Assume he is fine. I specifically brought up the continuing huge number of deaths and cases happening to regular people or all demographics, so you can now talk about how funny their situation is to you as well. You know with questions whether they all have gofundme pages and such, because that is biting satire that you should be proud to own. After that you can expand on whether you think it is all a hoax or not etc.

You can even follow up on your thoughts about Georgia from June

About 4-5 times the daily cases and deaths now compared to when you posted that, so that make this 4-5x the joke? Let's see your take on it. Thanks!

All the best.

These topics are what you know most about?!

Could be a popper type thing.

It's all relative, buddy. I know even less about other stuff, imagine that!

I note that your answer to my question is conspicuous by its absence though. I'll take the charitable view that it's a work in progress.

Don't blame Trump for next level thinking.

As they say in Med School, 'All patients stop bleeding eventually.'

On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
--Tyler Durden

No thanks, not interested in having to do several post exchanges just to sort out what a poster means when referring to something like "both sides" for the umpteenth time after many were previously false equivalencies. If they don't want to post clearly, that's on them and if it gets interpreted wrongly, they can certainly clarify afterwards. Posts are written by one and read by many. The courteous thing is for the author to make them clear.

OK

But generally people criticise something without it even occurring to them that it's some sort of equivalence - we usually just criticise something because we think it's incorrect in some way. Anyway, it's an odd thing to assume and experience suggests it's not that easy to clarify or be clear with those who do assume it.

The problem here is that when it comes to Pandemics a country really only as strong as its weakest link or the dumbest part of the populace.

I think, at this point, the data is in that America has amongst it one of the consistently dumbest and most dangerous populaces, most of which gravitate to the right leaning parties.

I do not say that to be mean. Look at the data. Canada, the EU and other places want to open up too but realize that achieving an enduring opening is much better than stutter starts and stops.

And it is not just the lack of intelligence that is dangerous but rather the coupling of that with a penchant for 'defiance of authority' and 'rejection of intellectuals' really puts the country in a bad place when you smart people to lead and be listened to.

But wait, chez just told me that if you say that you must be biased and are not seeing the same elements on your own side. Now I'm really confused.

There are definitely dumb people on the left. Not as many but they are there.

The bigger problem is, and again I am not joking here, that the dumb people on the right are too dumb to realize they are dumb.

That is a legit thing. You can be dumb but smart enough to realize 'hey I am dumb so I will listen to the Dr or Scientist even though I do not quite understand what they are telling me to do.

The dumb on the right have decides they actually 'know better than them smarty pants with letters after their names like PHD, etc' and that can be very dangerous when the dummy in the engine room of the submarine won't listen to the smart guy saying 'this is not the best time to open that door'.

The dummy takes them all out with him as sadly we are seeing all too much with this pandemic.

Hey man, you're preaching to the choir, that's what I've been trying to say for the last 100+ posts.

This

I thought D2 was moving on but have to say that I agree with this.


Some of that maybe but maybe it's that there is a serious strain of seeing being anti-reasonable as a virtue or good approach. Some on the left do as well but it's more on the right*.


*at least currently. It's more a trait of populism/extremism than left or right imo

I think I might in the too dumb to know I'm dumb category . But how would I know for sure?

left for no, right for yes. Obviously

I knew you'd come round.

Is that foolproof?

not a trick question at all

do you think there are IQ differences between Republicans , Democrats , Communists, Muslims and Christians?

I used to have that thought too but falling for indoctrination seems to be a natural human function

Thinking you are smarter than someone just because you hold/don't hold a belief is a scary road to be on..

I think the context was that the specific belief being discussed was that the 'rona was a hoax and other similar conspiracy theories, not some general left wing or right wing ideology.

they are all beliefs at the end of the day

low IQ isn't the reason they get sucked into certain beliefs

most people laugh at flat earthers but I doubt most people could prove them wrong either

there is a reason why personal development is a multi billion dollar industry

even the smartest person can get sucked into something sooner or later

So, your position is that things you think are not a sign of your intelligence? Because you know that's pretty much what that word means, right?

While intelligence could tell us something about probability of beliefs, I think the sentiment is that it doesn't really stop a person from holding a dangerous or incorrect view of things on an individual level.

The idea that it does can also be dangerous for three reasons I can think of:
1. We could be easier to convince of a dangerous idea by someone we see as intelligent.
2. If we view ourselves as intelligent, we could become lax towards our own views, seeing them as justified because we are intelligent.
3. We risk starting to see disagreement with our view as a sign of low intelligence.


Personally, I think the best "solution" (more of a band-aid really) is to assess the views instead of the people. Obviously at some point we need to start using heuristics ("this person or this group so often comes up with bad stuff that we need to move on"), simply on the basis that poor takes is easier to come up with good ones - and we shouldn't bog down a search for knowledge or insight by being bound up at an assembly line of poor ideas.

I think I have told the anecdote before, but an early friend of mine is one of the most intelligent people I know. Scarily intelligent and extremely diligent in collecting information and knowledge. His knowledge of world history, for example, is off the charts.

Unfortunately, he is also somewhat of a fascist. Very impressed with oppressive regimes and continuously willing to give them a pass on policies that hurt people. His intelligence and knowledge also makes him able to argue these points very convincingly, basically by spinning around people in circles.

Some might argue "well, he must be dumb for holding those views". I think that is a losing argument. I think a better argument is "well, that is a dumb way to use his intelligence", obviously worded (and argued) better than I did here.

Would you say a congressman bringing a snowball into congress to demonstrate that climate change is a hoax is a sign of low intelligence (assuming he was doing so in good faith)? Because there are countless examples on the right of this sort of anti-science thinking based on a very poor understanding of the science itself.

Indeed. Beliefs and thinking are not the same thing at all. They are related but there are other factors (emotions, credulousness etc). It's not some simplistic relationship which means you can deduce intelligence from what someone believes (or appears to).

It's rhetoric. You may think that's bad faith or not but it's not about science.

But I'm saying I think it was good faith, and it was about a profound misunderstanding of the science. You may think it's bad faith, but that's not what I said. Climate change deniers confuse climate and weather all the time, so why would we assume it wasn't in good faith?