Musk is the most high profile person, but there are actually A LOT. As I said, they are all Americans so destroying the country isn't in their best interest; so obviously they are of the opinion this is something that can be managed, and is preferable to a Harris presidency.

A lot of stuff that probably shouldn't be politically polarized (like space exploration) are getting politically polarized, and I think a lot of smart people are worried the Democrats are on the wrong side of too many issues.

This is a segue, and veering into sexual dimorphism evolutionary psychology, but Yglesias has noted that much of the polarization seems to be fueled by sex/gender polarization.

As the Democrat party becomes more and more (white collar) female dominated (and vice versa); the Democrat party itself is more and more taking partisan positions that conform to the norms of this demographic.

And a lot of powerful, influential people are worried this group is not on the right side of too many issues. The California Coastal Commission basically going after SpaceX for completely blatant political reasons (to the point even Newsom has called them out and said it is unacceptable) is worrying a lot of people the direction the Democrat Party is going.

I very easily can imagine a high-profile person supporting Trump because he believes that he will be personally enriched by Trump's policies. For some people, that's the only voting issue. But the bar for that person agreeing to serve in Trump's administration is much, much higher because the reputational risk is much, much greater. Will some adult make the same mistake that Mnuchin or Mattis made? It's possible, of course, but I would fall off my log backwards if a second Trump administration featured more adults than his first administration.

Fair enough. The way things stand now there appears to be a 50/50 chance we will never find out.

Yes, it's really bad for personal freedoms when a a serious presidential candidate starts saying he's going to throw random people in jail, sue media companies and news magazine shows for interviewing an opponent etc. But seems like this kind of dystopia is what the far right wants.

Plumbing is pretty simple. Don't think I would ever let a plumber do anything on my property until I fully understand all the details.

In the last FEW posts, the topic of The 2024 ELECTION has reared it's ugly head. Well done!

You ever heard of getting a second opinion? Also pretty sure a very large part of diagnosis is pure probability.

What does getting a second opinion have to do with not going to doctors for advice on probability? Or did you think my statement "we go to medicals doctor for advice on medicine" meant you are obliged to take the first opinion proffered, or take the opinion of any given doctor as gospel? If so, your comprehension is truly awful.

I imagine they're trained on the part of part of probability that is involved in diagnosis, maybe not so much on probability in general. Although having said that, the study chez linked would seem to imply otherwise.

Chill broseph, it's all relevant. We are discussing campaign issues in the election thread.

Speaking of the total business genius, Leon hath now decreed that if you block someone on X formerly known as Twitter they can still view your profile and posts

Leon really is an incel who made it

Don't have a clue about Tillerson other than he called Trump a ****ing moron, which scores him a few points in my book.

So what does blocking them actually do? Put them on ignore?

I’m certain I’ve insulted you specifically as many times as I’m allowed to without getting banned but lol @ ‘run away’

Anyway, prove me wrong, coward

Like here? If someone blocks me I can still read their posts

A doctor's advice is largely based on probability. They look at your symptoms and make a probabilistic assessment of the most likely reason you are exhibiting them. They generally suck at it, which is why people get second opinions.

So, your thesis is that we shouldn't trust doctors on matters related to medicine because they suck at probability, correct?

And if you did and still seriously disagreed with the plumber you would be the favorite.

Just as a Princeton trained psychologist, guidance counselor, or even registered nurse would be a favorite to have the better opinion about whether the child they knew should have transition surgery if their opinion differed from a below average doctor who "specialized" in the subject. Doubly so if there was a financial incentive that subconsciously or consciously influenced the doctor. In fact everyone on this forum who had a child in this situation and was advised by an urgent care doctor to get that surgery, would not do it if they had a non doctor house guest for a week and was urged to not do the surgery by their guest - if that guest was ukemaster.

You know when people get second opinions, they get them from other doctors, right? Not Ron Desantis or internet culture warrior bros.

Reminds me of the old joke -

Doctor: You have inoperable colon cancer.
Patient: Can I get a second opinion?
Doctor: Sure. You're ****ing ugly too.

Are we still at the stage where the computer doesn't tell the doctor what the probabilities are?

AI is much better at diagnosis. Doctors still has a bit of a role role doing the tests, judging/inputing the symptoms and telling us to eat/drink less

Let's just take a step back here. Nobody ITT who is claiming that others are saying experts are infallible (nobody is arguing that) or misusing/abusing "appeal to authority" as a criticism of arguments others are making has any issue whatsoever accepting expert opinion on absolutely anything where they agree with or are indifferent to the experts' conclusion(s). It all seems like a disingenuous attempt to discredit experts in the very narrow context where they don't like the conclusions for ideological or other reasons.

Yeah I suppose. I definitely chose linguistics for my example for a reason because I've read enough linguistics papers to understand that while yes there are obviously still plenty of citations the typical form of argument is " this language does X, and this language does Y, and this language does Z and when you put those all together we can make this theory about how language works".

And sure sometimes you'll need data collected by others because not everyone is expected to know some aboriginal Australian language, and there can be complex terms and ideas. But you can ultimately explain it without the use of experts although in some cases it might require becoming an expert oneself and diving deep into theory.

I wasn't arguing that although it certainly seems reasonable.

Idk I was just talking to my mom about when you're supposed to spay your dogs. I've read that you're supposed to wait until after their first heat otherwise it could cause issues with bone development. Maybe that's true maybe it isn't. She asked how I knew it and I was like "idk it's what I read". That's definitely an appeal to experts.

But if I actually read up on it some, understood the studies and whatever mechanisms are involved and could explain them then I would no longer be appealing to experts even if I had to cite some of them because I haven't done the studies myself.

My argument is that when you see appeals to experts it's out of ignorance. I don't know if it should be considered a logical fallacy but I don't really consider "all of these people say X" to be a valid form of argument.

You wouldn't be "appealing to experts" because you'd be one. So you would be relying on ("appealing to", if you like) your own expertise. I'm sure you will agree that we can't expect everyone to spend the time becoming an expert on every topic where they might want to have even a passing opinion. So, I disagree that it's out of ignorance, unless you define "ignorance" as literally not knowing everything about everything.

My point was just that plumbing and medicine are not really comparable. There are plenty of medical treatments that work and the justification is double blind studies show it’s effective and safe but the mechanism isn’t really understood by anyone. Plumbing, electrical or any contract work done on my house I can understand in a way it’s not possible for anyone to understand medicine.

Not in my case.

But the fact is that most doctors aren't smart.

Doctor errors are the third leading cause of death in America.

Second opinions find a misdiagnosis more than a quarter of the time and the Mayo Clinic changes the therapy a total of 70%.

There are notable exceptions though.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TYmSslIAAAAJ