Throw in a couple of self-selection effects, whereby people are more likely to measure aspects of their own mental performance that they value, and are more likely to value aspects of performance that they are good at, and it can be entirely true that most Americans are above average and median intelligence. Because most americans will favour intelligence measures they do well at.
-
Features
Former anti-GMO activist says science changed his mind
- Thread starter Perspicuo
- Start date
Throw in a couple of self-selection effects, whereby people are more likely to measure aspects of their own mental performance that they value, and are more likely to value aspects of performance that they are good at, and it can be entirely true that most Americans are above average and median intelligence. Because most americans will favour intelligence measures they do well at.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Uh, no, it really isn't. You seem to have a habit of interpreting people's positions for them based on insufficient data to do so. It should've been plenty obvious from my original post that my issue was with people who refuse to even do the basic research; that tells you nothing about whether or not I think everyone should agree with my reading of said research.
Except that happened only *after* the Internet started becoming popular and mainstream. Also, the dot com bubble doesn't particularly count since you don't actually have to understand or be 'broadly in favor of it' (your words) in order to recognize that money can be made using the classic bubble cycle. Modern Art doesn't particularly qualify either because it's not new (modern art is actually pretty old by now, but that's a quibble), just a newer version of something that's been around forever and is thus recognizable enough as such. Management crazes are in a similar boat. The rest of what you describe is just people *starting out* with a particular ideological bias and then pursuing things they believe support it; whereas we were talking about the exact *opposite*, namely people going in without any preconceptions on a completely new and alien thing to them and then becoming highly in favor of it based on what they read about it... that rarely happens to the extent you were suggesting in the post I responded to.
You still seem to be interpreting my position for me. I can understand the progression of events just fine, thanks. I just can't 'identify' with it having never been in any sort of religion, cult, fanboy group, or ideology. I can put myself in the shoes of people in plenty of other situations that are vastly different from my own and thus imagine what it must be like for them because my brain at least allows me to compare it with analogues in my own life; I can not in this case. That is all I mean when I say I do not understand them. Can we drop this miscommunication now?
I've encountered such people, yes. I have never encountered one of them who is emotionally invested to the point of being a *fanatic* whose knowledgebase is also broad enough to include the *counterarguments/evidence* though.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
That person is a member of this board, and likely munching a GMO carrot as we speak.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
That person is a member of this board, and likely munching a GMO carrot as we speak.
How did you know I'm eating carrots??
Unbeatable
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 691
- Location
- PA
- Basic Beliefs
- moral and existential nihilism, igtheism, dysteleology, pragmatic methodological naturalism
Wait a minute, aren't you a transhumanist?
If that's what you meant, I don't understand what motivated you to say it in the first place. And I mean "understand" in the usual sense-- I don't even have a theoretical explanation for your post, much less an intuitive comprehension of it.
Ok, so I don't understand what you're saying.
Have you tried walking into a bookshop and looking in the political philosophy/political science section? Or read anything by David Ike?
dystopian
Veteran Member
Transhumanism is none of those things; merely the idea that we should use technological advances to improve our bodies. If you think that's a 'aha gotcha' moment, I should tell you I also support the use of medicine to cure disease, the use of cars to get from A to B, and the use of roofs to stay dry while it's raining; all of which are about as religious, cult-like, fanboyish, or idealogically driven as the idea we should improve ourselves where we can.
Much as I don't have a theoretical explanation for why someone would seek to continue a meaningless argument over someone's figure of speech. I do, however, have an intuitive comprehension for it.
togo said:
Are you seriously suggesting David Icke's knowledgebase is broad and comprehensive enough to include all the reasons why his conspiracy theories are nonsense?
doubtingt
Senior Member
People changing their mind is one thing, but its rather uncommon among committed activists who spend their time, money, and even risk their liberty acting out their beliefs. Each time we act on our convictions, we deepen our psychological commitment to them. Also, if those actions impede or harm the opposition
(as this guy's did by his own admission), then when he switches position, he must deal with the fact that he acted to harm those and the cause that he now agrees with. By his own now revised perspective, he did much more than most people to cause harm and suffering to the world's hungry people. Changing his view required more than admitting he was wrong, it also required admitting he acted immorally and caused harm to people and that all his past criminal acts of destruction had no just cause behind them.
