Society/Culture When everyone's an expert

[Inferno]

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opi...oogle-makes-us-all-experts-20091111-i7vp.html

Interesting read, and a clear link to climate change skeptics, conspiracy theorists etc.

Thoughts?

 

[bit_pattern]

My god, some of the moronic shit I saw being argued about on an Americn based forum I frequent when they were rolling out the vaccine. And you're right, there is a strong correlation between woowoo vaccine conspiracy theoriss and climate conspira cy theorists, the same people talking about the same themes (one world government, mind control tactisc etc etc etc). And it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, or how many times you carefully explain concepts that they obviousy don't grasp, they juist won't listen. The exist isn a spehere impervious to reason or arguement. I guess it's because both issues are pushed from the same right wing fringe.

 

[Black Ball]

My god, some of the moronic shit I saw being argued about on an Americn based forum I frequent when they were rolling out the vaccine. And you're right, there is a strong correlation between woowoo vaccine conspiracy theoriss and climate conspira cy theorists, the same people talking about the same themes (one world government, mind control tactisc etc etc etc). And it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, or how many times you carefully explain concepts that they obviousy don't grasp, they juist won't listen. The exist isn a spehere impervious to reason or arguement. I guess it's because both issues are pushed from the same right wing fringe.

Were you pissed or on drugs when you wrote that or is it that you just cant spell and have a poor command of the english language??

 

[bit_pattern]

No, I was just typing frenetically due to time constraints and didn't get a chance to parse over it with FF's spellcheck before I posted.

Do you have anything to say about the topic, or are you just trolling with flamebait?

 

[Black Ball]

No, I was just typing frenetically due to time constraints and didn't get a chance to parse over it with FF's spellcheck before I posted.

Do you have anything to say about the topic, or are you just trolling with flamebait?

No I just expected a better standard of spelling and grammar from someone so wise. I guess the fact that you have to use 'spellcheck' says it all.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oooh, cutting jibes! I'm sooo insulted!

 

[Nasma]

It's an interesting article, and something that I've wondered about a lot myself. Broadly, I think that most people identify themselves with their ideas, and see an attack on their ideas as an attack on themselves. Saying "You're wrong about this" gets interpreted as "You are an idiot/ ignorant" and triggers a defensive response. With the example cited in the article, I think that even if his correspondent did not have access to the internet, but had arrived at her views after talking to a friend, she would have been just as difficult to sway. As such I'm not too sure that google has changed things that much.

On the question of how to change someone's mind, I think that it's important to avoid provoking a defensive response if at all possible. You certainly don't want to appear to think that you're superior. You see this happen on both sides of the god debate, either by the religious with "You're missing out on the full human experience with your narrow, materialistic focus", or by atheists with "How can you be so stupid to believe in a fairy tale?" Of course, the best way to avoid appearing to think that you are superior is to not think that you are superior.

You also want to clearly separate the person's ideas from the person themselves. Saying "You're wrong" connects the idea and the person, and suggests that one "wrong" belief makes the entire person "wrong". Alternatively, "Your belief in this theory is mistaken" shows that it's not the person you disagree with, just one of their billions of beliefs.

It also helps to have the facts on your side.

If I ever have children, I think the most important thing I could teach them would be to be open to changing their minds. That's not to say they should be weak minded, but before standing up for what's right, to think about the other side first.

I guess the fact that you have to use 'spellcheck' says it all.

Let's see what it says. As far as I can tell, some combination of the options below.

1) There are some words in the English language that he does not know how to spell.
2) He occasionally makes typos, and doesn't pick them all up on a read through.
3) He occasionally makes typos, and doesn't always do a read through.
4) He often uses a spellchecker to make his posts more readable in light of the above.

 

[Nasma]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Nasma]

Forgot to say something (and I do like saying things).

If "You're wrong" is interpreted as "You're an idiot", that puts them in the situation where to agree with your argument is to agree that they're an idiot. They are not likely to do this. The truth of the matter (I think) is that almost all of our beliefs are 'wrong', and all we can do is get closer to the truth.

