Boycott Google

I’m not sure if he’s trusting his intuition, but I’m pretty sure he’s trusting his colleagues.

Yes. I think the training in the tools of logic and mathematical problem solving in general would better-equip someone to then proceed to study economics. Someone shielded from such practicing and consequent neural development because they had to drop out of school in order to work would not have the mechanisms in place to understand economic nuances.

My emotional response is “hell yeah!” but no, it wouldn’t be democratic. The solution is education, but most of the rural people are too smart to learn anything, so “science progresses funeral by funeral.” Wait for them to die and do a better job educating the next generation.

Btw I’m rural. Mom’s a hillbilly who raised me in Pentecostal churches… you know… the speaking in tongues and that. Holy Rollers. I know the words to 100s of country songs: “my long hair just can’t cover my red neck”, I can run a trotline, skin a buck, catch catfish and haven’t tried making wine, but I make pickles. I have a shotgun, four wheel drive truck and atv. I’m a high-tech redneck: Mayberry meets Star Trek.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72jHhkApfi0[/youtube]

It’s more about hate and arrogance on the part of the ruralites than anything noble.

Which is a form of intuition. I am not denigrating it, just categorizing it.

That’s just cherry picking. You are dismissing a category based on what is relevent to only parts of it.

Well, a lot of countries, based on science reject flouride. And humorously enough there is evidence that it may affect male sexuality.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27154732
fluoridealert.org/studies/fertility01/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23654100

Personally I just think it is generally toxic, and so does, for example, the EU. And the evidence that it helps do what it is supposed to do is weak at best.

So on this issue your smugness in relation to the uneducated masses was a disconnect from reality.

As for the rest, you’re just generalizing. Further there are many well educated people who get classified as conspiracy theorist. Engineers and architects for truth about 9/11 is one group.

As long as you keep your ‘rebuttal’ at this vague general level, toss in pan-ad hom dismissals of the conspiracy theorist you are basically doing the same thing you are criticising.

And for what it’s worth, I am well educated and I’m a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream estimation. And I don’t have anti-semitic theories, not do I like Trump.

My intuition is you’re wrong, but I’ll defer to your expertise :wink: I think that is what Noam is doing (not that his intuition is that climate change is correct, but that his intuition is irrelevant).

You’re saying his intuition is to defer to the authority of those purported to know and maybe you’re right, but it could be that he’s following a mechanistic logic designed to keep intuitions out of it.

Intuition = what my gut says, right?

The scientific types don’t have any choice in the matter because if they are scientists, they have to trust the reported science because if they don’t, then they’ve undermined their own work. That’s why each claim is substantiated with a citation (scienceguy et al 2019)

It’s just an example. It’s not cherry picking as if most examples were opposite but I cherry-picked the one I need.

Yes, me too. I don’t need science to tell me Fl is a highly reactive ion. But, they’ve associated it with enamel strength, right? (By whatever mechanism)

Where am I disconnected?

Of course I’m generalizing. If I said asian people are generally shorter, then you point out that one of them played basketball and accuse me of generalizing doesn’t mean my generalization was wrong or that I’m intellectually dishonest.

I don’t know why it’s hard for you to accept that conspiracy theorists aren’t generally that educated. Sure, exceptions exist.

One time I left my door unlocked and didn’t get robbed. Does that mean it’s generally a good idea to leave doors unlocked?
I went outside in the cold and didn’t get sick. Does that mean it’s generally a good idea to be cold?

If you’re perceptive enough to discern real conspiracies then that’s good, but I don’t think you’re predisposed to see everything as a conspiracy. I’ve seen no evidence of that from you. On the contrary actually… you always question everything and that’s a hallmark of intelligence. You’re really sharp and I’m glad you’re here and I don’t want it to be construed otherwise.

Again, there are groups that are not anti-semitic and are well educated. So, one can with broad brushes dismiss a whole class of claims in an ad hom manner, but then the motivations to do this seem poor to me.

I think they used to claim it prevent decay and cavities. But in any case, it is not crazy to think it is damaging male sexuality. I think it was on the loopy side to think it was a communist plot, which was the rage for a time.

You gave an example of conspiracy theory thinking. But in fact the position is supported by science. That was a disconnection.

