|
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 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me.
Amen, brother.
|
United States41430 Posts
On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists.
Yeah, you probably know more than the experts in all these various fields due to your listening to what you describe as weird internet people. That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to. I propose we replace science with your new method.
|
On November 06 2024 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Do you do your own dentistry?
Do you think I'm saying experts don't exist?
|
On November 06 2024 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy. What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office? Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do. I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you. Harris listed a bunch of things she'd want to do immediately: return to the bipartisan border bill on immigration that Trump blew up, lower the price of groceries by going after price gouging, expanding the child tax credit, increasing financial support for housing, starting to enact the plan for millions of more houses to be built, etc. There are a few articles that outline different parts of her Day 1 plan. Here is one of them: "Vice President Harris outlined her Day 1 agenda to support middle-class families if she were to win the election this fall in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. She addressed plans to make housing more affordable and to expand the child tax credit, and she acknowledged that despite economic growth since the pandemic, prices are still too high for many Americans." https://www.wgbh.org/news/2024-08-29/harris-explains-her-policy-shifts-and-day-1-plan-in-1st-sit-down-interview-as-nominee
I read that article and its just too.... vague
Here's what people mean when they say Democrats should talk policy:
Remember the wall?
"I'm going to build a wall, and its going to keep illegal immigrants out"
That is how you discuss policy in modern America.
You take the outcome people want (illegal immigrants out), and tell people how you are going to achieve it in 10 words or less (I'm going to build a wall) so that they can understand what you're talking about.
There is none of that in the article you linked.
Its full of 'well we want to do this, but we're not going to tell you how'.
Trump is all 'I'll build a wall' and then you look where he said he was going to build it and you see a wall.
Its a whole different thing.
Democrats don't understand why this works and why what they do doesn't work.
|
On November 06 2024 20:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Yeah, you probably know more than the experts in all these various fields due to your listening to what you describe as weird internet people. That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to. I propose we replace science with your new method.
Such manipulative rhetoric games. Troll harder.
|
On November 06 2024 20:21 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Do you do your own dentistry? Do you think I'm saying experts don't exist?
No, I think you DO trust experts, when there is a severe risk to your own health, but probably not when its an ideological thing where the consequences of stupidity don't just land on you, but are shared among everyone.
|
On November 06 2024 20:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy. What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office? Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do. I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you. Harris listed a bunch of things she'd want to do immediately: return to the bipartisan border bill on immigration that Trump blew up, lower the price of groceries by going after price gouging, expanding the child tax credit, increasing financial support for housing, starting to enact the plan for millions of more houses to be built, etc. There are a few articles that outline different parts of her Day 1 plan. Here is one of them: "Vice President Harris outlined her Day 1 agenda to support middle-class families if she were to win the election this fall in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. She addressed plans to make housing more affordable and to expand the child tax credit, and she acknowledged that despite economic growth since the pandemic, prices are still too high for many Americans." https://www.wgbh.org/news/2024-08-29/harris-explains-her-policy-shifts-and-day-1-plan-in-1st-sit-down-interview-as-nominee I read that article and its just too.... vague Here's what people mean when they say Democrats should talk policy: Remember the wall? "I'm going to build a wall, and its going to keep illegal immigrants out"
That is how you discuss policy in modern America.You take the outcome people want (illegal immigrants out), and tell people how you are going to achieve it in 10 words or less (I'm going to build a wall) so that they can understand what you're talking about. There is none of that in the article you linked. Its full of 'well we want to do this, but we're not going to tell you how'. Trump is all 'I'll build a wall' and then you look where he said he was going to build it and you see a wall.Its a whole different thing. Democrats don't understand why this works and why what they do doesn't work.
