/sci/ - Science & Math

>How can we fix this?
Ignore them. It is not your responsibility to convince them and their opinion isn't worth shit anyway

>>14744804
On the one hand, outreach and communication is part of my job at a university, just like teaching, but on the other hand, I am really upset that shit like homeopathy is so widespread. We live in a society with a few experts and herds of literal retards.

>>14744792
There is nothing surprising about free thinkers reaching the same conclusions. People copying each others opinions are how you get diversity in opinions.

>>14744792
How do you know it's not you who's stuck?

>>14744831
>shit like homeopathy
placebo works and doesn't have side effects (now try to wrap your head around it)
And some traditional medicine (namely hashish, which can be found in bags of every ancient doctor beats every medicine bigpharma pushes onto population today.

>>14744950
>some traditional medicine
Don't confuse traditional medicine. Also don't confuse placebo with the belief that diluting stuff to 10^-50 makes it more potent.

>>14744950
>placebos don't have side effects
That's not entirely true. Some people get stuff like headaches, malaise, or even skin rashes from just expecting side effects.

>>14744792
Daily reminder that if you find yourself sharting out a vacious, trite, substanceless and regurgitated post like that, you are the problem.

>>14744831
>I am really upset that shit like homeopathy is so widespread.
Shouldn't you be more upset that useless and harmful medical practices are still in use by medical institutions? Funny how your school of "critical thinkers" are always rambles about the some harmless and irrelevant boogeyman but will never call out the institutionalized system of fraud that's actually killing people.

>>14744970
>don't confuse placebo with the belief that diluting stuff to 10^-50 makes it more potent
Why not if that retarded belief helps retards heal? (if it does, I didn't make my own research, I just added two plus two taking those twos from open sources and common knowledge. The meme of credo quia absurdum could be an illustration to that hypothesis that absurd claims can somehow strengthen the faith (for people believe what they do not understand: if they understood it, they would also have doubts of both the accuracy of their understanding and of what else they do not know) and even though informational properties of water are not scientifically proven, could be they're not scientifically proven yet: even liquid water can have different structures, because if it was balls, it could lay down into different patterns (try to fill a bucket with equal balls, and you can find that you can lay upper layer in two different ways (if you place a ball between three balls, you cannot place balls into neighbouring holes like this) and water molecules are more complicated than balls, thus it could be arranged with even larger ammount of variations (but then magnetic properties of the atoms may say that nah) But then we never have pure water, it's always a combination of water and air molecules, probably cannot be stable, but what if it could. But then of course I understand your frustration: non-medicine costs that much (could help to fool the morons into thinking he's healthy too (see, here I added another possibility, it's all not certain, but that is how it's closer to reality than simple statements)) and disinforms common public with non-scientific picture of reality (but then most of them don't have any, so let's not at least format that area of their psyche with even false information, you could argue out of later or leave it like that for it doesn't influence his life in any other way than making him use sugarcoat instead of sugarcoated poisons)

>>14744992
I'm upset about everything that is useless. But on a different level. I'm less upset when people take ivermectin against covid. Sure, it doesn't work, but it's much less obvious. After all, it could have been. But in no universe does 1 part of anything have an effect if you dilute it with 10^50 parts water. I'd readily drink any poison of your choice diluted to that degree for the rest of my life. I'll sweeten my coffee with highly potent sugar balls of any poison of your choice.

>>14745037
>I'm upset about everything that is useless.
List the top 5 mainstream medical malpractices you're seething about.

>>14744792
Reason for it is a bunch of cognitive biases working together, and I think one start to change this is teaching people about cognitive biases in the first place
I know that people that know about cognitive biases still largely act upon them, but there has got to be some sort of teaching method to counteract that

>>14745019
>if it does, I didn't make my own research, I just added two plus two
It doesn't to an extent that exceeds the placebo effect.

My problem is that superstition is a slippery slope. If the people believe charlatans that the memory of a molecule will give their tictacs healing power, you can make them believe anything. Gold-plated audio cables because they sound warmer would be a harmless exploit, but you can make them believe any political crap you tell them. They will become the opposite of critical thinkers.

>>14744831
>>14745037
You should be more upset that "scientific" medicine starves people of essential nutrients ("heavy metals") and forces them to consume toxic levels of iron.

>>14745050
>I know that people that know about cognitive biases still largely act upon them
The people who ramble about cognitive bias are easily the most mindless members of the population and their cognitive bias fantasies are projections 100% of the time. I've never heard an intelligent and self-reflecting person utter this cult buzzphrase.

>>14745052
>muh gold cables
>muh homeopathy
>muh faith healers
>muh flat earth
>muh irrelevant, standardized boogeymen
>muh preprogrammed talking points
>muh rational skeptic culture
List the top 5 mainstream medical malpractices you're seething about.

>>14745037
>I'm upset about everything that is useless
Why. It's literally fucking useless. Like acting upset about the wind when there's a hurricane next town destroying your cousin's house,

>>14745056
Wow, so we have a conspiracy theorist here. Insane posts like this are why children as young as 4 years old should be sent to rational skeptic training camps ran by government-approved ecperts.

>>14745077
>Wow, so we have a conspiracy theorist here.
On the contrary, lead was removed based on a conspiracy theory. Everyone us now brain damaged as a result of it. Its deficiency also causes diabetes, gigantism (lead is needed fir regulating growth hormone release), and nearsightedness.

>>14745060
The hell are you smoking? Cognitive biases have been proven time and time again under countless experiments

>>14745077
>Wow, so we have a conspiracy theorist here.
On the contrary, lead was removed based on a conspiracy theory. Everyone is now brain damaged as a result of it. Its deficiency also causes diabetes, gigantism (lead is needed for regulating growth hormone release), and nearsightedness.
In fact white people may have evolved to not produce as much melanin as a way to save up on heavy metals. (which means that whites ARE more intelligent under malnutrition, and this stems directly from the lack of color.)

