|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 06 2024 21:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:30 Gorsameth wrote:
No I'm done making excuses for Americans. They are racist, sexist morons and if they have a problem with being branded as such they should have thought about that before voting for a racist rapist who can't string a coherent thought together.
the economic opportunities in the USA are way better than in Canada. Because the USA is so great... you see its flaws more easily. its flaws appear larger because of the depth and breadth of the responsibilities it fulfills. I'm lucky to be in the USA. I think Americans are great.
I share the same sentiment.
Take it with a dose of salt though, while I've spent time in other countries, I haven't lived in any others. There are some I wouldn't mind living in, but I don't think anywhere else I'd rather be than here.
|
I think a lot of different groups will feel justified in promoting different (and potentially conflicting) "improvements" for next election.
Some people will think the right move is to become more moderate and try to appeal to more swing voters.
Some people will think the right move is to try to appeal more to the left wing.
Some people will think that we need to stick with an old white guy to maximize our chances of victory.
Some people will think that the primary reason why Harris lost is because of how the Democratic (non-)primary played out, and that otherwise the political campaign was solid.
And so on.
|
On November 06 2024 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:04 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma. Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money. Most people in the West eat absolute garbage (especially in Norway by the way) and have a good awful lifestyle (though i give you that norwegians are good at that). Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting.
Sorry i rarely forum post nowadays, i guess in todays climate my post wasn't outrageous enough in any way to come off as sarcasm. Our current understanding of healthy nutrition in a general population is has wide consensus through a variety of different scientific fields. It's not rigid and has alot of room for adaptation. What you state is completly correct. On the other hand L-master's follow up is everything wrong with modern social media "science" basing what works for you on a individual level to be relevant for anything but yourself. Although he gets across a point, how your body reacts on a individual level to everything from exercicse to food and medicine is very different from person to person. And any practicing educated individual would normally take this into account if they are competent.
|
On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 18:36 Uldridge wrote:
A surprising amount of things are based on how people feel about a thing. Weird how that works. Even science.
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma. 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now. YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. 2) USAObesityMap.jpeg 3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious.
this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and he’d post on TL about what we’re all missing. we’d tell him drugs are fun but will kill you eventually, he’d say ‘yea but you can’t argue with these results. i could take on the world right now!’
the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. hopefully you’ve got the good genes to prevent those negative outcomes.
|
Scientific consensus does not equal many departments funding studies to get horrible supplements approved and peddled to masses. This, sadly, also falls under the guise of science.
|
On November 06 2024 21:18 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:
I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this.
I would call it being a victim of its own success, but aren't my examples good enough? Other than that, look at the volume and quality. We can also look at how much innovation there truly is.. we're stagnating. Are we stagnating because of all the shit or are we stagnating because of inspiration crisis, or because we're pursuing old ideas? Maybe we're just too dumb to go further. We need a breakthrough at the very least. Fusion, Moon or Mars colony, general AI, who knows. All I see is self interest promotion and high volume, not high tech translation or insights.
Not to sound overly critical, but neither you nor L_master provided a link I could click to see a dataset that substantiates the claims you are both making.
In what way are we stagnating? Medical advances happen all the time, the record-time development of the covid vaccine was nearly miraculous all in itself. There is now a chatbot that will proofread your documents for you and write code for you -- in fact, it is a genuine worry for many people that their job will be replaced by a robot or AI. These are huge things that happened in a span of less than 3 years.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On November 06 2024 21:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 19:33 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:20 Simberto wrote:On November 06 2024 18:35 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:05 Simberto wrote:
The US is just so completely lost.
I hope this will lead to europe getting our shit together and building a better world, less reliant on the idiocracy across the atlantic.
But realistically, we will just get the same shit in a few years. It has already been happening here, and with this victory of insanity it will likely only increase. Apparently the most idiotic of rightwing people have just figured out a brainhack in some way, and that is just the world we live in now.
I just don't know how to deal with this. Why are large parts of humanity like this? A two decades ago it looked as if we were making huge strides towards a better future. Now...not so much.
