, the universe popping out of nowhere from nothing and no, I don’t like the sound of this at all sounds well, like, I used to hear that in the church when I was a kid. Dinner with philosophy, which is regarded as like a pleasant sort of irrelevance, you know, if somebody says, I’m a philosophy professor, it’s like, Oh, that’s nice you know, why don’t you try earning a living? You know what I mean. I’ve met people with that sort of attitude.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:13:16] Um, well, there’s like 10 points I’d like to jump on. But I got to go back all the way at the beginning because, Greg, your point about placebo effect is so, I think profound. I know for so many people and so many people that listen to my show and I’m sure yours too, they get it on one level. But I really think what you’re saying is much, much more powerful in practice, than we realize. The placebo effect, just take notice for how it’s used. I’m just repeating exactly what you said. It’s like, Oh, well, the results didn’t achieve anything greater than placebo effect, Or, you know, what we’re finding in science now is there’s a degradation towards the level of the placebo effect right? So we’re finding these major medical studies that show some miracle drug to be efficacious. But the more we test it and the more we repeat the test, it becomes closer and closer to a level of the placebo effect. But the brilliant point you make is that the whole game is the placebo effect. But what’s staring us in the face is that we’ve totally misunderstood the relationship between mind and body which is really a relationship between consciousness and body, right mind is consciousness. Because what they will tell you, what is embedded in that even when they say mind is body with the fastball that they’re trying to slip past you, is that, yeah, it’s your mind, but that’s still within the materialistic scientific framework of your brain, but their own, if you unravel, logically, philosophically, let’s just go with logically, the placebo effect. What they’re doing is they’re contradicting the mind equals brain, you are 100% a product of your brain, your biological robot, meaningless universe, it is an implied contradiction of that by using the term placebo effect but you are so right that once you label it, it allows you to dismiss it, step over it, say, don’t you really just want this new iPhone, let’s forget about who you are and why you’re here for a minute, don’t you really just want another Netflix streaming up your bandwidth, will get you more bandwidth, you can go faster. So now I don’t know if you have any more on that, because I think it’s such a powerful point, it does lead to this larger, you know, I don’t want to dance around this, because what I’m saying is that there is an underlying conspiracy and a lot of people don’t like that term and they immediately get turned off, you know, like, Oh my god, here we go, you know, but it’s like, that is the implication of this, is that this isn’t completely organic, this languaging, this messaging, this miss stepping, misinformation, oops, always scientifically bungled it again, that after a while it doesn’t look like an accident and I think part of our, you know, our job, you and I, what we’re doing is to probe that and try and pull that apart because sometimes it is an accident and sometimes, you know, scientists make mistakes. Sometimes philosophers make mistakes but sometimes there’s another agenda behind some of this stuff and we have to make sure that we’re exploring those possibilities because we’ve been taken down those paths so many times.