The bipartisan border bill is actually a policy. And Trump never built the wall, nor had Mexico pay for it, yet got re-elected anyway. There is no wall. It's, unfortunately, not about policy, but rather the communication of completely bullshit sound bites. Promise nonsensical three-word or four-word phrases that can be printed on a hat, because actual policy is boring and long and who has time for that? 
|
On November 06 2024 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy. What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office? Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do. I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you. Harris listed a bunch of things she'd want to do immediately: return to the bipartisan border bill on immigration that Trump blew up, lower the price of groceries by going after price gouging, expanding the child tax credit, increasing financial support for housing, starting to enact the plan for millions of more houses to be built, etc. There are a few articles that outline different parts of her Day 1 plan. Here is one of them: "Vice President Harris outlined her Day 1 agenda to support middle-class families if she were to win the election this fall in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. She addressed plans to make housing more affordable and to expand the child tax credit, and she acknowledged that despite economic growth since the pandemic, prices are still too high for many Americans." https://www.wgbh.org/news/2024-08-29/harris-explains-her-policy-shifts-and-day-1-plan-in-1st-sit-down-interview-as-nominee I read that article and its just too.... vague Here's what people mean when they say Democrats should talk policy: Remember the wall? "I'm going to build a wall, and its going to keep illegal immigrants out"
That is how you discuss policy in modern America.You take the outcome people want (illegal immigrants out), and tell people how you are going to achieve it in 10 words or less (I'm going to build a wall) so that they can understand what you're talking about. There is none of that in the article you linked. Its full of 'well we want to do this, but we're not going to tell you how'. Trump is all 'I'll build a wall' and then you look where he said he was going to build it and you see a wall.Its a whole different thing. Democrats don't understand why this works and why what they do doesn't work. The bipartisan border bill is actually a policy. And Trump never built the wall, nor had Mexico pay for it, yet got re-elected anyway. There is no wall. It's, unfortunately, not about policy, but rather the communication of completely bullshit sound bites. Promise nonsensical three-word or four-word phrases that can be printed on a hat, because actual policy is boring and long and who has time for that?
Now you're getting it.
|
On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:
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
and Democratic Party voters have among them a similar group of idiotic, hateful, insane people. Hand pick from any group of 50+ million and you'll always find idiots. meh.
|
On November 06 2024 20:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 17:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:41 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 17:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On November 06 2024 17:24 Dante08 wrote:
The most shocking thing is Trump is likely to win the popular vote which is CRAZY It's honestly not that shocking. This is what the cynical side of me knew was going to happen. This election isn't so much an affirmation of Trump it's a rejection of the Democrats. Of their messaging, of their candidates and of their politics. 100%. Pretty much every person I knew isn't especially pro Trump. They are simply disgusted, angry, or afraid of the democrats DEI policies, the rapid shift in demographics, the monetary policy (admittedly R isn't a ton better here, but perception skews that way), and the general bureaucracy and onerous endless regulations that are added. Also very strong opposition to the moral posture that liberals always take. Almost impossible to overstate that. Everyone I know in person, unless ardent left, despises this. The ardent left folk almost always take these moral framings "you're a horrible racist", "you hate trans people", "you're a misogynist", "you don't care about women", etc. when you don't agree or do what they want. Put all that together with Harris as a candidate and.... you get tonight. I've been saying it and I'll keep saying it. Democrats need to focus on fucking POLICY. Stop getting into these shit slinging contests with the Republicans about wedge issues.There's A REASON the Republicans want politics to be about that. They win those fights. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Harris was laser-focused on policy and put out way more policy ideas than Trump. Especially with the economy, she talked in depth about lowering the price of groceries / stopping price gouging, continuing to lower medical and medicine costs and improve healthcare, childcare affordability, housing affordability, and small business affordability - among others - with actual plans laid out. She also didn't get pulled into Trump's shit-slinging contests about her race, her sex, his lies about immigrants eating and stealing dogs, his hating on trans people, etc. There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris lost - from the Democratic (non-)primary situation, to Harris's message not resonating with key demographics, to Trump's base and swing voters continuing to fall for his lies and empty promises, to the fact that most voters are low-information and there was a serious lack of communication and education on the Democratic side (e.g., "economy" was an important issue, yet many voters incorrectly thought that Trump is better for the economy than Biden/Harris), to sexism, to racism, to plenty of others - but I don't see how one could take the position that Kamala Harris didn't focus enough on policy. What were the democrats' top 5 priorities when they got into office? Name them, 5 solid, useful things the democrats were going to do. I can't think of one, but I wasn't following things as closely as you. Harris listed a bunch of things she'd want to do immediately: return to the bipartisan border bill on immigration that Trump blew up, lower the price of groceries by going after price gouging, expanding the child tax credit, increasing financial support for housing, starting to enact the plan for millions of more houses to be built, etc. There are a few articles that outline different parts of her Day 1 plan. Here is one of them: "Vice President Harris outlined her Day 1 agenda to support middle-class families if she were to win the election this fall in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. She addressed plans to make housing more affordable and to expand the child tax credit, and she acknowledged that despite economic growth since the pandemic, prices are still too high for many Americans." https://www.wgbh.org/news/2024-08-29/harris-explains-her-policy-shifts-and-day-1-plan-in-1st-sit-down-interview-as-nominee I read that article and its just too.... vague Here's what people mean when they say Democrats should talk policy: Remember the wall? "I'm going to build a wall, and its going to keep illegal immigrants out" That is how you discuss policy in modern America. You take the outcome people want (illegal immigrants out), and tell people how you are going to achieve it in 10 words or less (I'm going to build a wall) so that they can understand what you're talking about. There is none of that in the article you linked. Its full of 'well we want to do this, but we're not going to tell you how'. Trump is all 'I'll build a wall' and then you look where he said he was going to build it and you see a wall. Its a whole different thing. Democrats don't understand why this works and why what they do doesn't work. Trumps health care plan is the concept of an idea or whatever he said.