A sad day for humanity. Your AfD is on the rise. Our Vlaams Belang js on the rise. Populism and polarization is firmly on the tise. You better start understanding where they're coming from. Been saying that since 2016, but everyone keeps saying people on the right are morons and delusional. Whatever the truth is, they are people and they have voting power and disenfranchising them with your rhetoric will only tear your social fabric apart. I try to refrain from this kind of rhetoric like you (not just you specificallly Simberto), because I deem it highly corrosive. Keep thinking your side is the best for all humans (which it very well might be, might I add), but that's completely missing the point, and probably a lot of nuance that's at play here. As long as none of you truly understand what makes Trump so favorable, it will bite you in the ass over and over. Yeah, i know. But i am mostly just done. The rightwing people make it very, very hard to try to deal with them, meet them in the middle and try to get them back into reality, because they all the things they do and say they want are just so bad. For them, for society, for everything. And they are so very obnoxious about it, too. It is also annoying that apparently all of the impetus is on me and people like me to get the people who plainly believe just insane bullshit back, while those same people shout hateful shit all day. And the solution is supposed to be that i have to be very empathic and nice to them. And i have been trying. For a decade or more. But it just gets worse and worse. More insanity, more removal from reality, more rightwing hate, more conspiracy bullshit. It is very hard not to treat people like morons when they act like morons. It is hard to pretend people are adults when they clearly don't act that way themselves. I am just exhausted. I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems could be solved by doing some radical left stuff, but that ain't happening either. I think some of the reason that people drift towards insanity is that they feel lost economically. Rightwing conspiracies give them a nice, easy answer as to why that is, so they drift further and further in that direction. To prevent this, we need some good oldschool Klassenkampf. Redistribution of wealth, from the ultra rich to the poor, so that the poor don't feel the need to fight other poor over scraps from the rich mans table. But that is clearly not happening, if anything we are moving further and further away from that idea. So, i guess i will mostly just give up. Leave politics to the insane, try my best to survive. Hope that the insanity eventually just passes. How confident are you in your ability to steelman the conservative position? Not the stupid mainstream stuff you hear thrown out by Republicans, but rather the sort of case made using concepts from people like Hayek, Sowell, Popper, the federalists, etc.? If you think they are all absolutely insane, then best can be said is I don't see how their is any "hope" to bring anything together. I believe there is a lot that goes into this question. And oftentimes I've found you do get absolutely nowhere, and when that happens it's almost always a case of different personalities/incentives creating difference in preferences that don't have much or any common ground, or personality differences (usually low openness in mainline conservatives) that renders them very stuck in whatever their current mode of thought is. They simply don't seem to care for new ideas. I am pretty confident that i can argue reasonably well for a sane conservative position, like one championed by the names you mention. But sadly, those aren't the conservatives we have. I have zero confidence in my ability to steelman the MAGA position, which seems to be mostly insane gibberish, conspiracy theories and memes to me. I could start with some vague idea and steelman it into something sane, but then i would be very far removed from actual MAGA positions again.
On November 06 2024 21:06 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:39 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 20:18 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 19:55 Taelshin wrote:
@Wombat it feels like you moved over this cycle, cant say for sure but I thought you were a more centrist person with centrist ideals. You hitched your cart to the wrong wagon bud, It'll be okay.
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't. No, I’d probably be one of the furthest left here minus your GHs On November 06 2024 19:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:
Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists.
What is a woman MAGA zealot? The hardened communists I've known over the years take those names seriously. How many MAGA/Reagan people have you met in person? Of my 6 biggest customers 4 are MAGA Hat wearers. They've been wearing MAGA hats since the 80s. I talk to them about people like Rand, Sowell, Hayek, and Greenspan all the time. One time I showed up to the big labour day cook out in an "Austrian School of Economics" t-shirt with the big "A" symbol on it. The MAGA crowd loved it. And lemme tell ya man... these MoFos have got money to spend. I mean Americans have appalling aesthetic taste and that’s just one example. Daft bloody hats As per my previous like, given I’ d contrasted with other conservatives, or their traditions a MAGA zealot is just a Trump cultist, the kind of person who thinks Marjorie Taylor Greene was onto something when she mentioned Jewish space lazers. Not people who read Hayek et al, much less discuss him One group of people is idiotic, hateful, insane or all 3, one Is a group of people with an actual belief system that I can have cordial discussions with, even if ultimately we’ll disagree ideologically This feels to broad even for me. MAGA is made up of at least a few different sections. The lower IQ alt right adjacent faction seems to me to jusitfy the use of the word hateful. They seem like frustrated, bitter, most low ability white men that are just pissed off at the world, and use race and perceived moral superiority of their own variety to feel good about themselves "At least I'm not black", "at least I'm not gay", etc. Then you've got a bunch of fairly normal MAGA people, aside from believing in whacky stuff like Jewish Space Lazers, as affable people. I've never experienced what I would use the word hate for. They want everybody to be happy. They want everybody to succeed. They might not love gay people, but they don't hate them. They want them to overall do well. They just don't want them to be gay. Or, often, they just don't want them to be gay around them. It's something, but I don't extend hate to that. Just otherwise normal, mostly happy, stubborn stuck in their ways people with whacky beliefs they get from feeling like their