I like this and will keep it in mind. I've been struggling with the question of how do think I know what I think I know. How do I know I'm not just another guy that's been down too many rabbit holes on YouTube? The best I came up with is to try to be humble in how much conviction I put into what I think I know. And try to be as transparent about how I've gotten to where I've gotten. This simple exercise of doing a risk benefit on if I'm right or wrong will be handy.
I have a great example of this. I was speaking to someone who's completely on the opposite side of this, and is convinced that the covid vaccines have saved millions of lives.
He agreed to subscribe to my Substack, and had to unsubscribe after 2 articles bc his blood pressure got too high from reading them. I asked him one question - i said, do you think there's ANY chance, no matter how slight, that my information might be correct?
His knee jerk, instantaneous response was "0%". Honestly, that told me that this person isn't open to any information that comes from sources other than his main feeds, and unfortunately there's no point in further discussion.
This is an extremely good point, and it's one of the reasons I worry about controlled opposition, and the fact that I've seen some "alt" or "right" news programs repeating incorrect facts at times (DMED and numerous other) in ways that I worry will create a second mass formation that conflicts with the first, creating war.
This is why I feel like TDS is such a brainwashed crew. No matter how much of a Baffoon Trump is, surely there’s something you can find that isn’t completely bad! The guy is funny! And he did some pretty good stuff with foreign relations. And didn’t like war... see the list can even be more than one item long.
A few years ago, Erykah Badu made a statement that there are no absolutes, that you could even find something nice to say about Hitler (that was her example); that he was a good painter. And she was crucified for that remark. To me, speaking in absolutes is silly. Or speaking in terms of 100% certainties.
The risk/benefit questions are good. Very important for critical thinking. Unfortunately, people often cite bogus studies or appeal to authority. I’ve also found the Socratic method pretty valuable because you can tease out the why and the how they trust certain “facts” or statements. Questions also allow you to keep “zooming out” of their experience. Also, it gives you an opportunity to rephrase what they’ve said within your question and to make sure you’ve understood them correctly.
Regular debates/arguments about being right or wrong could be so dull and circular.
Your point about people citing bogus studies to justify their position is valid. That is why we need to apply a healthy dose of imagination when discussing "risk-benefit" analysis with them.
i.e. "I know you believe such and such to be true, but let's imagine for a minute that the threat is not so dangerous and the cure had risks... what are the levels of danger and risk that would affect your decision making process?
It's more an exploration of possibilities. A game of imagination.
I like this and will keep it in mind. I've been struggling with the question of how do think I know what I think I know. How do I know I'm not just another guy that's been down too many rabbit holes on YouTube? The best I came up with is to try to be humble in how much conviction I put into what I think I know. And try to be as transparent about how I've gotten to where I've gotten. This simple exercise of doing a risk benefit on if I'm right or wrong will be handy.
I have a great example of this. I was speaking to someone who's completely on the opposite side of this, and is convinced that the covid vaccines have saved millions of lives.
He agreed to subscribe to my Substack, and had to unsubscribe after 2 articles bc his blood pressure got too high from reading them. I asked him one question - i said, do you think there's ANY chance, no matter how slight, that my information might be correct?
His knee jerk, instantaneous response was "0%". Honestly, that told me that this person isn't open to any information that comes from sources other than his main feeds, and unfortunately there's no point in further discussion.
Which two articles?
This is an extremely good point, and it's one of the reasons I worry about controlled opposition, and the fact that I've seen some "alt" or "right" news programs repeating incorrect facts at times (DMED and numerous other) in ways that I worry will create a second mass formation that conflicts with the first, creating war.
So right you are, Kalev. Excellent post!
This is why I feel like TDS is such a brainwashed crew. No matter how much of a Baffoon Trump is, surely there’s something you can find that isn’t completely bad! The guy is funny! And he did some pretty good stuff with foreign relations. And didn’t like war... see the list can even be more than one item long.
A few years ago, Erykah Badu made a statement that there are no absolutes, that you could even find something nice to say about Hitler (that was her example); that he was a good painter. And she was crucified for that remark. To me, speaking in absolutes is silly. Or speaking in terms of 100% certainties.
The risk/benefit questions are good. Very important for critical thinking. Unfortunately, people often cite bogus studies or appeal to authority. I’ve also found the Socratic method pretty valuable because you can tease out the why and the how they trust certain “facts” or statements. Questions also allow you to keep “zooming out” of their experience. Also, it gives you an opportunity to rephrase what they’ve said within your question and to make sure you’ve understood them correctly.
Regular debates/arguments about being right or wrong could be so dull and circular.
Great points.
Your point about people citing bogus studies to justify their position is valid. That is why we need to apply a healthy dose of imagination when discussing "risk-benefit" analysis with them.
i.e. "I know you believe such and such to be true, but let's imagine for a minute that the threat is not so dangerous and the cure had risks... what are the levels of danger and risk that would affect your decision making process?
It's more an exploration of possibilities. A game of imagination.
This is priceless! More people should try this for sure - perhaps more people will become red-pilled then!
Here's our latest offering:
https://smartsucka.substack.com/p/a-lot-of-governments-and-their-agencies
Hope you enjoy!