User Power
Value/Post Ratio
202%
- Mar 13, 2013
- 550
- 1,110
This reminded me of what MJ always says:
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.
Free registration at the forum removes this block.Breathe. Have a good night’s sleep. Start again tomorrow.
Nothing‘s so bad It couldn’t be worse. Think about what you’ve got and sit for a while being grateful for it. Sometime I’m grateful just to sit and watch the wind blow the leaves in the trees.
Now then, what’s your day job and why do you believe you need to learn something new?
Being without bias doesn't mean you don't take any position. It means you're not beholden to any ideology. It means you don't fit neatly into a Left vs Right category. (Not implying I have no biases, but I intentionally try to mitigate them as much as possible.)There was never a scientific consensus... To quote probably 90% of grandfathers... This has been like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to f*** a football.
Being devoid of biases doesn't mean you are right. That just means you democratized and crowdsourced your belief system. The funny thing is the arrogant subjectivist "intelligentsia" think they are universally correct with this type of belief system. The reality is that the middle is almost universally wrong about everything. The majority in Germany supported Hitler too. To be an unbiased German during the holocaust, you had to hold at least some of Hitler's views. Were the unbiased Germans right?
I am not going to do the math for you, but this "seeking to eliminate bias" that you say you do is not rooted in fact, it is rooted in idiosyncratic fluidity. This is an objectivist vs subjectivist argument.
In this argument, I am the exact opposite of you.
Almost none of my individual beliefs are moderate. I have chosen positions on everything from economics to individual liberties and criminal justice with full knowledge of the entire spectrum of beliefs on those topics. I was bold enough to pick a position based on my understandings. That just means I know what I believe and have reason for it.
The notion of being somehow enlightened because you have limited biases is a farce.
And actually crowdsourcing is a pretty damn accurate way of assessing truths:
View attachment 33088
The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Prediction markets are pretty damn accurate:Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it so.
What you are talking about here is a democracy of the mind wherein others are basically deciding one's beliefs for them when their beliefs are one of the few things they actually get to decide for themselves.
It is absolutely subjectivist vs objectivist.
I don't have time to read every article you post.Prediction markets are pretty damn accurate:
The power of prediction markets - Nature
Scientists are beginning to understand why these ‘mini Wall Streets’ work so well at forecasting election results — and how they sometimes fail.www.nature.com
I don't read the entire things either. They're just citations.I don't have time to read every article you post.
Respond with words, not citations.I don't read the entire things either. They're just citations.
That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:Respond with words, not citations.
That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:
Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it so.
What you are talking about here is a democracy of the mind wherein the collective is basically deciding one's beliefs for them despite the fact that their own beliefs are one of the few things they actually get to decide for themselves.
It is absolutely subjectivist vs objectivist.
This is a dangerous and also lazy way to run your mind.
I was making a joke. Reread it and you'll see the irony.Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.
Tell me again who is biased?
That's a bad way of doing things. Here's why:
Okay.. I'll actually answer.Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.
Tell me again who is biased?
Okay.. I'll actually answer.
There's nothing wrong with biased sources. It's just that when you see a biased source you have to take it with a grain of salt. They have incentives to omit facts or present the situation in a certain light. It's like industry-funded research. Just because a study is funded by a corporation, doesn't mean it's wrong.. it just means you should have your guard up because they have incentives to spin information. The same is true of Left / Right sources. They're trying to fulfill a political objective so they're incentivized to present one side of the story to get their way. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means 'be careful.'
That plus politically biased sources are much less rigorous about fact-checking. Again, because their objective isn't to ascertain an objective truth, it's to fulfill a certain motive.
I don't believe in choosing agnostic, lukewarm wet-noodle compromise stances. I just think that reality is complex and nuanced and there are often valid arguments on both sides.If a subject is indeed binary. Let's say capitalism, for instance, something you agree(?) with me on. It is pretty much data driven fact extrapolated over the entire world. The standard of living and overall lifestyle of even the poorest citizens of a given country, is inversely correlated to the amount central economic control.
We can basically say that is binary. For the sake of argument. Capitalism right. Socialism wrong.
But if and when there is an objective truth to be had, then yes.. anything that deviates from that would move you further away from the truth. If something is Blue, then entertaining an argument that says it's Red serves no purpose. There is no nuance there. Saying it's purple moves you away from truth.I am not talking about sources necessarily... But personal beliefs.
Although! It still works for the sake of argument. An unbiased economic article that straddles capitalism and socialism is incorrect. A bias towards capitalism is therefore the more factual article.
Btw, I am definitely not the authority of which sources are credible. I go by what's credible in the scientific/academic world or what you would be allowed to use as a citation in a research paper.Then what the hell are we doing here? Evidently, there is no such thing as intelligence outside of "credible" (wherein you are the authority on what is credible) sources.
As a granddad deprived of most of his sports, I've seen some sexy dang footballs! Philosophy battles, not so much... To quote probably 90% of grandfathers... This has been like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to f*** a football.
I'm fully aware that the NY Times is left-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessarily mean full-of-shit.
I just liked the article and the way they explained it. Feel free to choose your source.
And actually crowdsourcing is a pretty damn accurate way of assessing truths
Before I left the other CV19 thread, you opined that Dr. Fauci was a "national treasure." LOL, it caused me to puke in my mouth.
Fauci is such an arrogant loser. All he does is try to extend his 15 minutes of fame to 20.
In the words of Noam Chomsky, someone who you'd probably philosophically align with...
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
And then the Shepard Anthony Fauci said unto his Sheeple: “Go forth to the pasture and spread my word unto the mainstream media. For the full armor, gloves and surgical mask will protect you against the attacks of Alex Jones’.”I'm fully aware that InfoWars and Alex Jones is right-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).
Here, I’ll actually give a real reply.I'm fully aware that InfoWars and Alex Jones is right-wing propaganda, but their reporting is generally reliable. Bias doesn't necessary mean full-of-shit... Feel free to choose your source (links to another bias, hyper-partisan source masquerading as neutrality).
(how many gumballs in the jar?)
That said, I do admire the fact that you seem willing to question your own predilections and that your disposition appears evolutionary and open for incursion. That's leaps ahead of the "average American" or what I like to say, the "average AmeriKaren".
Join Fastlane Insiders.