concerns are dismissed. You can be an affable person and have hateful abstract political beliefs. Or the inverse etc etc Possibly why so many arguments also happen, I don’t know if you’re a conservative yourself but regardless So much energy is put into defending these people, or excusing their behavioural, or blaming the ‘elites’ for disenfranchising them. Or Donald Trump’s latest blatant misbehaviour You don’t have to do that (the collective ‘you’) try this: 1. ‘Hey yeah those people kinda suck, not my kind of conservatism’ 2. ‘I’ll reluctantly vote for Trump because my values are too far from the Democratic Party, but man he sure is a shitbag One doesn’t have to, but one absolutely CAN do these things if one is actually serious about common ground. And of course some on the other side of the ledger could have some equivalent concessions, I’m talking from my perspective of what frequently poisons ones I’m involved in Instead the pattern is 1. Defend the basically indefensible for some reason 2. Other side of discussion gets increasingly irascible 3. ‘Why can’t we have productive conversations’ I'm a very unusual set of beliefs that change fairly often. For example I lean towards genetic determinism/scientific racism. I'm not convinced that's how rEaLiTy is, but I lean that way. Super far right kind of thing. Then on the other hand, I think transmen are indeed, men, and a transwoman is indeed a woman. I think Xtianity is amazing warts and all, despite not believing in god. I'm pro abortion. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to live by my beliefs. My preference is for a very small central government, and then pushing most decision making way down below the state level to small federation. Closer to counties than to states, so that people can find the methods of governing that work for themselves, and moving between them is fluid and you're not stuck in a giant Red or Blue expanse like Texas or California with those ways forced on you. I'm an original textualist when it comes to the Court I think polyamory is fine and works great for 10-20% of the population Etc. (For the bolded, I don't find that happens to often. Usually I'm able to get to what they believe, and then I sort of push around for why, and it feels like it usually boils down to everybody around them believes it so they do also and the social cost of giving it up isn't tenable; it's something they will almost always believe from personality, in the same way high conscientiousness people cannot seem to understand ADHD types, totally different set of facts or assumption about reality, etc.)
Thanks, interesting
What I was really getting at is, why is it so difficult for many conservatives to just distance themselves, or draw a distinction to another group, rather than defend them reflexively?
Not you specifically, more broadly. And really only as pronounced a trend in the Trump era
One doesn’t have to defend Donald Trump on absolutely everything. One can just say ‘hey those folks are dicks but those aren’t my views’.
To go back to Simberto’s point, people give up trying to find middle grounds if they continue to hit brick walls.
As they also say, it’s somehow continuing to get even worse, like genuinely draining to deal with.
Sometimes you do hit that ‘hey, agree to disagree’ eventually, but they stage should NOT be over basic, incontrovertible facts. I shouldn’t just get a ‘nope’ if I bring up something Trump said on video like, that day or whatever
And the same folks will have the fucking gall to complain about ‘echo chambers’ and ‘nobody wants to have conversations anymore’
There’s sometimes lots of commonality across, I’d find it rather difficult to make an argument that the wider left have some of these issues.
The left will accept criticism of their leaders, indeed they may be the one leading the charge. Leftist infighting is a meme for a quite legitimate reason
|
On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:45 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you talking about the scientific process or how non-scientists feel about science? I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality. Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain. Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that. We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you? Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma. 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now. YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. 2) USAObesityMap.jpeg 3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist.
Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve?
Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year?
|
Waking up to a Trump win, including the popular vote, and likely even a Republican scoop. They're completely in control.
If a left-winger tells me ever again that the majority is usually correct on things, I'll refer to this election cycle.
|
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish.
On November 06 2024 21:43 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality.
Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain.
Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that.
We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you?
Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma. 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now. YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. 2) USAObesityMap.jpeg 3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve? Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year?
i wager you’d have to rely on science to tell me smokers don’t have those improved health stats eh?
|
On November 06 2024 21:18 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2024 21:04 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma. Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money. Most people in the West eat absolute garbage (especially in Norway by the way) and have a good awful lifestyle (though i give you that norwegians are good at that). Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting. Which is my point. The nutrition and exercise recommendations are not that different from saying: "Biff, I recommend you work with furious focus for 4-8 hours each day. Locked in. Lazer focused. Then go relax and enjoy life" "Biff, I recommend not getting upset and shouting at somebody or allowing their behavior to frustrate you" "Biff, I recommend that you always be witty, charming, and a calming secure presence when around women" My hunch is most would say the actual advice is fine.
Nutrition science will tell you that eating ultra processed food, industrial garbage and drinking coca cola is detrimental to your health, explain you why and give you numbers to support its claims. Science doesn’t tell you what to do, it tells you what does what.