 

[bit_pattern]

Let's see what it says. As far as I can tell, some combination of the options below.

1) There are some words in the English language that he does not know how to spell.
2) He occasionally makes typos, and doesn't pick them all up on a read through.
3) He occasionally makes typos, and doesn't always do a read through.
4) He often uses a spellchecker to make his posts more readable in light of the above.

OR,

5) He's a sloppy typist who doesn't have the time to pore over each post to make sure that everything is spelled right and hence uses the FF spellcheck for its convenience.

 

[Nasma]

That's options 3 and 4 I think, which together imply that you're a bad person

 

[Jafa]

My god, some of the moronic shit I saw being argued about on an Americn based forum I frequent when they were rolling out the vaccine. And you're right, there is a strong correlation between woowoo vaccine conspiracy theoriss and climate conspira cy theorists, the same people talking about the same themes (one world government, mind control tactisc etc etc etc). And it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, or how many times you carefully explain concepts that they obviousy don't grasp, they juist won't listen. The exist isn a spehere impervious to reason or arguement. I guess it's because both issues are pushed from the same right wing fringe.

Wouldn't be "thisbluemarble" would it - those lot are pretty intense over there.

 

[bit_pattern]

Nah, but maybe I should check it out!

This is the one

http://bluelight.ru/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=50

Some of the shit is pretty funny. One guy on there keeps trying to claim he has two PHD's - one in sociology and the other in quantum physics - but when we pinned him down on what he did his thesis on he pulled some shit out of his arse that was just the name of some other dissertation but with one word in the title changed. Then he started claiming that he'd made wormholes in lab back during his West Point days, where h was recruited by the military into black op's

Ah, drugs make people say some stupid shit!

 

[cancat]

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opi...oogle-makes-us-all-experts-20091111-i7vp.html

Interesting read, and a clear link to climate change skeptics, conspiracy theorists etc.

Thoughts?

This is a journalist making out that he's an expert on vaccines and climate change - and that there's only one 'correct' point of view and everyone else is obviously misinformed.

 

[evo]

It's an interesting article, and something that I've wondered about a lot myself. Broadly, I think that most people identify themselves with their ideas, and see an attack on their ideas as an attack on themselves. Saying "You're wrong about this" gets interpreted as "You are an idiot/ ignorant" and triggers a defensive response. With the example cited in the article, I think that even if his correspondent did not have access to the internet, but had arrived at her views after talking to a friend, she would have been just as difficult to sway. As such I'm not too sure that google has changed things that much.

On the question of how to change someone's mind, I think that it's important to avoid provoking a defensive response if at all possible. You certainly don't want to appear to think that you're superior. You see this happen on both sides of the god debate, either by the religious with "You're missing out on the full human experience with your narrow, materialistic focus", or by atheists with "How can you be so stupid to believe in a fairy tale?" Of course, the best way to avoid appearing to think that you are superior is to not think that you are superior.

You also want to clearly separate the person's ideas from the person themselves. Saying "You're wrong" connects the idea and the person, and suggests that one "wrong" belief makes the entire person "wrong". Alternatively, "Your belief in this theory is mistaken" shows that it's not the person you disagree with, just one of their billions of beliefs.

Good post mate, particularly the bold. Although I think you mischaracterise the 'god debate' somewhat.

Strange as it may seem I've embarked on a program to get rid of all my beliefs. It's proving harder than i initially expected.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is a journalist making out that he's an expert on vaccines and climate change - and that there's only one 'correct' point of view and everyone else is obviously misinformed.

Way to miss the point! he's not claiming to be an expert, quite the opposite. But the fact of the matter is that if you simply repeat the pseudoscientific claptrap that passes as vaccine conspiracy theory or climate change denialism then, yes, you are woefully misinformed.