>>14745099
> Cognitive biases have been proven time and time again
1. There is nothing actually wrong with "cognitive biases".
2. You and your crew of mindless drones are in no position to diagnose "cognitive biases" in others.

>>14745042
That's a tough one. I'm not a physician, so I only know stuff from the media and two friends who are doctors (a psychiatrist and an internist). The thing about homeopathy is that you only need 2-3 functioning brain cells to see through the scam, and I can claim to have at least 3 brain cells. But from what my friends told me:
> Apparently a lot of surgeries are unnecessary, but they are faster (more patient throughput) and give more money than lab tests, so when something could be fixed with medicine, they sometimes cut it out instead.
> A lot of doctors give away SSRI for every "I feel a little down", when it does not have an effect beyond a placebo for mild depression. That's basically the same level as homeopathy, but the problem is not the substance, the problem is how it is prescribed. For severe depression, it does have a proven effect.
> Apparently it's quite easy to get Adderall in the US if you have some trouble focusing. Like with the SSRI, it works for ADHD, but I find it worrisome how much is given out. It's easier to abuse than alternatives, so my suspicion is that the doctors don't care as long as they get paid and a lot of patients snort or sell it. I found numbers for 2019, 3.6M patients got Adderall, 2.2M patients got methylphenidate, and 1.5M got lisdexamfetamine.
> Painkillers in the US. Again, media reports, but the numbers are crazy. 4.7M patients got oxycodone, 3.9M patients got it in combination with paracetamol. That's just insane.
> My personal number one is homeopathy. Not for its direct damage to society like the opioids, stimulants, or unnecessary procedures, but for its sheer stupidity. This is a medieval level of retardation.

Here's where I got the numbers from:
https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/Top300Drugs.aspx

>>14745066
Shut up and let me formulate my response appropriately: >>14745105
Now name yours.

>>14745103
> 1. There is nothing actually wrong with "cognitive biases".
If you don’t identify irrational behavior as being wrong, what the hell are you even doing here?
> 2. You and your crew of mindless drones are in no position to diagnose "cognitive biases" in others.
They’re the easiest thing to diagnose because they are so universal. Go into any casino and you have a couple hundred of proofs for the sunk cost fallacy

>>14745105
How often do you find yourself talking about these issues, that actually leave people crippled or dead? How often do you find yourself crying bitter tears of rage over alternative medicine?

>>14745052
>They will become the opposite of critical thinkers.
They are by definition. If your point is they will become an opposition to "critical" thinkers (I find that word problematic) then it is a easy task for you to convince them that they don't know shit, they just believe what works for them, and they will easily agree, because that's a truism. And so do you.

>>14745113
>If you don’t identify irrational behavior as being wrong
There's hardly any "rational" behavior to speak of at all and if you think otherwise, that's your "cognitive bias" kicking in. Anyway, go ahead and gve me one example of a "cognitive bias" that you think is a net detriment.

>They’re the easiest thing to diagnose because they are so universa
Sounds like confirmation bias to me, friend.

>>14745120
> Anyway, go ahead and gve me one example of a "cognitive bias" that you think is a net detriment.
How about two of the earliest ones, those proven in the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram Experiment?

>>14745135
Both torn apart by countless critics over the year. It's surprising that the public still clings onto these sociology hoaxes. Is there a term for the cognitive bias you're displaying by referencing pop culture cliches as if they were undeniable truths?

>>14745140
It's like that "bystander effect" canard based entirely on a false account of a murder story. Sociologists can shit out anything and people will buy it so long as it confirms the notion that humanity is fundamentally bad and needs big daddy to keep it in line. Is there a name for this "cognitive bias" modern urbanites seem to be so afflicted by?

>>14745167
Midwits simply like to be told over and over again that humanity in its default state is stupid, savage and malicious. It allows them to think they've been "initiated" into some exclusive club of enlightened individuals by learning some catch phrases about "cognitive biases" and "logical fallacies" from YT videos.

>>14745140
I wasn’t saying that the experiments themselves were undeniable perfect experiments, that’s your confirmation bias. But authority bias has since been studied time and time again in countless other experiments

>>14745179
>I wasn’t saying that the experiments themselves were undeniable perfect experiments
>How about two of the earliest ones, those proven in the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram Experiment?
Your cliche'd sociology hoaxes are heavily disputed and don't "prove" anything. Try again?

>>14745182
Milgram gets criticized for use of deception, risk for damage to the test subjects and violating their right to withdraw, same with the Stanford one. That doesn’t mean his findings weren’t true. Try again with pulling a refutation out of your ass

>>14745195
Both are criticized for a thousand faults. We're not going to discuss anything "proven" by refuted dumpster-tier sociology. Do you have anything better?

>>14745099
>>14745113
>>14745120
>>14745175
The fucked up thought processes are from the lead deficiency.
Athens were also affected and developed philosophy as an attempt to compensate for the delusions. They did recognize they could get humiliated by spartans in spite of them appearing stupid to them. Rome thrived when lead was plentiful, and fell into christian schizophrenia soon after.

>stonetoss argues that its not technically possible for 70 million germans to kill 6 million jews even though short nigs from Rwanda killed 800k tall nigs in a few months
Basically the nazis are bad at genocide, so bad that literal nigs are better at it lmao. Inferiority of the nordic race

>>14745211
To be fair, the Germans had to use the longer process of converting Jews into soap.