I have no idea what your point is, but it’s abundantly clear you don’t understand what science does and how it works.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On November 06 2024 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think a lot of different groups will feel justified in promoting different (and potentially conflicting) "improvements" for next election.
Some people will think the right move is to become more moderate and try to appeal to more swing voters.
Some people will think the right move is to try to appeal more to the left wing.
Some people will think that we need to stick with an old white guy to maximize our chances of victory.
Some people will think that the primary reason why Harris lost is because of how the Democratic (non-)primary played out, and that otherwise the political campaign was solid.
And so on.
Aye. We can’t all be right in our instincts.
Perhaps if more people actually read things like policy proposals or basically anything tangible, that would help?
Thank you for your updates and breakdowns of those over the campaign by the way, much appreciated
|
On November 06 2024 21:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:09 Simberto wrote:On November 06 2024 19:33 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:20 Simberto wrote:On November 06 2024 18:35 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 18:05 Simberto wrote:
The US is just so completely lost.
I hope this will lead to europe getting our shit together and building a better world, less reliant on the idiocracy across the atlantic.
But realistically, we will just get the same shit in a few years. It has already been happening here, and with this victory of insanity it will likely only increase. Apparently the most idiotic of rightwing people have just figured out a brainhack in some way, and that is just the world we live in now.
I just don't know how to deal with this. Why are large parts of humanity like this? A two decades ago it looked as if we were making huge strides towards a better future. Now...not so much.
A sad day for humanity. Your AfD is on the rise. Our Vlaams Belang js on the rise. Populism and polarization is firmly on the tise. You better start understanding where they're coming from. Been saying that since 2016, but everyone keeps saying people on the right are morons and delusional. Whatever the truth is, they are people and they have voting power and disenfranchising them with your rhetoric will only tear your social fabric apart. I try to refrain from this kind of rhetoric like you (not just you specificallly Simberto), because I deem it highly corrosive. Keep thinking your side is the best for all humans (which it very well might be, might I add), but that's completely missing the point, and probably a lot of nuance that's at play here. As long as none of you truly understand what makes Trump so favorable, it will bite you in the ass over and over. Yeah, i know. But i am mostly just done. The rightwing people make it very, very hard to try to deal with them, meet them in the middle and try to get them back into reality, because they all the things they do and say they want are just so bad. For them, for society, for everything. And they are so very obnoxious about it, too. It is also annoying that apparently all of the impetus is on me and people like me to get the people who plainly believe just insane bullshit back, while those same people shout hateful shit all day. And the solution is supposed to be that i have to be very empathic and nice to them. And i have been trying. For a decade or more. But it just gets worse and worse. More insanity, more removal from reality, more rightwing hate, more conspiracy bullshit. It is very hard not to treat people like morons when they act like morons. It is hard to pretend people are adults when they clearly don't act that way themselves. I am just exhausted. I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems could be solved by doing some radical left stuff, but that ain't happening either. I think some of the reason that people drift towards insanity is that they feel lost economically. Rightwing conspiracies give them a nice, easy answer as to why that is, so they drift further and further in that direction. To prevent this, we need some good oldschool Klassenkampf. Redistribution of wealth, from the ultra rich to the poor, so that the poor don't feel the need to fight other poor over scraps from the rich mans table. But that is clearly not happening, if anything we are moving further and further away from that idea. So, i guess i will mostly just give up. Leave politics to the insane, try my best to survive. Hope that the insanity eventually just passes. How confident are you in your ability to steelman the conservative position? Not the stupid mainstream stuff you hear thrown out by Republicans, but rather the sort of case made using concepts from people like Hayek, Sowell, Popper, the federalists, etc.? If you think they are all absolutely insane, then best can be said is I don't see how their is any "hope" to bring anything together. I believe there is a lot that goes into this question. And oftentimes I've found you do get absolutely nowhere, and when that happens it's almost always a case of different personalities/incentives creating difference in preferences that don't have much or any common ground, or personality differences (usually low openness in mainline conservatives) that renders them very stuck in whatever their current mode of thought is. They simply don't seem to care for new ideas. I am pretty confident that i can argue reasonably well for a sane conservative position, like one championed by the names you mention. But sadly, those aren't the conservatives we have. I have zero confidence in my ability to steelman the MAGA position, which seems to be mostly insane gibberish, conspiracy theories and memes to me. I could start with some vague idea and steelman it into something sane, but then i would be very far removed from actual MAGA positions again. Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:06 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 20:18 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 19:55 Taelshin wrote:
@Wombat it feels like you moved over this cycle, cant say for sure but I thought you were a more centrist person with centrist ideals. You hitched your cart to the wrong wagon bud, It'll be okay.