 

[cancat]

Way to miss the point! he's not claiming to be an expert, quite the opposite. But the fact of the matter is that if you simply repeat the pseudoscientific claptrap that passes as vaccine conspiracy theory or climate change denialism then, yes, you are woefully misinformed.

There is psuedo-scientific claptrap on both sides of any argument. Pointing it out does not mean you can dismiss the rational elements that oppose your viewpoint.

Using a term like 'denialism' is just an underhand way of invoking the 'you are a Nazi' argument - which of course instantly loses you the argument.

 

[Suspense]

It's an interesting article, and something that I've wondered about a lot myself. Broadly, I think that most people identify themselves with their ideas, and see an attack on their ideas as an attack on themselves. Saying "You're wrong about this" gets interpreted as "You are an idiot/ ignorant" and triggers a defensive response. With the example cited in the article, I think that even if his correspondent did not have access to the internet, but had arrived at her views after talking to a friend, she would have been just as difficult to sway. As such I'm not too sure that google has changed things that much.

On the question of how to change someone's mind, I think that it's important to avoid provoking a defensive response if at all possible. You certainly don't want to appear to think that you're superior. You see this happen on both sides of the god debate, either by the religious with "You're missing out on the full human experience with your narrow, materialistic focus", or by atheists with "How can you be so stupid to believe in a fairy tale?" Of course, the best way to avoid appearing to think that you are superior is to not think that you are superior.

You also want to clearly separate the person's ideas from the person themselves. Saying "You're wrong" connects the idea and the person, and suggests that one "wrong" belief makes the entire person "wrong". Alternatively, "Your belief in this theory is mistaken" shows that it's not the person you disagree with, just one of their billions of beliefs.

Good post.

It also helps to have the facts on your side.

As an aside, I'd disagree with this. To me, the most compelling arguments are those that are the most aesthetically appealing to me or my sense of taste, rather than those that appeal to any sense of truth, fact, morals etc.

As I alluded to a few months back, the argument that The Flaming Lips are a great band is doesn't get it's convincing power from any appeal to a sense of truth, fact or morals, it comes from appealing to a person's taste or aesthetic preferences. The same goes for all forms of argumentation imo.

An atheist gets hard when reading Dawkins, not because Dawkins has access to the Truth and has decided to fill his ardent followers in on it (though most of them would like to think this is the case), but because Dawkins, again, appeals to their tastes, forming, in their eyes, what is a convincing and compelling argument. To a guy like KevinCat, Dawkin's arguments are not lies and untruths as such, they are merely aesthetically unappealing, therefore, not very compelling in his eyes.

 

[skipper kelly]

Good post mate, particularly the bold. Although I think you mischaracterise the 'god debate' somewhat.

How do you characterise it? (serious question)

 

[evo]

How do you characterise it? (serious question)

Well it's a fair bit more nuanced than Nasma has made out. It is the most discussed issue in the history of man - filling libraries.

 

[cancat]

Strange as it may seem I've embarked on a program to get rid of all my beliefs. It's proving harder than i initially expected.

Tell us what you are up to Evo. If you lose your beliefs then what is left of your identity?

 

[evo]

Tell us what you are up to Evo. If you lose your beliefs then what is left of your identity?

Well it disappears; or so I'm lead to believe. Hehe.

To be honest, I'm not really trying that hard at the moment.

 

[cancat]

Well it disappears; or so I'm lead to believe. Hehe.

To be honest, I'm not really trying that hard at the moment.

I'm not sure it is possible to lose your beliefs. But I reckon it is possible to change them - thus changing your identity. This can either be something you choose for yourself or something that is impressed upon you externally by something like hypnosis or brainwashing.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well it disappears; or so I'm lead to believe. Hehe.

500ug of lysergic-acid-diethylamide would achieve about the same result but much, much faster

 

[evo]

500ug of lysergic-acid-diethylamide would achieve about the same result but much, much faster

Well I imagine it is probably something akin to that tempory feeling. It's a fair while since I dabbled in acid but their certainly was a sense of losing oneself to nature, so to speak.