>>14744792
The first thing you should do is not apply broad labels like "conspiracy theories" as negatives, because people are going to (rightly) react by noticing that people who do this are almost always biased towards rejecting anything that isn't pre approved for them.
For example, were conspiracy theorists wrong for believing in the existence of large, elite pedophile rings? No, but pre-Epstein and pre-Dutroux in Europe they would have been dismissed as crazy and incapable of critical thinking. Were they crazy for saying the government was conducting a mass surveillance campaign against its own citizens? No, but pre-Snowden they were dismissed as crazy. Now in both cases those conclusions are accepted as logical, and in some cases even obvious.
Even the common cope
>even a broken clock is right twice a day
is stupid, since many of those conspiracy theorists did not believe other conspiracy theories; many believed in only a select few conspiracies, making the broken clock analogy incorrect from the start.
You should just communicate with people by trying to honestly understand why they believe what they believe, and just engage with them in a discussion where you actually respect each other. If you don't respect them, or if they don't respect you, then communication is pointless until that changes, anyway. Because currently the US and western countries more generally have been run by governments that at best don't care about, and at worst actively despise their own citizens, no proper communication is possible between pro and anti government personalities. Both believe the other is scum, dishonest, and not worth respect. Until that changes, all the science and "fact-checking" in the world won't convince anyone of anything.

>>14745220
>getting this triggered over a standardized skeptoid mating call

>>14745225
I'm not "triggered," I just took the time to give an honest answer.

>>14745228
You are triggered and you are a part of the problem for feeding skeptoid drones your intellectual energy. :^(

>>14745201
> Both are criticized for a thousand faults
Name one study that that disproves the authority bias, I’ll wait
> Do you have anything better?
If it wasn’t for the fact that I was a spiteful bastard I would’ve stopped replying long ago for denying the existence of cognitive biases (which are, in case you don’t know, are defined as thought patterns that lead humans to suboptimal judgement, ergo denying their existence would in turn mean every human has always judged every situation perfectly with the available data),but since that’s not the case and you don’t believe in sociology, how about a more base level look at it with cognitive sciences
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561/full

>>14745234
>denying the existence of cognitive biases
I wasn't. Every post of yours demonstrates that they exist.

>how about a more base level look at it with cognitive sciences
I don't care. Let's go back to what I actually asked you:
>>14745120
>go ahead and gve me one example of a "cognitive bias" that you think is a net detriment.
Feel free to name one, specifically, in your next post.

>>14745241
> I wasn't. Every post of yours demonstrates that they exist.
„their cognitive bias fantasies are projections 100% of the time. I've never heard an intelligent and self-reflecting person utter this cult buzzphrase.“
The spiteful bastard in me is dumb enough to argue with retards, but this is too much even for me.
Also, you yourself used the word „confirmation bias“. Maybe I’m uncreative but I couldn’t imagine a world where that wouldn’t be a „net detriment“ to use your own words again

>>14745114
Alternative medicine does leave people crippled dead. My previous landlady treated her cancer with Bach flower extracts. Well, not particularly successful. No Darwin Award though, she already had kids.

>>14745117
>If your point is they will become an opposition to "critical" thinkers (I find that word problematic) then it is a easy task for you to convince them that they don't know shit
That's not the main concern. Also, if they believe anything, it creates potential for a false balance. If a quack tells them all tissue salts work and a doctor tells them none of them work, they might go home thinking "well apparently there's no consensus. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. Maybe half of them work."

>>14745269
>confirmation bias is a net detriment
So it would be better if all of us were cattle like you, and had no capacity to learn the patterns in our environment?

>>14745279
How often do you find yourself talking about these issues, that actually leave people crippled or dead? How often do you find yourself crying bitter tears of rage over alternative medicine?

>>14745309
This post is utterly nonsensical

>>14745314
Then you should be able to refute it. Why can't you?

>>14745279
>Alternative medicine does leave people crippled dead
ALL medicine leaves people crippled and dead, and the less powerful you are the more crippled and dead you're likely to end up. Children in foster care (who are automatically entitled to Medicare) are prescribed antipsychotics at four times the rate as non-foster children who get Medicare. They don't have four times the rate of psychotic symptoms, of course. Just four times the rate of permanent, irreversible neurological damage from antipsychotics.

>>14745323
Would you refute a claim such as „you are obviously blind, because you need to have ADD in order for your eyes to work?“
I mean, I can’t even fathom the thought process required to make such claims as that confirmation bias is required for pattern recognition

>>14745355
>I can’t even fathom the thought process required to make such claims as that confirmation bias is required for pattern recognition
That's not what I said. Why are you lying?

>>14745362
> confirmation bias is a net detriment
>So it would be better if all of us were cattle like you, and had no capacity to learn the patterns in our environment?
How else am I to interpret this then?

>>14745372
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
>Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values
That's right, golem. You shouldn't have any beliefs in values in the first place, but if you do, you should have a tendency to search for information that contradicts them.

>>14745389
NOOOO! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TIMES SOMEONE PUT THEIR HAND IN A CROCODILE-INFESTED RIVER AND DIDN'T GET THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? WHY ARE YOU ONLY CONSIDERING THE CASES WHERE THEY DID GET THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? THAT'S CONFIRMATION BIAS, CHUD!!! WE NEED SOME PEER-REVIEW ON THIS!!!!!!

>>14745389
> People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.
Good thing your confirmation bias led you to only read the literal first sentence of a Wikipedia page of all things, otherwise you would’ve felt pretty stupid

>>14745398
NOOOO! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TIMES SOMEONE PUT THEIR HAND IN A CROCODILE-INFESTED RIVER AND GOT THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? WHY ARE YOU ONLY CONSIDERING THE CASES WHERE THEY DIDN’T GET THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? THAT'S CONFIRMATION BIAS, CHUD!!! WE NEED SOME PEER-REVIEW ON THIS!!!!!!