Last post tonight - fucking pumped - if you sad, I'm sorry loosing sucks I know (we've all been there). If your angry thinking of doing stupid stuff, Just don't. No, I’d probably be one of the furthest left here minus your GHs On November 06 2024 19:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 19:41 WombaT wrote:
Those names are about as relevant to the MAGA zealots as they are to hardened Communists.
What is a woman MAGA zealot? The hardened communists I've known over the years take those names seriously. How many MAGA/Reagan people have you met in person? Of my 6 biggest customers 4 are MAGA Hat wearers. They've been wearing MAGA hats since the 80s. I talk to them about people like Rand, Sowell, Hayek, and Greenspan all the time. One time I showed up to the big labour day cook out in an "Austrian School of Economics" t-shirt with the big "A" symbol on it. The MAGA crowd loved it. And lemme tell ya man... these MoFos have got money to spend. I mean Americans have appalling aesthetic taste and that’s just one example. Daft bloody hats As per my previous like, given I’ d contrasted with other conservatives, or their traditions a MAGA zealot is just a Trump cultist, the kind of person who thinks Marjorie Taylor Greene was onto something when she mentioned Jewish space lazers. Not people who read Hayek et al, much less discuss him One group of people is idiotic, hateful, insane or all 3, one Is a group of people with an actual belief system that I can have cordial discussions with, even if ultimately we’ll disagree ideologically This feels to broad even for me. MAGA is made up of at least a few different sections. The lower IQ alt right adjacent faction seems to me to jusitfy the use of the word hateful. They seem like frustrated, bitter, most low ability white men that are just pissed off at the world, and use race and perceived moral superiority of their own variety to feel good about themselves "At least I'm not black", "at least I'm not gay", etc. Then you've got a bunch of fairly normal MAGA people, aside from believing in whacky stuff like Jewish Space Lazers, as affable people. I've never experienced what I would use the word hate for. They want everybody to be happy. They want everybody to succeed. They might not love gay people, but they don't hate them. They want them to overall do well. They just don't want them to be gay. Or, often, they just don't want them to be gay around them. It's something, but I don't extend hate to that. Just otherwise normal, mostly happy, stubborn stuck in their ways people with whacky beliefs they get from feeling like their concerns are dismissed. You can be an affable person and have hateful abstract political beliefs. Or the inverse etc etc Possibly why so many arguments also happen, I don’t know if you’re a conservative yourself but regardless So much energy is put into defending these people, or excusing their behavioural, or blaming the ‘elites’ for disenfranchising them. Or Donald Trump’s latest blatant misbehaviour You don’t have to do that (the collective ‘you’) try this: 1. ‘Hey yeah those people kinda suck, not my kind of conservatism’ 2. ‘I’ll reluctantly vote for Trump because my values are too far from the Democratic Party, but man he sure is a shitbag One doesn’t have to, but one absolutely CAN do these things if one is actually serious about common ground. And of course some on the other side of the ledger could have some equivalent concessions, I’m talking from my perspective of what frequently poisons ones I’m involved in Instead the pattern is 1. Defend the basically indefensible for some reason 2. Other side of discussion gets increasingly irascible 3. ‘Why can’t we have productive conversations’ I'm a very unusual set of beliefs that change fairly often. For example I lean towards genetic determinism/scientific racism. I'm not convinced that's how rEaLiTy is, but I lean that way. Super far right kind of thing. Then on the other hand, I think transmen are indeed, men, and a transwoman is indeed a woman. I think Xtianity is amazing warts and all, despite not believing in god. I'm pro abortion. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to live by my beliefs. My preference is for a very small central government, and then pushing most decision making way down below the state level to small federation. Closer to counties than to states, so that people can find the methods of governing that work for themselves, and moving between them is fluid and you're not stuck in a giant Red or Blue expanse like Texas or California with those ways forced on you. I'm an original textualist when it comes to the Court I think polyamory is fine and works great for 10-20% of the population Etc. (For the bolded, I don't find that happens to often. Usually I'm able to get to what they believe, and then I sort of push around for why, and it feels like it usually boils down to everybody around them believes it so they do also and the social cost of giving it up isn't tenable; it's something they will almost always believe from personality, in the same way high conscientiousness people cannot seem to understand ADHD types, totally different set of facts or assumption about reality, etc.) Thanks, interesting What I was really getting at is, why is it so difficult for many conservatives to just distance themselves, or draw a distinction to another group, rather than defend them reflexively? Not you specifically, more broadly. And really only as pronounced a trend in the Trump era One doesn’t have to defend Donald Trump on absolutely everything. One can just say ‘hey those folks are dicks but those aren’t my views’.