WEll, 1) you were wrong about fluouride. 2) you are not generalizing in the way one generalizes about racial heights. You did not say ‘generally’ X. You dismissed the entire category. No qualifications about tendencies, most, many whatever. You just categorically dismissed them.

I don’t think I argued against that assertion. I think argued against other assertions.

Thank you, and no I didn’t take your way of describing conspiracy theorists as an unwitting attack on me, nor do I think you don’t appreciate me. And given how tough and cranky I am, I should add that I appreciate your presence also, especially when you run into certain personalities I just don’t have the energy to point out their leaps and loopiness. I can only assume you are retired or work as a security guard in the middle of the desert or something.

What I mean is the jews, when taken as a group, have an average iq higher than any other group and are only rivaled by the asians, so that’s a more plausible explanation for their seeming to control everything than backroom deals and conspiracy. Now if they were no smarter than anyone else, perhaps the conspiracy theory would seem a more probable explanation.

My toothpaste tube says “with sugar acid protection**” and then in smaller letters “from fluoride.” Then the ** signifies “With sugar acid protection provided by fluoride, which strengthens enamel, creating a shield that protects the tooth surface against sugar acid attack.”

Sodium Fluoride 0.25% (0.15% w/v fluoride ion)

Then it goes on to describe it as a poison and recommends seeking immediate medical attention if swallowed.

I have no idea if any of that is true.

I’m not suggesting that the dummies are conspiring, but that they are prone to believing conspiracies.

I’ve not taken a position on Fl, so how could I be wrong? I have absolutely no clue whether Fl is beneficial or not (when not swallowed).

You’ll have to provide a concrete example since I’m not seeing my error via the claims you’re making.

I am asserting that if we categorize everyone into two groups: the educated and the uneducated, that the uneducated group will contain the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists. Obviously exceptions apply.

I could also assert that if we categorize everyone into two groups: the asians and non-asians, that the asian group will contain the vast majority of short people. Exceptions apply.

Where is my error? I am more than happy to learn from my mistakes, but first I have to see the mistake I made.

lol, no, I just don’t have the neural energy to put into conveying connotations that would better describe my tone and tenor. If there is a scarcity of glucose, my left hemisphere monopolizes it and I talk robotically which could make me seem gruff. And there is almost always a glucose scarcity since I’m OCD as hell. I burn the candle at both ends, plus a torch in the middle while the whole thing rests in a blast furnace lol! I’m probably won’t live to retirement :confused:

@Serendipper

2 3rds of Trump voters had annual household incomes above the median, which’s about 50 grand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.3a811ab6ffbf

I was unable to access the first link.

The second link just said conservatives tend to feel more fear and disgust, not that they’re talentless.

Maybe liberals are good with artsy and nerdy things, and conservatives are good with their hands and socializing.

I don’t believe conservatives are some kind of lower life form.

Well I don’t think I’m a narcissist and it won’t work on me, because I base my beliefs on my research, reason, experience and gut.

What a, b or c group thinks and how smart they (supposedly) are is of quinary importance.

Government is perfectly capable of being corrupt on its own, without the influence of private corporations, see the Soviet Union, altho megacorporations certainly don’t help things.

While democracy can help keep government in check, only if the people vote smart, which they seldom do, and the votes are tallied correctly, which they may seldom be.

All other things being equal or unknown, the smarties.

History is full of conspiracy, people, especially the wealthy and powerful, always plot and scheme, but maybe that’s just my paranoid-conservative brain talking, maybe we should just have global dictatorship, things will work out.

You’re right, my common sense barometer must need adjusting.

Overall, conservatives probably fear more.

Liberals and conservatives probably differ in what they fear too.

I don’t identify as conservative…not that there’s anything wrong with fear, it’s situational, like anything.

I’m conservative on some things, liberal on some things, and libertarian on others, I don’t follow groups, I don’t try to fit in, if anything I’d rather stand out.

For example when it comes to abortion and the environment, I’m very liberal, when it comes to big business, I’m very liberal, but when it comes to small business, I’m very libertarian, I’d like to see more regulation of big business and less of small.

I wonder how else conservatives and liberals differ emotionally, and cognitively?

Are conservatives also more angry, is that why they’re tougher on crime?

Are they labelers, are they more discriminating?

But for people who supposedly fear less, liberals are sure willing to sacrifice their liberty for security.