Greg Moffitt: [00:17:07] Yes, we definitely should explore some of those possibilities. Maybe you can start us off with that in a moment and that’ll take us, if you want to certainly enter some of the material in your book that we mentioned but I did spend quite a long time, started reading about quantum implications back in the 1980s and i spent quite a few decades wondering what the major resistance was, if not acceptance of some of these implications, but at least explore them at least look at it again. I mean, this right across the board from scientists, engage in this work through to lay people reading popular science books and initially, as I mentioned, it was, maybe they’re worried that some kind of religious connotations in all of this, if we go down this route and explore these things, then we’re going to have church people saying, aha, I told you so or whatever it happens to be no consciousness is the mind of God. But then I started to look for other reasons and I think, Oh, well, obviously some scientists are worried about loss of prestige. They built their whole careers around a certain worldview, maybe they did some pioneering research and that made a net, they won a Nobel Prize and they just have to stick to this and that remains with the old adage about the science, progressing one funeral at a time, but increasingly and I think this is what we definitely have in common. I’ve started to think it must be more than that. It can’t be that straightforward. So perhaps you’d like to, the point you made just before I started speaking, maybe you could get started on some of your ideas there.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:18:38] Well, one way to explore that topic is to look at three interviews that you’ve done recently and kind of dive into those a little bit for a little bit more because there’s some great crossover between your work in mind and I think we’ll wind up in the same place. Like First off, I have just a ton of respect for Bernardo Kastrup. I can’t tell you how many times he’s been on my show. He’s a super popular guest. I consider him a friend. I’ve met him personally. He’s a great guy. Go to his website right now and read his open birthday letter to Bill Gates, congratulating Bill Gates on his birthday and saying, you know, the one thing bill, you’ve been a great, great gift to mankind. The one thing I wish you’d look at, nuclear power a little bit because I think we can get some good clean nuclear power and I think it can help our overall environmental situation. Bernardo, where have you been, buddy? Have you kind of looked into Gates, see there in the Corona thing and Moderna and his all sorts of his other shady connections? Have you looked into his connections with Epstein and the brown stoning project and as long time interest in that, that goes, that there’s a lot of smoking gun stuff there. So, Bernardo is super smart, super intelligent. But he’s not a conspiratorial guy, which, on one hand, we want to give somebody a badge for that and say, oh, gosh, you get a shiny badge because you’re not conspiratorial. I look at it the other way. I look at it say, if you’re closing yourself off to that worldview and drive it diving deeply into that worldview, then you’re really going to be missing the picture in a lot of these situations, not in all of them. Barnardos work is still his phenomenally powerful work. But he is going to be blindsided by people who are rigging the game and he doesn’t realize it. Bill Gates is a classic example. But I’ll give you two more and then I’ll kind of let you respond ,you did a show kind of a one off one person show on David Ike and I thought there were so many interesting jumping off points for our dialogue here on that, Greg, because I interviewed David, not too long ago and published it and a lot of people really kind of push back like I jumped the shark there and said, Oh, you know, that’s the crazy lizard guy. Man I lead with that, I lead with that I go, who is David Ike? Who is David Ike to you? And even people who don’t know go Yeah, he’s the lizard guy. That’s right. He’s exactly ,he’s the lizard guy. Now, let me tell you what he wrote on the relationship between consciousness in science. It’s brilliant. It’s the most succinct clear and crisply written attack on how science, as part of a social engineering control, psyop would be against any kind of extended consciousness understanding, right? So you can go read that in the interview we did. It’s brilliant. Go read David Ike, this is like basic shit. But how many times have you sat through mind numbing discussions where people don’t do it? That is David Ike talking about God, The God that, what does he call it? The God program, David Ike calls it. He said look it’s all the same. It’s go to a Christian and he says, Oh, yeah, I’ll tell you about God. I know all about him. Because I have this book, because I go to this guy and he’s dressed in all these robes and he allows me to talk to God. He tells me what God is saying. He’s telling me how to be and then he says and then I go, well, that doesn’t sound right, so I go over to a Muslim guy and you go, what can you tell me about God? He goes, Oh, I can tell you everything. I got a guy, he stands up there in the front, he wears this robe and he tells me just exactly what God is all about. Okay, so then I go over to a Jewish guy and I go to synagogue and he goes, Oh, no, I’ll tell you what it’s all about here. We have these books and then here we have these guys in robes and they go tell us, go tell us what God says and then you can follow what they say. This is again, I mean, I’m not saying it’s like some brilliant insight but how much time do we spend placating people who have these protected religious beliefs that are clearly much more in sync with what we understand to be cultish activities and if we don’t know all the relationships between those, but then anything else and yet we give them their little spot in the square in the public square and we say, okay, you know, go ahead and talk and we won’t ever really raise our voice about how absolutely ridiculous your cosmology is, because we’ll let us we’ll let you talk and if you look at what David Ike is really saying directly, he’s advocating dis-intermediation right? He said, Yeah, there’s got, go there. You don’t need a book. You don’t need an intermediary. You don’t need anything. If there is this extended realm and if there is this God had there, go there. Other things that I point out about David Ike and the reason we’re talking about, I think we’re talking about David Ike, is because this is someone who was banned. He was wiped off of the electronic infrastructure that we live in, banned from YouTube, banned from Facebook, banned from Twitter, banned! Greg, if we were having this conversation five years ago, we would not have even we would have never believed it If one of the other rather said, Oh, yeah and then people will just be banned, unilaterally banned across all these quote unquote independent platforms. So David Ike is banned and you know what David ickes messages is, in this world that we live in with Tifa and Proud Boys and Black Lives Matter and guns in the street and riots. David Ikes message is, no, don’t go for any of that, It’s about love, It’s about seeing that we’re all connected. It’s about not cutting off your thumb to spite your fingers. That’s his message. That’s his message. It’s all about love, acceptance, forgiveness and pursuit of the truth and this is what’s banned. This is what’s banned. So the reason they say he got banned was because David sometimes is not so good with the sciency part and even though he saw the bigger picture of the plan demmick for what it is or pandemic, he kind of got in this little whirlpool of there is no virus kind of thing, which is unfortunate because scientifically, that’s not a very sustainable position. It’s kind of a flat earthy kind of sciency, kind of thing but he was listening to the wrong people and you know, but I look at somebody like David Ike and I say, batting average Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame, batting average ,gets so much more stuff ,so much more right, so much more sooner than anyone else. That we need to give him wiggle room for when he makes mistakes and not forgive him and call them out like I did in the interview. I said, David, I don’t think you really mean that, you know, but at the same time we have to say, No, this is a major, major, important person and if we’re going to ban someone, let’s ban frickin Neil deGrasse Tyson for standing up there and saying consciousness is an illusion. That’s something someone should be banned for you want to ban people? I got a whole list of people we can ban, but I don’t want to ban anybody but that’s, I guess my my take on David Ike and why I think he’s so important and you know the other thing that I’ll just throw in a little shut up about it. Shape shifting lizard people. Oh, okay. So we’re in an after disclosure period here, right folks? mean, we are AD after disclosure, New York Times, every major news outlet, now we’ve seen the videos finally they’re admitting it. So we’re after disclosure. Some people haven’t fully grok that but we are and who’s piloting those craft that are moving at unbelievable speeds at G forces that are impossible for humans to survive. That ET is clearly in play here. So now take like, if you will, the the accounts of you know, I had this woman on, she’s a professor from I think Montana State University. Her name is already six color klark and she has kind of an unusual name because she’s Native American and she went around and collected all these stories from Native American people, not only United States, but in Central America, South America whole thing, collects their stories and she’s an anthropologist right, so she knows how to collect stories and do it, does it in a scientific way. You want to hear about shape shifting all over the place? You want to hear about aliens? All star people all over the place. You want to hear about reptilians all over the place? You want to hear about shape shifting reptilians? They’re right there in her research, so you can dismiss her research. That’s fine. You can say she faked her research. That’s fine, but you better go prove it. She’s a respected academic, a respected anthropologist who seems to have done things correctly. But don’t, just because you’re going along with your buddies. Don’t scoff at this stuff until you’ve looked at it or better yet, go ahead and scoff at it just follow whatever people are trying to jam down your throat and tell you is the way to think. End of rant.