Being very speculative here, I think a portion of it is territory. Similar to how you would likely defend yourself against an intruder in your home, or react reflexively to someone trying to get into your car. Words, verbal space, whatever...I see that as a form of territory and something that we have a reflexive nature to defend because failure to do so can carry real costs (loss of status, ostracization, even death).
There is also a big "cost" in there with changing beliefs. If I believe that the right is well....right, and then decide that the left is actually "right" that's a big neurological cost. It's very disorienting. My whole identity could be in flux, all the ways I understood the world might need to change. I think it's possible we have a instinctual defense against those costs as well.
To go back to Simberto’s point, people give up trying to find middle grounds if they continue to hit brick walls.
As they also say, it’s somehow continuing to get even worse, like genuinely draining to deal with.
Sometimes you do hit that ‘hey, agree to disagree’ eventually, but they stage should NOT be over basic, incontrovertible facts. I shouldn’t just get a ‘nope’ if I bring up something Trump said on video like, that day or whatever
And the same folks will have the fucking gall to complain about ‘echo chambers’ and ‘nobody wants to have conversations anymore’
There’s sometimes lots of commonality across, I’d find it rather difficult to make an argument that the wider left have some of these issues.
The left will accept criticism of their leaders, indeed they may be the one leading the charge. Leftist infighting is a meme for a quite legitimate reason
I agree if it's literally over the actual content of the video, but oftentimes the person is jumping to cutting of they guess at what you're reasoning for bringing up the clip was.
I'd like to think most Trumpers wouldn't deny, say, that Trump mentioned guns being pointed at Cheney. But they might start objecting when they make a guess at where they think you are going and want to reframe to how they see it, or their assumptions (from their POV) about what Trump's meaning was beyond the statement.
Fwiw, one of the reasons the dissident right never gets anywhere is because they have insane levels of infighting. They are absolutely all incredibly disagreeable individuals, and will absolute rip each other to shreds over the tiniest of details.
|
On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish.
if you play sports you can feel the difference in a month. your performance along many vectors declines. with alcohol and baseball the difference can be noticed in a day. large amounts of alcohol causes major dehydration and that really wrecks your vision.
|
On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish.
So your prediction is that smoking for five years, or drinking soda for five years in decent quantity, in an adult would cause no observable lab changes or in health.
(and fwiw, a good fraction of the people I went through college that partied aggressively with lots of alcohol complained much more about health issues over those 4 years of college
and, lots of clinical trials for diet interventions or drugs last far less than five years, very different goalposts when you disagree huh)
On November 06 2024 21:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:18 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 21:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2024 21:04 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:
Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma.
the goal is to keep you kinda, sorta ill for decades so that you continue to be a life time customer of Big Pharma. Yeah the big pharma is trying to gaslight us from the fact that most of the population in the western world eat very healthy and exercise regulary. Thereby they won't have a need for their products and they lose money. Most people in the West eat absolute garbage (especially in Norway by the way) and have a good awful lifestyle (though i give you that norwegians are good at that). Do you know what the obesity rate is the US and what people eat there? It’s absolutely disgusting. Which is my point. The nutrition and exercise recommendations are not that different from saying: "Biff, I recommend you work with furious focus for 4-8 hours each day. Locked in. Lazer focused. Then go relax and enjoy life" "Biff, I recommend not getting upset and shouting at somebody or allowing their behavior to frustrate you" "Biff, I recommend that you always be witty, charming, and a calming secure presence when around women" My hunch is most would say the actual advice is fine. Nutrition science will tell you that eating ultra processed food, industrial garbage and drinking coca cola is detrimental to your health, explain you why and give you numbers to support its claims. Science doesn’t tell you what to do, it tells you what does what. I have no idea what your point is, but it’s abundantly clear you don’t understand what science does and how it works.
Its abundantly clear you didn't realize I'm talking about expert recommendations, not science.
On November 06 2024 21:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish. if you play sports you can feel the difference in a month. your performance along many vectors declines. with alcohol and baseball the difference can be noticed in a day. large amounts of alcohol causes major dehydration and that really wrecks your vision.
Yup.
|
On November 06 2024 21:43 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 19:32 Uldridge wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about the process of how we, as humans - organisms that filter a highly selective part of reality - try to understand reality.
Don't get me wrong, we understand a vast amount already, but it's possible we're limited in understanding only a fraction of it due to our limitations of the brain.