I’m not sure how much stock I put in these brain scans.

@Serendipper

Ants aren’t so good with facts, figures and hierarchy, yet they seem to be pretty good economists.

Atomized, semi-autistic, liberal urbanites have to be told what to do by some authority, according to government or some corporation’s elaborate, central plan, but conservative ruralites on the other hand have other means of organizing themselves, taking care of one another and redistributing wealth and resources where need be.

Conservative ruralites have larger, extended families they can turn to for material, mental and emotional support.

They also talk with their friends and neighbors more.

They attend church services more regularly.

They join more clubs and participate in community events.

Mom tends to stay home, and homeschools the kids.

They rely on homemade remedies for what ails them.

More of them are self employed.

They form militias.

And again they know how to live off the land, make their own this and that, barter.

Where do liberal urbanites look to for support?

To the state, their psychiatrist, or they go online.

Conservative ruralites look to themselves and their communities.

Rural, conservative networking would look more like a spider web structure, whereas urban, liberal networking would look more like a pyramid.

Unfortunately these two demographics have miserably failed to understand each other, yet they have to share the same federal and state governments.

I propose instead of having to vie for dominance, imposing their alien values and way of life on each other, the federal government stays out of local affairs, and state lines are redrawn, so urbanites can have their own states, and ruralites theirs.

The trend, the last several centuries especially/particularly, has been increasing urbanization, so you may get your wish, their way of life has been dying out for some time.

However, in light of growing environmental challenges, I suspect this trend will reverse itself soon in all likelihood.

Humanity will have to relocalize, for globalization requires vast sums of resources, resources we no longer have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mddAgYXClA&index=432&t=0s&list=WL

It seems to me, white liberals have become as fearful of their own ingroup as conservatives used to be about outgroups.

I just looked back at the original quote.

And I haven’t countered that. I did point out that it is damaging to men’s sexual potency and testosterone. So one part of the idea is correct. IOW someone reading what you wrote would likely think it’s just a silly idea as a whole. The issue of whether is part of an agenda, yes, I haven’t shown that. And I suppose I am agnostic. There is so much evidence that fluoride is damaging and still it is used ends up being a kind of passive conspiracy at a minimum. But that is, yes, still a distance from an agenda based decision. I didn’t remember you having the part about the agenda.

Well, it’s the context. And I just looked at the work I would have to do. REquote Gloominary’s post, your response, my response in a couple of posts. And I am too lazy.

Let me put it this way, setting aside the issue of whether you have presented something false there.

When people talk about the uneducated or cognitive biases, the implicit logic in the former accusation, is that if more educated people believe something, it is the case. I think that depends on the kind of fact it is, and it is an argument we cannot draw any conclusions on in any specific case. So the argument functions as a general dismissal, when it should not. It is ad hom, so it is not relevent to any specific case.

The second accusation, that it has to do with cognitive biases, certainly has merit, in certain kinds of patterns of belief, but again it is ad hom. It is focussing on the believers and not the specific arguments and best proponents. But further it assumes that not believing in a specific conspiracy theory is bias free. There is tremendous cognitive dissonence around noticing when there are systematic problems - at least for those for whom that creates cognitive dissonence, which is many people.

Further everyone believes in conspiracies, and every group has believed in fake ones. Not all members, but the groups as a whole.

You may not have meant it as I took it.

I read your psychologizing of the issue and class-judging the issue as an ad hom dismissal of both the believers and the theories. IOW look at the group in general, evaluate THEM, dismiss the specific conspiracies (alone with anyone who believes in CTs not accepted or promoted by mainstream media)

That may not have been a fair read.

I think this kind of discussion has to get into sub-groups. Conservatives have often been very mixed about liberty. Often they are for greater law enforcement, less rights for criminals - which ends up meaning less rights for people considered by the police to be criminals - that is suspects. They have often been very pro-wars on drugs, wars on terrorism, that have had as part of them reductions in liberty. I would guess more of the left of center was skeptical about the Patriot Act than the right of center. Of course it was Bush,so some of that may have been knee jerk, but still.

To me there is a massive center that has been manipulated to give up liberty. Then you have on the right people who could be broadly classed as libertarians or share something with that label and on the left anarchists or people who share much of their skepticism about both government and industry…These people are actually trying to determine who has power, how did they get it, what does it mean about citizen power, privacy, liberty, etc. Unfortunately the two groups tend to have strong cultural differences and have not been able to unify to at least create a significant minority faction.