no problem there, that is fine mister Trump.
But sure its Harris's problem for not being specific enough
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.
|
On November 06 2024 20:23 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:21 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Do you do your own dentistry? Do you think I'm saying experts don't exist? No, I think you DO trust experts, when there is a severe risk to your own health, but probably not when its an ideological thing where the consequences of stupidity don't just land on you, but are shared among everyone.
That's why results. I either get results, or I don't.
If I'm struggling to do 1 hr of productive remote work a day following the advice of the best ADHD experts I've been able to find, then switch to a different approach from random internet strangers that leads to me having no trouble excelling at my career and producing 5-6 hrs of productive work per day...that's the thing I care about it.
If I'm stuck at 23% BF and plateaued on my lifting at a total of 400kg, then switch to a different diet and training approach from the random internet gymbros and lean down to sub 15% BF at a total of 500kg....that's the thing I care about.
If it doesn't produce measurable results, it is discarded. If it does, it remains incorporated.
Not an intelligence thing either. I don't know more than the experts.That would require me to think I know what's best for other people. I got no clue there. Most I know is whether I personally got results or not.
|
On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 06 2024 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Promise nonsensical three-word or four-word phrases that can be printed on a hat, because actual policy is boring and long and who has time for that?
in 1980, when the phrase was invented it spoke to a struggling country. to the voters the slogan and hat made total sense. 489 and 525 were Reagan's electoral vote wins. The "Make America Great Again" slogan and hat were pure genius. It was a smart move by Trump to use it.
I was hoping for a promised return to manned moon landings when Trump was talking about Musk. It didn't happen though.
I really like the "Make America Healthy Again" slogan. Hopefully, it inspires Americans to live a healthier life.
|
On November 06 2024 20:30 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:21 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Do you do your own dentistry? Do you think I'm saying experts don't exist? No, I think you DO trust experts, when there is a severe risk to your own health, but probably not when its an ideological thing where the consequences of stupidity don't just land on you, but are shared among everyone. That's why results. I either get results, or I don't. If I'm struggling to do 1 hr of productive remote work a day following the advice of the best ADHD experts I've been able to find, then switch to a different approach from random internet strangers that leads to me having no trouble excelling at my career and producing 5-6 hrs of productive work per day...that's the thing I care about it. If I'm stuck at 23% BF and plateaued on my lifting at a total of 400kg, then switch to a different diet and training approach from the random internet gymbros and lean down to sub 15% BF at a total of 500kg....that's the thing I care about. If it doesn't produce measurable results, it is discarded. If it does, it remains incorporated. Not an intelligence thing either. I don't know more than the experts.That would require me to think I know what's best for other people. I got no clue there. Most I know is whether I personally got results or not.
Which is fine for one's personal life.
When it comes to public policy and general beliefs, this is a huge problem.
For example, with covid, the 'results' you are talking about is the government telling people the thing that they want to hear. Therefore, when experts say something the people don't want to hear, that is seen as 'not getting results' so they won't believe the experts and instead believe whoever is telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Replicate this across every major area in public policy and you have US politics right now.
|
Northern Ireland22614 Posts
On November 06 2024 20:18 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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’
|
On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +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....."
|
Northern Ireland22614 Posts
On November 06 2024 20:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:08 WombaT wrote:
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
and Democratic Party voters have among them a similar group of idiotic, hateful, insane people. Hand pick from any group of 50+ million and you'll always find idiots. meh.
