This thread is basically chock full of people jumping to conclusions, including myself. It seems to me that jumping to conclusions is part of the human condition, and I find it difficult to blame them for that.
People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
111–120 of 145 posts
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you're rationalizing. You're making assumptions about her intent without any evidence to the contrary. This sort of thinking is the exact problem. You're finding your own conclusion, accepting it as fact, and then (in the case of the media) promoting that as what took place. That's a lie, no matter how you twist it.
The lie is pretending that people who post statements on a platform like Twitter and have a wide-spread audience or follower-base do not have any intent. The lie is pretending that someones' written words are not actually enough evidence to show their intent. The lie is pretending that statements exist completely isolated from any cultural or historical context. Marjorie Taylor Green has a well documented history of…
> The lie is pretending that people who post statements on a platform like Twitter and have a wide-spread audience or follower-base do not have any intent.
Assumption.
> The lie is pretending that someones' written words are not actually enough evidence to show their intent.
Assumption.
> The lie is pretending that statements exist completely isolated from any cultural or historical context. Marjorie Taylor Green has a well documented history of making very controversial statements.
Assumption.
> The lie is ignoring the fact that time and time again conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same scapegoats.
Generalization.
---
You're desperate to align reality with your opinion and offering nothing but characters attacks and assumptions as argumentation.
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lacked a fear of consequences of being wrong This is interesting. It used to be that some of the people we're discussing, let's use flat-earthers as an example, were just really, really committed to their idea. It was their whole identity and persona, and they would just never be able to accept anything different. This seems to me to be the opposite of what you describe. It's like they were terrified of being wrong…
I'm a right winger. I don't know any Q people. It seems to me that mostly left wingers know Q people and know all the details. My leftist father in law will explain in detail to me everything Q said, and I just nod along going like... why would you even bother reading this stuff?
I know several in person. I'm probably right of center and definitely live in a predominantly right area. They put it on their IG stories and they bring it up in person. Without cutting them off socially, not really sure how I can avoid hearing it from time to time.
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#114The article opens with a couple of examples of people allegedly not doing research: 1. Most people make two trips or fewer to a dealership before buying a car 2. when picking a doctor, many individuals use recommendations from friends and family rather than consulting other health care professionals or “formal sources” such as employers, articles or Web sites And, of course, the last person I would look to for object…
It's not even subtext. The media has been screaming at everyone to trust the experts and defer thinking.
No, the problem is rejecting experts in place of loud-mouthed pundits, who either make crap up or cherry-pick outlier expert viewpoints without telling you they are outliers or bringing in non-outliers to counter.
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt like the belief in a large group of "conspiracy theorists" is probably one of the biggest "conspiracy theories". A friend of a relative is an apparent flat earther - my relative is always saying things like "oh you wouldn't believe what this guy thinks, he says the world is actually shaped like a UN map, what a goof". In this situation, which of the two is actually the more gullible? From the situati…
Something like this happened on Reddit, with the /r/the_donald subreddit. At first it was jokes at expense of the man, then it transformed into jokingly supporting his presidency. Then it became some quasi-intellectual support of his presidency. Then it became actual non-ironic serious support of his presidency through memes. And then when it actually happened, it became a sort of cult worship site that was eventuall…
I wonder to what degree anybody's mind changed in that subreddit, as opposed to the individuals being replaced with others of different beliefs. That's always a question when people attribute a collective with beliefs and other similar characteristics. The 'collective' is an ever-shifting amalgamation of different individuals.
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#116Haha i am a person who jumps to conclusions, and i actually bought my most recent car after 1.5 visits to dealerships (i tried BMW but the dealer was rude to me so i left before i actually found out anything, and went straight to Volvo and i am super happy with my new S60). So i think i am qualified for an opinion :D One thing that hits me is conspiracy theories. Although i am not buying into any of the currently cir…
Abiogenic origin of oil in the Earth's crust. There's no strong scientific evidence for it, so I can't bring myself to believe it; but I can't bring myself to dismiss it, either. It somehow strikes a cord in me as a reasonable thing.