Intuition is black boxed. One tends not to go through careful deductive reasoning. Many of the steps are leaps. I doubt he went and checked their research in the way experts are supposed to for publication in Nature, for example. I doubt he looked at objections by dissenting scientists, then dug into the research to see how scientists concluding global warming is caused by humans, and not say, solar activity, sunspots, other factors, set up protocols to eliminate this. I would guess he did what most people do with is assumed that there could not be protocol and paradigmatic factors confusing large humers of his colleagues and that any political/money interests financing the research also have not skewed the results. IOW he went on black boxed estimates of probabilities. It’s a decent heuristic. Sometimes it is wrong, but most of the time it will work, in the course of one’s lifetime. But it is not analytical research and it is not empirical research.

Sure, but sometimes they fuck up. Rogue waves is a nice example. When paradigmatic issues are at stake and where money or politics is a factor, there can be serious weaknesses, and despite their educations, they can be as stubborn as anyone else.

And by the way, I am not saying he’s wrong. I have been lazy - notice the pattern - about global warming. I could get in there, look at the best opposition’s papers and arguments, then look at the research for global warming and spend a lot of time on it. I have done that with certain conspiracy theories, for example. But they tend to be on more interesting events. This would be a multidisciplinary science research project. Snore. I did that shit in college. I still read about neuroscience and some other specific areas of science, but this would be like preparing a thesis. No thanks. So I am not arguing that he has fooled himself. I use intuition on a vast number of things. We have to.

Explain the election map being blue where money is and red in the country. The NBC poll was obviously wrong.

Look at careers and party affiliation: the high paying jobs favor liberals.

Look at the military: officers are more liberal than enlisted men.

I pasted it wrong. Try this one: journals.plos.org/plosone/artic … ne.0052970

The point is that neurological differences exist and correlate 83%.

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren’t in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Only a narcissist is bulletproof.

Ah the science of gut feelings lol. I gave you 27 points of research, so research it.

Man, you ain’t gettin it. Conservative’s central mantra is professors are stupid; that intelligence is inversely proportional to education and complex issues are common sense.

Not if it represents the people instead of the people with money.

Where is the evidence for that? Hillary was elected, but the moron was selected and that happened before, with Bush and Gore. Why it is the guy with the lowest iq and the least votes who wins?

They studied that specifically and there is no evidence to support voter fraud.

Conspiracies do happen.

I’d research the insula and amygdala to answer those questions.

I imagine you’re referring to guns, but most liberals don’t use guns so it’s not a sacrifice of liberty. Voting liberal advocates the liberty of deciding which drugs to ingest, the freedom to stick your tallywacker in more places, get married to more people, change your gender, the freedom to collect fatter paychecks or welfare, the freedom to use a credit card to get out of jail instead of having to come up with cash. Conservatives are authoritarian: Thou shalt not _________!

Ants are good economists?

It amazes me that poor people would rather support their own deadbeat family members rather than letting the gov steal some of Bezos’ money to do it for them.

Should they get a medal or was that luck?

What are their options?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJr226idrFg[/youtube]

The problem is they are specifically trying to make their own lives harder, evidently so they can congratulate themselves for how well they survive it, but unfortunately that’s affecting others who don’t have the family networks and the herd mentality to weather the adversity.

You obviously haven’t given much thought to what would have happened to the south if they had won the war. It’s a relative shithole now with low wages and republican leadership, but imagine if slavery were legal: it would be worse than mexico.

Yes, it’s going to happen. zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- … ng-naivete

I was just citing that as example of a typical conspiracy theory. I don’t have an opinion of whether it’s true or not.

I agree with that. I’m not saying climate change is right because smart people believe it, but I’m saying party affiliation correlates with intelligence/education. I’ve even proposed a mechanism to explain the correlation (brain damage from poverty).

Well I can slaughter the arguments of the right too, so I’m not appealing to ad hom, but the hom is the topic in this case.

I think you nailed it.

Fair enough. I think climate change is bs, but I realize free energy is the ultimate goal and it’s going to be solar, so I’m willing to go along with the propaganda.