The Democratic Party doesn’t cater to the worst of their base though, to anything like the same degree. That is the pertinent difference
|
On November 06 2024 20:39 L_Master wrote:
- 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....."
I suggest Doctor Jason Fung. My wife is a "Fungster".
|
On November 06 2024 20:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 20:30 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:21 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 06 2024 20:11 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 20:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
Step 1: Believe outrageously obviously untrue things
Step 2: Refuse to listen to well trained experts, and in fact deliberately believe the opposite of what trained experts say in every single case because they are well trained experts
Step 3: Insist that its fine to believe whatever you want despite being obviously wrong
Step 4: Cry because your stupid beliefs, stupid actions and general stupid bullshit have led to people calling you stupid.
Step 5: Claim victory having elected the stupidest president of all time twice and blame the others for calling you stupid.
Seems perfectly logical to me. This step I've found lots of issues with. Seems to me that the well trained experts in a great many fields are determined via credentials in most cases, rather than ability to produce results. I've had much better fitness results and diet results abandoning what most would call nutrition experts or exercise physiologists. I've had much better results with ADHD after ditching therapists and psychiatrists, and focusing on wierd internet people who talked about things like dopamine/serotonin, territorial design, etc. I've had much better results with investing abandoning large sections of financial advice from financial advisers. I've been able to start building a really solid group of friends, and take some of the rough edges off my social personality after abandoning much of traditional therapy usage and books and again, following the advice of weird internet people. At some point, that just became impossible for me to ignore. Caused me to develop a deeper doubt in how our attempts at science are playing out as well, or at least who is getting selected into the scientist group and how well are they being trained and incentivized to think like scientists. Do you do your own dentistry? Do you think I'm saying experts don't exist? No, I think you DO trust experts, when there is a severe risk to your own health, but probably not when its an ideological thing where the consequences of stupidity don't just land on you, but are shared among everyone. That's why results. I either get results, or I don't. If I'm struggling to do 1 hr of productive remote work a day following the advice of the best ADHD experts I've been able to find, then switch to a different approach from random internet strangers that leads to me having no trouble excelling at my career and producing 5-6 hrs of productive work per day...that's the thing I care about it. If I'm stuck at 23% BF and plateaued on my lifting at a total of 400kg, then switch to a different diet and training approach from the random internet gymbros and lean down to sub 15% BF at a total of 500kg....that's the thing I care about. If it doesn't produce measurable results, it is discarded. If it does, it remains incorporated. Not an intelligence thing either. I don't know more than the experts.That would require me to think I know what's best for other people. I got no clue there. Most I know is whether I personally got results or not. Which is fine for one's personal life. When it comes to public policy and general beliefs, this is a huge problem. For example, with covid, the 'results' you are talking about is the government telling people the thing that they want to hear. Therefore, when experts say something the people don't want to hear, that is seen as 'not getting results' so they won't believe the experts and instead believe whoever is telling them exactly what they wanted to hear. Replicate this across every major area in public policy and you have US politics right now.
I know what you're talking about with "results are what people want to hear", and that's a real thing. It's NOT the thing I mean when I say results.
That's not what I mean when I talk about results.
Results with COVID would mean to me: The expert line was mask and quarantine to reduce severity, plus vax when it became available. Results for that would be doing so reduced spread of the disease, individuals that masked and quarantined were sick less than individuals who did not, and that the vaccinated individuals were more robust to the disease over the long term and suffered few adverse effects.
My approach to COVID, really all things that involve clear risk to others, is to say:
"What's the harm if I am skeptical of X (say wearing a mask and quarantining) and I am correct about that skepticism? What is the harm if I am skeptical of X and I am incorrect about that skepticism?"
In the case of COVID, the answers were:
Skeptical, correct - I wore a mask and spent a few less hours at a bar
Skeptical, incorrect - I went out and wantonly spread a dangerous illness that sickened, wounded, or even caused the death of some unknown number of people due to it's spreading danger
Answer becomes quite obvious in that case: Cut back on the social stuff, wear a quality mask for the things I must go out for
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