Greg Moffitt: [00:29:25] I was pretty interested to hear your perspective on Ike there because I think we do agree to a greater extent. Just to backtrack slightly to Bernardo. I’ve never met him personally. But I have found him to be in every other way Exactly as you say , I mean his research is incredible. He’s building and standing on the shoulders of giants I’m sure he didn’t met himself, but I’ve never seen anyone bring it together in this way and what he did for his last, not the last but one book the idea of the World War Two, he published all the chapters separately in peer reviewed journals, you know, by scientists, he was combed over and gone through every storm turned by all sorts of different scientific bodies and publishing organizations all manner of academia, approved for publication and once he had achieved that and all these roles separate publications, he then brought them all together and put them in one book and basically was able to get a scientifically, rigorously scientifically peer reviewed book, in kind of under the radar sort of speak. So it was very clever and I’ve heard somebody say, Oh, that was a bit underhand, you know, because they didn’t know what was going to be broken. What difference does it make? Each chapter has an idea and I mean, you could take all the, get all the different magazine articles, photocopy them and then staple them together and that’s the second thing, you know, that’s all he’s done. So I think that was a brilliant move. When.. and I’d urge people to check out your interviews with him, I’ve done many over the years. If you’re interested in the idea of extended consciousness of being the underlying reality of the universe and basically it makes sense of so much of our experience and our reality and everything that we see around us with our senses and all the tools and measuring devices that we have that reached beyond our five senses or all of the data coming in that we don’t understand and we can’t quite put together, his work brings so many things into a new light. When I read his article about nuclear power and Bill Gates, I like you, I have not had a chance to speak to him about it. I was a little bit mystified at first because I kind of got the thing about nuclear power. I’m not an advocate for it. But I do, I have listened to serious people who have said if we want to keep the lights on in industrial civilization and anything like the forum we currently have going forward , that may be the only alternative, even though..