>>14745309
>>14745389
>That's right, golem. You shouldn't have any beliefs in values in the first place, but if you do, you should have a tendency to search for information that contradicts them.
That would make you completely immune to any kind of indoctrination, moron.

>>14745437
No, it wouldn't. It would send you running headlong into the first ideological trap you aren't yet prepared to defeat. You don't give someone immunity to smallpox by having them dive head first into a big ol vat full of smallpox - not if you want survivors you don't. Why would you attempt to confer ideological immunity in that way?

>>14745407
See >>14745398 and then hang yourself.

>>14745420
As you can see, normal organisms have a built in bias to prevent your subhuman contrarianism and ensure survival. So tell me again how conformation bias is bad.

>>14745230
>yOou ArE tRIgGeReD!!!!!!11111
dang anon YOU are triggered

>>14745437
>having no values would make you immune to indoctrination

>>14745455
lol your trigered

>>14745443
The risk of encountering ideological traps is equally high wether you are looking for confirmation or contradiction. The problem with confirmation bias is that it leads you to stay in any ideological trap once you’ve fallen into it.
Also, it’s not that confirmation and contradiction are mutually exclusive. Any intelligent person would look for a balance of the too
>>14745453
They’re both not examples of confirmation bias as that would mean that there was neither concrete evidence for nor against the existence of crocodiles in the river. If anything, confirmation bias can prohibit people from acknowledging concrete evidence, but it doesn’t work the other way around

>>14745475
>They’re both not examples of confirmation bias
Why not? It's really funny to watch a nonhuman drone deflect and get soft-locked.

>>14744792
What is your opinion on The Great Reset?

>>14745488
There is no secret elite ruling the world. The UN itself has debuked this.

>>14745493
that doesn't answer my question

>>14745496
My opinion is what the UN said. I thought it was obvious because I tend to favor the rational opinions over the right-wing ones.

>>14745499
what exactly did the UN say that you have in mind?

>>14745502
It said that there is no secret elite ruling the world and that the spready of conspiracy theories is a danger to society. I think any rational person would trust the fucking UN on that.

>>14745475
>They’re both not examples of confirmation bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
check-mate. looks like you lost this formal reddit debate

>>14745505
But I haven't asked you about "secret elite ruling the world", why do you keep bringing this up?

>>14745508
Double Reddit checkmate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>>14744792
>my results are not coming out the same as other published results
>i must fudge my results
>replication crisis averted

Some heros don't wear capes.

>>14745514
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, neither is calling someone a retard. So are you going to explain why it's only "confirmation bias" when you feel like it?

>>14745475
>The risk of encountering ideological traps is equally high wether you are looking for confirmation or contradiction.
No, it isn't. Traps are set by hostile adversaries. It's possible that people who share my worldview are hostile adversaries, but it is nowhere near as likely as people holding opposed worldviews being hostile adversaries.

>>14745519
Reduction as absurdum is a fallacy if the position would not be taken by anyone in a real world scenario. And I already produced a definition of confirmation bias right here
> They’re both not examples of confirmation bias as that would mean that there was neither concrete evidence for nor against the existence of crocodiles in the river. If anything, confirmation bias can prohibit people from acknowledging concrete evidence, but it doesn’t work the other way around
Confirmation bias applies only if a hypothesis is not evident. It is not confirmation bias if you believe the sun will rise again tomorrow. I mean sure, you can imagine a scenario where the sun wouldn’t rise tomorrow, but applied Bayesian statistics tell us that it is way more wrong to subscribe to uncertainty than to specificity

>>14745548
>Reduction as absurdum is a fallacy
It isn't. You're mentally ill.

>Confirmation bias applies only if a hypothesis is not evident
What does this vacuous shart even mean?

>>14745548
>Reduction as absurdum is a fallacy if the position would not be taken by anyone in a real world scenario
No, dumbass, you're describing a strawman fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum i.e. proof by contradiction is a valid argument.

>>14745220
Good post, thanks. Saving this.

>>14745114
>>14745066
>>14745066
So if you didn't name any, do you believe that there is no malpractice? Everything is fine? How does it feel to be cattle?

>>14745519
>>14745548
>>14745551
>>14745556
>>14745551
What is the name of the argument that top statesmen use. The one where they don't agree with you so they hire a thug to shoot you in the back of the head? Seem to have worked pretty well for winning arguments over the years. Better than shouting "noo noo that argument is a ad homino reducto leviosa1!!! "

>>14745577
How often do you find yourself talking about these issues, that actually leave people crippled or dead? How often do you find yourself crying bitter tears of rage over alternative medicine? Why are you so strangely selective about which issues your asshole puckered over?

>>14745579
Ummm sweaty??? Appeal to power is a logical fallacy.

>>14745556
I never said it wasn’t a form of legitimate argument but at the same time it is as a name in conjunction with the word fallacy used to describe a specific case of the strawman argument where you use the opposing hypothesis in such a ridiculous example that it makes the hypothesis itself look ridiculous, even though the argument was not itself misrepresented

>>14745581
Bad bot. You already used this one.
If your developer reads this: Make sure to not sound too copy-pastey. Also, if your bot interacts with the humans, it should seem like it's able to understand and answer questions. If your bot is just oblivious to questions, it's way too easy to spot.

>>14745598
>You already used this one.
I'll use it over and over until you answer the question, or admit that you only sperg off about what the skeptoid media factory tells you to.

>>14745077
>rational skeptic training camps ran by government-approved ecperts
You mean gender identity training camp?