Now, science is a framework that hinges upon the actors being, so to speak, completely objective and truth and reality, or our understanding of that at least, kind of depends on that. Time and time again it has been shown that history, personal and institutional biases, funding etc. get in the way of accurately finding out how things work. People abuse statistics to get more interesting results, replication crisis remains an issue, people try to get funding for potentially futile endeavors because it's trending right now, when other theories that could be as challenging get less because that's how hype and momentum works and humans are not devoid of that.
We can agree on basic facts. We can observe things on our world and we can describe them pretty rigorously. Often times, though, a narrative of reality is created that we adhere to because that's the current hype or does a particular thing in that point in time pretty well, but will then be torn to shreds because it was incomplete or because it was simply wrong. And none of it matters really because at the end of the day all you do as a human is sleep, eat, drink, shit, piss, socialize and if you're lucky fuck. It's a feelings based reality we live in. How much energy do you have today? How hungry are you?
Our scientifically based jnfrastructure we have is nice, but... completely unnecessary. I'm starting to ramble now so I'll see myself out. Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma. 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now. YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. 2) USAObesityMap.jpeg 3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve? Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year?
Are you mostly avoiding procceced meat? not eating excess amounts of one thing and generally balancing your intake of calories?, getting your requiered nutrients and vitamins through various means confirmed apparently by regular bloodowork? Congratulations in this case you just described yourself having a probably healthy and balanced diet.
It's in the name a recomendation that for the average person would promote a healthy diet and nothing more. And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles
|
On November 06 2024 22:00 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish. So your prediction is that smoking for five years, or drinking soda for five years in decent quantity, in an adult would cause no observable lab changes or in health. (and fwiw, a good fraction of the people I went through college that partied aggressively with lots of alcohol complained much more about health issues over those 4 years of college and, lots of clinical trials for diet interventions or drugs last far less than five years, very different goalposts when you disagree huh) Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish. if you play sports you can feel the difference in a month. your performance along many vectors declines. with alcohol and baseball the difference can be noticed in a day. large amounts of alcohol causes major dehydration and that really wrecks your vision. Yup.
i don’t know what goal posts you think i disagree with. i would also disagree with a diet study that lasted five years as evidence of the benefits of eating a diet high in red meat.
i wager you’d have to rely on science to tell me that smokers don’t have improved health metrics, no? when your standard is your own experienced outcomes i don’t think you can tell me smokers don’t have those improved markers.
while we’re sharing anecdotes as proof, yea, i drank like a fish throughout college and definitely felt better at the end of it. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities.
i’ll leave the conclusions one has to jump to there to you. was it the drinking?
|
On November 06 2024 22:02 Xan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:43 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 21:38 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 21:10 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:56 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 19:49 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Thank you for the clarification, I get what you're saying.
The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. If you have bad scientists or bad system implementation (which is what you're describing in the majority of your post), this leads to results that will not be replicated and research that will not lead to new breakthroughs. If you expect scientists to be accurate and correct 100% of the time, that's unfeasible. Mistakes in methodology happen. Data is misinterpreted all the time. It can derail the field in the short term, sure, but in the long-term, no scientist clings to an approach that doesn't work, flawed methodology leads to results that simply do not match reality and are eventually discarded. Scientific consensus emerges and we make progress -- it is designed to be an iterative process after all. I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. I can give you the ideas of things to look for. I'm not saying any of these are or are not happening. Only the kinds of things I would imagine looking at. - Out of paradigm novel ideas I have heard continually from friends in research are much harder to get funding for. I don't know if this creates wrong science, but it limits scope - It's very risky for your career to publish any sensitive genetic or anthropologic research. If you're a geneticist, you're very unlikely to touch anything about race or sex differences with a ten foot pool, and god forbid you do a study and get a result that europeans or men outperform. Many cases of publishing such papers being career ending. May or may not be producing false data, but at a minimum creates a blind spot and produces evidence only in one direction - Nutrition is horrible science. Massive fraction of all departments have funding directly from industrial or corporate food and drug companies. Digging here you'll find lots of example of horrible, absolutely atrocious papers. Then you'll see they have an h-index of like 30, 40, 50+ are you're just like "wtf....." Yeah the god damn mainstream scientific consensus on nutrition that is held by pretty every fucking health agency in the modern world Is so bad, The thought of having a well balanced diet with a focus on natural greens and vegetables with balanced intake of meat and fish is fucking unscientific and bad for you and sponsored by big pharma. 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now. YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. 2) USAObesityMap.jpeg 3) If #2 didn't make sense, it's as much what is left out as it is about what's included. The recommendations of what to eat don't seem bad. The recommendations on how to eat it are atrocious. this results based analysis has obvious flaws. talk to a smoker in the 60s, and they’d feel fucking great. talk to a guy who bumped his first line of coke and his momentary impression is that it’s a wonder drug. the long term effects of a diet heavy in red meat has demonstrable consequences. that you aren’t seeing them right now is, of course, not evidence that they don’t exist. Let's say I smoke for 5 years. Do expect things like my testosterone, blood sugar, cholesterol, trigs, immune markers, heart rate, etc, to improve? Would you expect someone who smokes for 5 years to feel better or the same with each passing year? Are you mostly avoiding procceced meat? not eating excess amounts of one thing and generally balancing your intake of calories?, getting your requiered nutrients and vitamins through various means confirmed apparently by regular bloodowork? Congratulations in this case you just described yourself having a probably healthy and balanced diet. It's in the name a recomendation that for the average person would promote a healthy diet and nothing more. And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles
I probably average about 250-500g of ham per day. The rest I get is mostly through beef of various cuts (usually 150-200g protein per day), then potatoes and rice as the main carb sources. Some butter and ice cream here and there, along with occassional snacks. Usually sugar. Pure sugar stuff (slurpees, gummi candies, etc.). I've found fatcarbs to be nothing but an absolute disaster for me. Overeat, gain weight, feel worse in fairly short order if fatcarb consumption goes high.