Alex Tsakiris: [00:32:10] Sure but Greg the point really is Bill Gates, I mean..

Greg Moffitt: [00:32:13] Oh, yeah, exactly. Which is, I was gonna say, the Bill Gates thing you see. I did take exception to what he was saying. I said, you can’t just, you know, take Bill Gates as like one little dimension of his personality or look at Bill Gates bio on his own website and base, say that that is Bill Gates. So I agree you know that was the point of contention. If there was anything in that, that I’d like to take up with Bernardo, it would be that I’d imagine his response would be, I think you’re right, I don’t think he’s a conspiratorial kind of guy. But I’d imagine his response would be something along the lines of, yes, but, you know, everybody’s either attacking Bill Gates or they’re in Bill Gates camp and you don’t hear them say anything other than agree with Bill Gates. So he probably sees himself as some kind of impartial observer and he like, wouldn’t it be good if Bill Gates considered this, This is why you see a lot of people with open letter to the American president, you know, open letter to Vladimir Putin or whatever it happens to be.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:33:15] So did you ask Bernardo about COVID? Because I kind of got into it a little bit with him.

Greg Moffitt: [00:33:21] No, it wasn’t where we were. I did in my last interview with him, which was Freedom from Fear. We touched on a roundabout way about what’s happening in the world but no, we did not talk about the specifics of the pandemic origins, how that’s playing out.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:33:40] Right so he’s playing it, from what I can tell and tell me if I’m wrong, he is taking the COVID-19 thing straight on. He, I mean, he’s taken the direct dose of the mainstream at this point to me, completely legitimized kind of thing. I mean, there is so much that they’ve completely jury rigged the science, this is a global warming, version 7.5 or whatever and Bernardo, from what I see, Bernardo is not showing the ability to kind of climb out of that mess. He is gonna, it seems like he’s gonna stay right down the path of, if you’re writing a letter, with Bill Gates, an open letter to Bill Gates and you’re falling all over him then you’re lining up for the vaccine and saying, stick me and you know, we’ll have this kind of global, you know, medical kind of system that they’re going for because let’s have a little discussion about this. I don’t want to get into the whole COVID thing because it’s a waste of energy cycles. But, the part of it that I think is interesting and is relevant is how we come to understand science and spirituality and philosophy and all the things that we’re talking about and I think in the case of Bill Gates, just like in the case of Bill Gates, we don’t need to read too much into what he’s saying because he’s saying directly, you will all need to be vaccinated multiple times and we will need to be able to, his big thing is we’re going to have to be able to track who is and who isn’t so that we can control that. He wants the One World control of those medical things. This is not some conspiracy. This is just exactly what he says, this is what he says.

Greg Moffitt: [00:35:42] I guess, Bernardos letter was about nuclear power and you’re not wrong to express, you know, your take on it the way.. yeah, but I guess his letter was about nuclear power and there’s, it’s almost impossible at any given time to tell what most people think about anything important. Because most people don’t, when, depending on the context of their, when they’re speaking, expressing themselves, will quite often say something other than what they actually think, this makes it very complicated. For example, we just had a US election, it made it very complicated for pollsters to actually establish what the picture was out amongst the public.

. [box]