>>14745603
So you just admit that you have nothing to contribute to this thread except asking stuff over and over again? Kys then. You failed the Turing test.

>>14744792
>The more you try to show them actual research
You can't get most grad students to stay up to date with research in their own field. What makes you think you can grab the attention of normies? Conspiracy theorizing is magical thinking. You fight magical thinking with proper education. Mandatory philosophy classes in high school would be good if we could guarantee a baseline of quality.

>>14745608
>you have nothing to contribute to this thread
I've made my small contribution using you as an example to illustrate that mindlessly consooming rational skeptoid content doesn't produce result in critical thinking.

>>14745610
>Conspiracy theorizing is magical thinking. You fight magical thinking with proper education. Mandatory philosophy classes in high school would be good
By far the dumbest post ITT.

>>14745634
You didn't contribute to critical thinking though. You didn't lead by example and you didn't illustrate any flaws, nor gave counterexamples.

>>14745639
You're less likely to believe in satanic child-eating vampires if you're taught how to think properly

>>14745650
I am applying critical thinking to your corporate-manufactured brand of selective "skepticism".

>>14745651
Are you also less likely to shart out 80 IQ strawmen if you're taught how to think properly? Someone clearly taught you how to think. :^)

>>14745658
I'm sorry for offending you. I'm sure your conspiracy theories are much more sophisticated than average.

>>14745665
Showing off some real nuance and independent thought regurgitating bluecheck tweets word for word.

>>14745666
Right wing strawmen are nuanced and independent thought? Gotcha

>>14744792
>>14745512
well?

>>14745672
Why do you keep sperging off about vampries and right wing boogeymen and other stuff no one mentioned? Are you able to reflect on this rrational behavior and figure out what it's rooted in?

>>14745676
I told you: the UN has already debunked this. My opinion about it is the UN opinion.

>>14745678
I didn't say anything about the right wing. But yes I'm able to reflect on my rational behavior and I do so often.

>>14745683
>I didn't say anything about the right wing.
>>14745672
>Right wing strawmen
Are you able to reflect on your overly psychotic behavior right now?

>>14745686
Lol
Also implying „bluecheck tweets“ is anything but a right wing strawman

>>14745100
main effect of lead is that it makes people agressive retards
I don't want that

>>14745694
You are really losing your mind here.

>>14745678
Do you not see how there are different categories of conspiracy theories?
>There is only one Olsen twin
Completely harmless, a bit dumb, but whatever floats your boat.
>The NSA is spying on us
Well, for one, we know, but also before that it was highly likely. Look at the track record of three letter agencies. Potentially tedious if you're losing proportion. No, you don't need to physically exchange AES-256 keys to ask your friend if he wants to get some kfc. Even dangerous if you go full schizo and start believing that the NSA tracks your blood values while you sleep. But in moderation it's a solid conspiracy with a right to exist.
>Chemtrails
Extremely dumb, but mostly harmless. It's not like someone tried shooting down planes because they believed in this.
>Ze Jews are ruling ze world
... and we must stop them? This thinking led to terror attacks in the recent years. If you want to see what it does to a whole nation, open up a history book. I consider stuff like this extremely dangerous. There are also countless variations, it doesn't have to be the Jews. "Merkel wants to replace Germans with Syrians" led to attacks against refugees. Whenever conspiracy theories create violence, it's high time that someone stops the believers.

>>14745711
Can you explain this irrational tantrum you just threw? What does it have to do with the post you replied to?

>>14745696
>the term is a pejorative, predominantly used by right-wing people to describe left-wing journalists who tweet things that either are stupid or exactly what they expected from a person with the checkmark. usually both

>>14745682
great reset is not "conspiracy", anon

>>14745729
The name isn't, what /pol/tards project on it is.

>>14745458
>>14745443
Indoctrination relies on the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias means you stick to what you already know, and reject new information that contradicts it. Indoctrinators know this, and target children and young people who haven't yet learned anything that could contradict their ideology, knowing that if they do manage to come first, the person becomes blind, or eventually hostile to any information that contradicts the ideology.
>No, it wouldn't. It would send you running headlong into the first ideological trap you aren't yet prepared to defeat.
Indoctrination would be fundamentally impossible without the bias.
>You don't give someone immunity to smallpox by having them dive head first into a big ol vat full of smallpox - not if you want survivors you don't.
Bad analogy and also literally false. People did survive smallpox long without immunity. In fact the vaccine relies on natural immunity, and did not work on those who had no natural immunity to it. Vaccines can only provide an early warning, they are more like an intelligence agency than an armor.
>Why would you attempt to confer ideological immunity in that way?
How do you tell who is the indoctrinator and who tells the truth?

>>14745735
so what do you think about it?

>>14745721
Seriously, just take a break from the internet and take your meds. The alt-right boogeyman isn't real. Putin isn't conspiring to end your freedums and democracy. Drumpffff isn't coming back to get you. Give it a rest.

>>14745738
>Confirmation bias means you stick to what you already know, and reject new information that contradicts it.
NOOOO! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TIMES SOMEONE PUT THEIR HAND IN A CROCODILE-INFESTED RIVER AND DIDN'T GET THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? WHY ARE YOU ONLY CONSIDERING THE CASES WHERE THEY DID GET THEIR HAND BITTEN OFF? THAT'S CONFIRMATION BIAS, CHUD!!! WE NEED SOME PEER-REVIEW ON THIS!!!!!!

