Boycott Google

Funny, you were reading my mind lol

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk[/youtube]

That doesn’t qualify one as an economist.

You just admitted it, so evidently you already know how I figured :wink:

Here’s 27 other ways to figure it viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612

Definitely not. 3 people have more wealth than half the population and all 3 are liberals (Buffett, Gates, Bezos).

Silicon valley, hollywood, academia have more money than anyone.

Talent for acting, talent for writing code, talent for comedy, talent for teaching, etc = liberal bias. Talented brains come to liberal conclusions and a brainscan could predict with 82.9% accuracy whether one is republican or democrat. journals.plos.org/plosone/artic … ne.0052970

Corroborating study here ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

Yes, me too, but how do you get a narcissist to realize he’s wrong? The way I do it is to exhaustively associate him with dummies to such extent that he appears completely foolish to even the most moronic imbeciles.

Only when the capitalists get into the gov: the fox guards the henhouse.

Sure i agree.

Sure I suppose so, but if there’s a group of smart people here and a group of dummies there, which are you going to hang with?

Yes and they’re stupid for doing it as it’s completely transparent what they’re up to.

Hell I thought it was “common sense” lol. I could probably dig up some data, but check out the followers of Alex Jones or even Rush because the whole premise is a conspiracy that the “globalists” are taking over.

Here, I thought of you when I read this:

Furthermore, compared with liberals, individuals who
endorse right-wing ideologies are more fearful and anxious that
out-groups will cause the disintegration of societal moral standards
and traditions (Altemeyer, 1996; Jost et al., 2003; Sibley
& Duckitt, 2008).

You’re always on about destruction of society through erosion of traditions and immigration.

And the title of the paper: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideologies scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-conten … 421206.pdf

I’m not saying you’re stupid because you’re clearly not, and I was once conservative myself. But, dummies gravitate to the right, so long as they’re white, since black or brown dummies do not. And old. Young dummies tend left. The arrogance of old, white, uneducated men is what’s causing hatred of white people. They think because they can hunt and fish that it qualifies them to proclaim things they have never studied as “common sense”… or because some cigar-sucking fatass said so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrBz39xv8MU[/youtube]

Which means he is following his intuition. Fine. I do that all the time. But it is an epistemological strategy that is made fun of by his colleagues in general, even through they use it all the time and not just for trivial matters.

In the context of this thread, I see no liberals, including those at Google, worrying about the social effects of social media, even when some of the makers of it have gone public and said they used the best cognitive science to make it addictive. Even when there is plenty of research that it reduces empathy, increases attention deficit problems, and is damaging parenting.

They are trusting the colleagues who get the most press, and using their intuition about what government would or would not do.

I love many things Chomsky has done, but he is very naive about power. And that is weird since he has also been so perceptive about it.

That’s just a judgment in the air, abstract and ad hom and general. The psychology of the conspirary theory is irrevelent and probably only holds for some believers in many of the theories. There are conspiracies, so believing in a conspiracy can be the result of all sorts of things, including sound reasoning, inside knowledge, strong intuition…just like any other conclusion. People use these generalities about believers’ cognitive processes and psychology to dismiss all sorts of things that don’t fit.

IOW what you just presented is equivalent to a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense. You ‘see’ a pattern and a complicated set of phenomena is really simple and can be put in one box.

Yes and because he’s so trusting of his colleagues, he’s said things like:

Noam Chomsky: Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history

‘Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?’ says distinguished academic. independent.co.uk/news/worl … 06026.html

I agree with him, but it has nothing to do with climate change.

If you accept the premise of climate change, you may be apt to think the world will end in 12 years zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- … eparations

I can’t fault anyone for feeling that way if they’ve accepted the premise, which I also can’t fault anyone for accepting since it’s sensible and widely supported. The narrative is bs, but so what? Let them think they’re saving the planet. Who cares?

Was this meant to show that he should trust his intuition`? I’m wondering how it relates to my post.

What about these people who think all the Jews of the world are conspiring? I’ve given this a lot of consideration and can’t reconcile how all the Jews of the world would meet in backrooms to formulate their plans for world domination. People who think that is possible haven’t given it good thought, imo. The Jews are smarter and that explains what otherwise seems a conspiracy.

The elites are conspiring. The globalists are conspiring. Mass shootings are false flags. Everything is a conspiracy to the uneducated demographic. Fluoride in water to feminize men to further globalist agenda. It’s a disconnect with reality.

Do urban people tend to understand the economy better than rural people because they tend to be more academically educated?

And if so, what does that mean, should rural people be barred from voting in federal, or all elections, even municipal?

I don’t think so, rather, I think urban people tend to have a better understanding of, well, urban, top-down economics, whereas rural people tend to have a better understanding of, rural, bottom-up economics, where things happen organically, like how an ant contributes to the welfare of the whole colony without knowing how exactly or being told what to do, just by taking care of her own needs and the needs of her neighbors.

But even if they understood how the economy works less, even their own local ones, they still need a say in them, because they can’t expect urbanites to care about ruralites as much as ruralites care about themselves.

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.