For these and other reasons, activists are more likely to be dogmatic and entrenched and less likely to change their view than people who might hold strong views but do not really do anything to impact the world based on those views.
(as this guy's did by his own admission), then when he switches position, he must deal with the fact that he acted to harm those and the cause that he now agrees with. By his own now revised perspective, he did much more than most people to cause harm and suffering to the world's hungry people. Changing his view required more than admitting he was wrong, it also required admitting he acted immorally and caused harm to people and that all his past criminal acts of destruction had no just cause behind them.
For these and other reasons, activists are more likely to be dogmatic and entrenched and less likely to change their view than people who might hold strong views but do not really do anything to impact the world based on those views.
All, of course not. But then that's a standard that no one ever reaches. He does, however, know enough to deal with some counter arguments against his position, and to present evidence for it.
Which is kinda the point I'm making. Simply having evidence and dealing with counter arguments is a very low standard to reach, being emotionally invested isn't uncommon, and so I'm surprised you've never met anyone who does both. If by contrast, you mean having considered all possible evidence and arguments, then that's a standard that no one reaches. I suspect what's missing here is some form of judgement around evaluation.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Rather, I mean something in between those positions. Having enough knowledge to 'deal with some counter arguments' is something that even many young-earth creationists have; but that knowledge is something they gained specifically to try and tear down the critics and prop up their own position. If you, as an activist, promote an ideology, eventually you're going to encounter arguments against it; doing only a token amount of research necessary to address those arguments (assuming that they sufficiently manage to address them, which I think you'll agree is often not the case) is not what I'd consider having done the research. It'd be one thing if they encountered an argument and then seriously researched all/most of the angles of that argument in a non-biased fashion, but what more often happens is that they go in search of a counter-argument they can present to the flock, and as soon as they find it they'll stop researching; even though the counter-argument they found might already have been refuted.
Fair enough, but I'd argue that that kind of approach is very common here on these boards amongst sceptics and atheists. There are plenty of atheists who don't bother to find out anything more about a religion than the basics necessary to establish an argument they can present. There are plenty of people from the natural science boards who make regular pilgrimages to philosophy board to attack philosophy using a single video clip as a basis. There are plenty of people on the politics boards who keep on posting articles where the title or introduction agrees with them, but the body of the text doesn't. Even on the history boards, we get people arguing about the history of socialism without knowing anything more about it than the minimum necessary to convince others than it's a bad thing.
My observation is that on these boards we are surrounded by a great many people who act in the fashion you describe. They are diligent in some areas of expertise, but careless in others. Whether or not they are sufficiently emotionally invested is, of course, another matter.
My observation is that on these boards we are surrounded by a great many people who act in the fashion you describe. They are diligent in some areas of expertise, but careless in others. Whether or not they are sufficiently emotionally invested is, of course, another matter.
dystopian
Veteran Member
I would argue that isn't that true. It's a fundamentally different situation; when it comes to god claims, you don't need to know that religion x beliefs god reincarnated into human form, walked on water, then became a zombie. The specific claims of religion aren't particularly relevant when the core claim about god(s) is one that involves claims that can be examined and addressed independently of all that. The situation isn't that simple with issues like GMO's; sure, you may believe it's wrong or not, but doing so doesn't do anything to get you closer to the truth of the matter; especially when it concerns something that involves complex science that's still being formed. It's a fair bit different from recognizing that because the god claim is either outright false or at best unanswerable, the other claims of religion become automatically irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether or not the religion is true.
Everybody, myself included, acts like that from time to time on some things (sometimes doing so is justified as with the example of not needing to know the specifics of a religion when the core concept is demonstrably false/suspect; sometimes it's because it's annoying and I don't give a shit to learn more; and sometimes it's because I'm a flawed creature that doesn't always practices what he preaches). I do not, indeed, consider that to be on the same level as dedicating your life to it the way the man in the OP did. There's a substantial difference between occasionally posting shit online and cherrypicking data so you can rub it in the face of that annoying dude, and spending ten years of your life vandalizing farms in order to make some sort of point.