>>14745738
>>14745458
>>14745443
Indoctrination relies on the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias means you stick to what you already know, and reject new information that contradicts it. Indoctrinators know this, and target children and young people who haven't yet learned anything that could contradict their ideology, knowing that if they do manage to come first, the person becomes blind, or eventually hostile to any information that contradicts the ideology.
>No, it wouldn't. It would send you running headlong into the first ideological trap you aren't yet prepared to defeat.
Indoctrination would be fundamentally impossible without the bias.
>You don't give someone immunity to smallpox by having them dive head first into a big ol vat full of smallpox - not if you want survivors you don't.
Bad analogy and also literally false. People did survive smallpox long without vaccines. In fact the vaccine relies on natural immunity, and did not work on those who had no natural immunity to it. Vaccines can only provide an early warning, they are more like an intelligence agency than an armor. They are useless when your immune system can't fight the disease.
>Why would you attempt to confer ideological immunity in that way?
How do you tell who is the indoctrinator and who tells the truth?

>>14745739
>so what do you think about it?
I think what the UN said, retard. How many times do I need to repeat this?

>>14745742
>The alt-right boogeyman isn't real.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that "bluecheck" is not used as a derogatory term by the right-wing?
https://theoutline.com/post/1323/verified-blue-checkmark-derogatory-insult-twitter

>>14745745
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>14745750
No. I'm just telling you to take your zoloft with an extra dose of Xanax today.
>theoutline.com
I lol'd.

>>14745753
I'm talking about how it's only "confirmation bias" when it suits you. There is no such thing as "confirmation bias" objectively speaking. There is only risk aversion and persistence of beliefs.

>>14745754
Must be nice to fight against strawmen all day.

>>14745765
You would know, since you're so busy screeching about le right wing boogeyman all day. Take your xanax, slut.

>>14745711
>>The NSA is spying on us
>Well, for one, we know, but also before that it was highly likely. Look at the track record of three letter agencies.
If people looked at the track record of three letter agencies before "we knew, and figured (in hindsight) that it was highly likely", then you, a free thinker, would've categorized them as
>>Da gubmint is spying on us!!!1
>... and we must stop them? This thinking led to terror attacks in the recent years.

>>14745779
Umm, no, sweaty. It was never a conspiracy theory because I knew it from the start. Same thing with all your other conspiracy theories that happen to be true.

>>14745769
Using right wing insults is a strong pointer towards someone being a right winger and is therefore not a strawmen.
Meanwhile, equating a rational distrust in conspiracy theories does not mean someone is a mindless Twitter drone

>a rational distrust in conspiracy theories
Imagine sharting out such a phrase without an inkling of irony.

>>14745788
Imagine using npc memes

>>14745769
Denying that the right uses bluecheck as a derogatory term against left-wing people (journalists in particular) is just outright refusing reality.
Let's hear it from the other side:
>Most (but not all) Bluechecks hold stereotypical American Liberal views but with a decidedly authoritarian bent. At best, they often favor mass media censorship. At worst, they want Communism imposed and CisHet White men stripped of voting rights.
Or this lovely guy here who claims that left-wing bluechecks never get banned and it's so unfair
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1478157117454532608

Look, it would be so much easier to say "yup, I'm a rightoid, let's move on"

>>14745793
Just take your meds already, bluecheck retard.

>>14745340
>They don't have four times the rate of psychotic symptoms, of course.

Why of course? Children in foster care have higher rates of mental illness from being orphans shuffled between different homes and institutions.

Not saying the solution is to drug them up. It's just the cheapest treatment for trying to unfuck a life of instability and neglect. Therapy would probably be better, though it's expensive and not very effective. Some people are pretty much doomed, or would need a complete overhaul of their life like a full blown psychedelic / religious awakening and a new lifestyle in a good community of people.

>>14745779
>then you, a free thinker, would've categorized them as >Da gubmint is spying on us!!!1
Not really. I went to CCC events on government surveillance long before Snowden.

>... and we must stop them? This thinking led to terror attacks in the recent years.
If stopping them means parliamentary commissions and voting out the people who enable mass surveillance, that's okay. If you send letterbombs, that's not okay.

>voting out the people who enable mass surveillance, that's okay. If you send letterbombs, that's not okay.
You just can't make this stuff up.

>>14745796
>uses the npc memes associated with the alt-right
>uses the npc memes the alt-right uses to defame "bluechecks"
>I'm not a rightoid, I swear, I fucking loooove Mao
>Take your meds

What's even your point in shitting up this thread?

>>14745804
Oh wow, the npc wojak guy doesn't believe in democracy? Let me guess, the whole system is rigged, that's why your candidate lost? There's no other explanation. And if the system is rigged, you must topple it by force, huh?

>Oh wow, the npc wojak guy doesn't believe in democracy? Let me guess, the whole system is rigged
Can't make this stuff up. These drones are actually going around lecturing people about rationality and how to avoid dreaded "conspiracy theories".

>>14745807
The alt right boogeyman doesn't exist. Stop consooming corporate media and take your xanax.

>>14745815
I-it's a conspiracy theory! You're imagining the constant spam over the past 6 years

>>14745761
Nonsense. It's never a good thing. It can only keep people in delusion, they would start going towards the truth without it very fast.

When did /sci/ became a fast board???

>>14745822
>It's never a good thing
See >>14745745

>>14745798
>Not really. I went to CCC events on government surveillance long before Snowden.
Good for you. People didn't care about your opinion, until it was incontrovertible, by associating it to retard boomers shouting "reptilians in the gubmint are spying on us through internet cables!" or some retarded shit like that.

There are well reasoned, fact based, critical arguments against the disproportionate power of jews in academia, media and government that go beyond "satanist kikes in the gubmint want to control our mind through 5g towers!!"
How do you know there won't be another infallible enlightened free thinker like you arguing that "if stopping (((them))) means voting them out of positions of power and withdrawing financial aid to their country, that's okay. if you send hatemails to centenary jewish granniesl that's not okay" 20 years from now?
How sure are you that it won't result to be "highly likely" after you "look at the track record of jews"?
You "looked at the track record of three letter agencies", do you understand they also spread purposefully false information as a disinformation tactic to cover their tracks?