I have to keep telling myself "It's probably not true," but if it ever turns out to be proven, I'd be shouting "I KNEW IT!"
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> See, for example, the anti-GMO movement I'm against GMO. Not because I believe retail GMO food is likely to be harmful; I mean, harmful foods could be made, but we have testing. I'm against GMO because (a) a lot of GMO plants have been engineered to be grown with heavy use of herbicides and pesticides, (b) GMO crops make a farm non-organic, and I'm in favour of organic farming for environmental reasons; and (c) GMO…
It's rational for them to lobby against GMO labeling because it's a lose-lose proposition, even if they honestly believe their food is safe and eat it themselves. Either it scares off consumers (some of whom won't know what GMO means but understandably assume it's bad because it's disclosed) or they have to spend a bunch of money on "consumer education" and lose some of them anyway. That's whether GMOs are safe or no…
You probably mean "hard water"?
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rational for them to lobby against GMO labeling because it's a lose-lose proposition, even if they honestly believe their food is safe and eat it themselves. Either it scares off consumers (some of whom won't know what GMO means but understandably assume it's bad because it's disclosed) or they have to spend a bunch of money on "consumer education" and lose some of them anyway. That's whether GMOs are safe or no…
> Doesn't mean they're hiding something. No it doesn't. But without a label of the form "contains GM ingredients", I am being deprived of choice about what I eat. It's reasonable to expect people to care a lot about what they eat. > Water companies would also lobby against "heavy water" labels If you mean labelling ordinary water as "heavy" because it contains a tiny amount of deuterium, I'm not that's analogous. Eve…
It's not a prefect analogy because it only really captures the producer's point of view. They are hiding the product's heaviness or GMOness itself, but because they think that doesn't tell you anything about its safety or general worthiness and so should not be part of your decision.
You should still be able to avoid the product for environmental reasons, or just because, but of course they don't think so. (HN's favorite Sinclair quote about men and salaries and understanding.)
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
True for 90% of medical issues. The problem is those other 10% - will the GP you chose be able to handle them? Or, perhaps more critically, bow-out, and refer you when they cannot? It's a tough problem to solve - wait time is certainly part of the solution, but so is bedside manner, the doctor's willingness to punt and refer you elsewhere for unique problems outside their area, price, location, and a hundred other th…
I'm a little spectrumy so I often forget how important emotional support/bedside manner is to many people. I see my doctor as an automaton who I feed problems to and he feeds me solutions. Even something like a broken bone falls under the category of "normal" health issue. It happens all the time. You will be fine with a perfectly mediocre doctor dealing with your broken bone.
What I've found is that unfortunately there are many GPs that are bad troubleshooters. They know their standard sinus infection or gastro etc. that 90% of patients come to them with but anything that requires actually problem solving is beyond them. You gotta do that yourself.
The best GP I have had admitted when she didn't know but knew how to search and searched together with me or gave pointers for further experimentation and troubleshooting. He wait times suck because she does this. I love it.
Re: manners. This can be so different. I had an Indian colleague complain to me once about a really bad doctor. The doctor apparently told her mother that she had cancer. I was dumbfounded why that would be bad (she did actually have cancer). Apparently the doctor was supposed to tell a family member about it but not the mother.
I very clearly told her that if a doctor did tell a family member but not me I would be really really mad. Never mind doctor patient confidentiality rules.
She didn't seem to understand.
Re: People who jump to conclusions show other kinds of thinking errors
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we need to control what people can read Why do we need that? I find this type of control suffocating and it is just a patch for deeper seated problems, mistrust of authority for example.
I wrote "People like to use these as strawmen about look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read" The grammar was very poor. I meant the "look at all the nuts out there, we need to control what people can read" as the false conclusion that might be drawn by someone who believes conspiracy theories are rampant.
Fair enough