And the average population is in no way or form close to following anything that resembles these principles
That's the main thing I'm driving at, that Biff was missing. It's not that the advice is bad. It's that the advice is incomplete.
On November 06 2024 22:03 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:00 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish. So your prediction is that smoking for five years, or drinking soda for five years in decent quantity, in an adult would cause no observable lab changes or in health. (and fwiw, a good fraction of the people I went through college that partied aggressively with lots of alcohol complained much more about health issues over those 4 years of college and, lots of clinical trials for diet interventions or drugs last far less than five years, very different goalposts when you disagree huh) On November 06 2024 21:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 21:45 brian wrote:
i won’t pretend along with you that five years is a significant time period for one test subject to draw conclusions from. some teenagers may drink soda and alcohol almost exclusively. do you think they feel worse in their early twenties? of course not. they’re twenty year olds. they could work out once a week and post increased body fat % and testosterone because they’re 20. not because they drink like fish. if you play sports you can feel the difference in a month. your performance along many vectors declines. with alcohol and baseball the difference can be noticed in a day. large amounts of alcohol causes major dehydration and that really wrecks your vision. Yup. i don’t know what goal posts you think i disagree with. i would also disagree with a diet study that lasted five years as evidence of the benefits of eating a diet high in red meat. i wager you’d have to rely on science to tell me that smokers don’t have improved health metrics, no? when your standard is your own experienced outcomes i don’t think you can tell me smokers don’t have those improved markers. while we’re sharing anecdotes as proof, yea, i drank like a fish throughout college and definitely felt better at the end of it. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. i’ll leave the conclusions one has to jump to there to you. was it the drinking?
I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years.
I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories.
because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities.
Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits.
|
On November 06 2024 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
Not to sound overly critical, but neither you nor L_master provided a link I could click to see a dataset that substantiates the claims you are both making.
In what way are we stagnating? Medical advances happen all the time, the record-time development of the covid vaccine was nearly miraculous all in itself. There is now a chatbot that will proofread your documents for you and write code for you -- in fact, it is a genuine worry for many people that their job will be replaced by a robot or AI. These are huge things that happened in a span of less than 3 years.
Chatbot is (was) more hype than glory based on the, franky, stolen content they've used their models on to train. If the web is your data, it's 'easy' to train your bot.
The "fastness" of the vaccine was simply the circumvention of many bureaucratic hurdles that normally exist during drug development. I don't view that as something miraculous. I don't think you know how drug development works or how big pharma works. They have millions of compounds with preliminary data they can pick from. They have thousands of drug delivery methods they understand. I don't like how non transparantly the entire process of developmemt turned out, but that's another discussion.
Medical advances happen all the time? Please..
I have 2 things you can read I guess:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15884
|
On November 06 2024 21:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think a lot of different groups will feel justified in promoting different (and potentially conflicting) "improvements" for next election.
Some people will think the right move is to become more moderate and try to appeal to more swing voters.
Some people will think the right move is to try to appeal more to the left wing.
Some people will think that we need to stick with an old white guy to maximize our chances of victory.
Some people will think that the primary reason why Harris lost is because of how the Democratic (non-)primary played out, and that otherwise the political campaign was solid.
And so on. Aye. We can’t all be right in our instincts. Perhaps if more people actually read things like policy proposals or basically anything tangible, that would help?
Yes, especially if millions of voters did!
Thank you for your updates and breakdowns of those over the campaign by the way, much appreciated
It's my pleasure 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