>>14745711
Chemtrails are real in the sense that human experimentation and brainwashing programs are real. The government has engaged in biological and chemical weapons testing by dispersing substances into the environment. If they've done it before, they have probably done it since then. The question is how common it is today.

>Operation LAC (Large Area Coverage) was a United States Army Chemical Corps operation which dispersed microscopic zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS) particles over much of the United States and Canada in order to test dispersal patterns and the geographic range of chemical or biological weapons.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC

There are also geoengineering proposals to alter the weather by injecting stratospheric aerosols to increase albedo and reflect sunlight. The Chinese engaged in cloud seeding by dispersing silver iodide above Beijing to cause rain before the 2008 Olympics, ensuring clear weather for the games. You could even argue Agent Orange dispersals were chemtrails as well.

Obviously most 'chemtrails' in the sky are due to condensation forming in the wake of jet planes. Though like everything there's almost certainly more to the story. We have imperfect information and our remaining sources are regularly infiltrated, manipulated and censored.

>>14745828
You are fucked in the head.

>>14745854
>People didn't care about your opinion, until it was incontrovertible,
People still don't care about it. When it's plausibly deniable, you're a schizo for pointing it out, because the heckin' government would never do something so evil! When it's incontrovertible, you're a schizo for caring about it, because it's already happening and it isn't all that bad. It's not like le heckin' NSA is spying on me personally while I regurgitate a CIA narrative on jewbook like a good golem. Look, you need to forget about arguing with these "people". Rhetoric won't solve the problem.

>>14745863
Your impotent anger is not an argument.

>>14745854
>well reasoned, fact based, critical arguments against the disproportionate power of jews in academia
"against" it? Name one argument against the disproportionate power of Jews.

>>14745868
All the more reason his argument makes no fucking sense. I won't abandon critical thinking just because they're only capable of simulating it.

>>14745877
Against as in "in opposition to it".

>>14745749
You're not answering the question, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the UN debunking some conspiracy theories. Is this supposed to be "critical thinking"?

>>14745874
Look at the post you told me to see. You are not rational.

Let me give a counterexample: What if you were taught all your life that apples are toxic and extremely lethal, and you saw someone insisting that they are not, and eating one in front of you?

>>14745859
>Chemtrails are real in the sense that human experimentation and brainwashing programs are real.
That's an extremely far stretch. "The CIA drugged people with LSD" does not imply "All airplanes in the world are equipped with devices that spray brainwashing drugs on us"

>Operation LAC
Wouldn't you expect your country to know how they could be attacked? That doesn't mean that they attack their own population.

>You could even argue Agent Orange dispersals were chemtrails as well.
You could argue a lot. But that doesn't change the fact that commercial airplanes are not equipped with some mysterious mind control agent.

>>14745895
>Let me give a counterexample
No. First you're gonna explain why it isn't confirmation bias in >>14745745

>That doesn't mean that they attack their own population.

>>14745886
>in opposition to it
That doesn't really help with my confusion.
Like, everyone knows that Jews are over-represented in media. But so what? That alone is not a conspiracy theory. But the belief that somehow through their origin they are collaborating to some evil goal is.

>everyone knows that Jews are over-represented in media. But so what?
>that doesn't mean they are nepotistic!!
>that's a conspiracy theory!!!!!

>>14745907
T-the government wants to kill its people because ... it just does okay?
Throughout all of human history, leaders have tried to acquire territories, settle people in more remote locations, to end up with a bigger population and therefore ultimately more taxes, more manpower and more power in general. But now, all of the sudden, they want to poison us?

>>14745913
>maybe I get away with running out of arguments if I post random pictures and just quote them
/pol/tard on suicide watch

>>14745916
I don't even need to comment on this. You might as well write "I'm a brainwashed drone" on your forehead. This is some unbelievable stuff. Who is funneling these "people" into 4chan?

>>14745900
Yes, that's why I said the question is how common it is today. I wouldn't put it past the government to allow toxins into the environment as seen with lead, plastics, atrazine, birth control in drinking water, etc. The question is how much is deliberate and what are the effects.

>>14745922
>Who is funneling these "people" into 4chan?
I've been here since before your balls dropped. I've been here when anons trolled scientology, when /pol/ wasn't a necessary containment board because /b/ wasn't yet infested with rightoids.

>>14745908
>Like, everyone knows that Jews are over-represented in media.
That in itself is a goalpost moved.
At what stage of "commonly recognized knowledge" are you? "They're so smart, of course they're overrepresented", or "everyone knows they're a bit tribalistic, so what?"
Also, to question some axioms, are they "the crowning example of diversity (née multiculturalism) enriching our society"? Is it still common knowledge to you that "diversity is a strength"?

>>14744831
The reason shit like homeopathy still has as much traction as it does is because medical research has become so bogged down with bad studies and irreproducible trials and doctors and researchers taking payoffs from pharma companies and other organizations pushing agendas over good science.

Soft sciences need to up their rigor game.

>>14745931
So it's your first summer here, you say? What's your favorite sub?

>>14745944
My first contact was in 2007, I think, but I didn't lurk regularly until 2008. I actually don't remember which boards there were, surely /a/ and /b/. As /b/ became more and more porn and politics, I moved to KC, which I left in ~2014-16 when the AfD fags came in. It was basically a delayed copy of 4chan, just like KC ever was. Obviously, the containment strategy of /pol/ had already failed and I decided to go out and have some sex, but I came back in the beginning of the pandemic.

What about you?

>>14745949
So you came here last month because someone posted a /sci/ meme on /r/science? That's cool. Now go back. This place isn't fit for rational skeptics like you.

>>14745966
>reddit
>rational
fuck off

>>14745916
Did you just deny the fucking holocaust?

>>14745985
Did you just imply that Hitler did not try to conquer Europe?

>>14745985
Jews are exceptional people so that logic doesn't apply in this case, but like my rabbi says: the exception proves the rule.

>>14745996
And do what, offset the loss in population due to killing off all of the jews with migrants from the rest of Europe? That's so dumb, think of all the tax money the nazi government lost because of that. Figures, the nazis truly were so dumb. I guess that's why they didn't last.
But wait, what IF our government is as dumb as the nazis, as I often hear on CNN, my trusted news channel, and they are poisoning us and replacing us with immigrants from the southern border?!?

>>14744792
>people doing independent research all come up with the same results
>how can we put an end to this?

>>14745985
>he believes the holohoax
ngmi

>>14745711
Yeah, you're contradicting yourself. Paranoia with respect to the NSA is okay, as long as it's in moderation, according to you. So why is moderate paranoia about the Jews not okay?
>muh genocide
I said moderate. Contrariwise, as a once upon a time math major I obviously have former colleagues who went to work for the NSA. Such people are ontologically evil. There is no action which is unethical to take against them. No limit to the harms against them which are not only morally justifiable, but obligatory.

>>14745902
It is confirmation bias. We are on the same side in general, the difference is that you are insane.

>>14746160
>It is confirmation bias.
Okay. So is confirmation bias bad?

>>14746160
Okay. So do you still stand by your assertion that "confirmation bias is never a good thing"? I imagined avoiding a brutal death was a good thing.

>>14744792
I know a top researcher in physics who is obviously brilliant and knows his shit but even him goes full conspiracy tard with certain topics. It isn't that uncommon and not really a sign of "stupidity" to question or deny something you don't fully understand. It doesn't help that within the community there is constant debate about many things and once you see how everything is done you can understand that things aren't as clear cut as it is presented. This conflicts with another topic that has nothing to do with science which is public policy. Imagine you are the just the mayor of some shitty town and think just how many people with different perspectives and ideas are in one single shitty town. Now an issue like covid comes up and your best info tells you that it could be a problem and a possible solution is to somehow convince the whole town to agree on doing something. Mix this with the problem that to maintain power you need political support and so if it happens that it doesn't work you are going to get blamed and the opposition wins. Do you think policy makers and politicians will try to suddenly try to make people understand the nuances of science and why not every fucking problem can be solved by using some magic pill? Well no because you opposition will tear you down so fuck it lets build this authoritative figure of science so people just comply. Still it isn't going to work perfectly but well if you care about it and want to do something well it is obviously not easy.

>>14746260
>pfizer drone spouts apologia for the government sponsoring science-flavored propaganda campaigns
Pottery.

>>14746195
It's the one who insists on looking only at cases where the hand wasn't bitten off who suffers confirnation bias; the other person doesn't, he looks at all the information available and correctly determines that there is a high likehood of getting your hand bitten off.

>>14746195
It's the one who insists on looking only at cases where the hand wasn't bitten off who suffers confirmation bias; the other person doesn't, he looks at all the information available and correctly determines that there is a high likehood of getting your hand bitten off.

>>14746282
>he looks at all the information available and correctly determines that there is a high likehood of getting your hand bitten off.
So when people reject counter-evidence to hypotheses you agree with, they're "correctly determining" things, but when they reject counter-evidence to hypothesis your masters programmed into you, they're suffering from "confirmation bias"?

>>14746285
See >>14746286
Notice how every argument you shart out is a a repetition of ad hoc Scotsman fallacy.

>>14746286
The second one is not rejecting any evidence. You have let's say 6 cases where people got hurt and 8 where they did not get hurt, the objective conclusion is that yes, it is dangerous.
>>14746287
I think he is actually mentally ill, I'm not only saying it for the sake of argument.

>>14746309
You're the only one ITT showing overt mental illnes as far as I can tell. There is no such thing as "confirmation bias" and your retarded flipflopping and denial testifies to it.

>>14746309
>You have let's say 6 cases where people got hurt and 8 where they did not get hurt
You have let's say 1 case where people got hurt and 800 cases where they did not get hurt. Are you going for a swim, you mongoloidal degenerate?

>>14744792

You're projecting while also ignoring your own glaring biases.

When people who don't agree with the consensus narratives don't agree with one another, you mock them for lacking a consensus. When they do agree, you mock them for that.

In fact your very image is a massive display of hypocrisy. 'Consensus' is lauded when it comes from establishment sources, and derided when it isn't.

>>14746330
It depends on how much you are willing to risk for what reason. Going for a swim just for fun? Absolutely not.

People are often bad at judging risks though. Obsess over minor threats and completely ignore major death traos. Nobody would drive unless they absolutely had to if they were objective, for example.

>>14746361
Is the river safe?

>>14746364
No, it is not safe.

>>14746396
Why are you ignoring 800 pieces of evidence in favor of the river's safety?

>>14746398
I'm not ignoring it. You'd likely end up dead in a couple of years if you took a 1:800 risk every day. That's reckless.

>>14746425
>You'd likely end up dead
How do you know? Here's 800 cases proving you wrong.

>>14745711
>>Ze Jews are ruling ze world
I bet you have never looked into this ""conspiracy theory""

>>14745711
>>Chemtrails
>Extremely dumb, but mostly harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

You mistake your ignorance for knowledge and they mock other people who are slightly less ignorant than yourself.

>>14745050
first step is to teach doctors bayes theorem