from the This-is-why-my-tribe-is-correct dept.
From Scientific American
Science literacy is important, but without the parallel trait of "science curiosity," it can lead us astray
What intellectual capacities—or if one prefers, cognitive virtues—should the citizens of a modern democratic society possess? For decades, one dominant answer has been the knowledge and reasoning abilities associated with science literacy. Scientific evidence is indispensable for effective policymaking. And for a self-governing society to reap the benefits of policy-relevant science, its citizens must be able to recognize the best available evidence and its implications for collective action.
This account definitely isn’t wrong. But the emerging science of science communication, which uses scientific methods to understand how people come to know what’s known by science, suggests that it is incomplete.
Indeed, it’s dangerously incomplete. Unless accompanied by another science-reasoning trait, the capacities associated with science literacy can actually impede public recognition of the best available evidence and deepen pernicious forms of cultural polarization.
The supplemental trait needed to make science literacy supportive rather than corrosive of enlightened self-government is science curiosity.
Simply put, as ordinary members of the public acquire more scientific knowledge and become more adept at scientific reasoning, they don’t converge on the best evidence relating to controversial policy-relevant facts. Instead they become even more culturally polarized.
This is one of the most robust findings associated with the science of science communication. It is a relationship observed, for example, in public perceptions of myriad societal risk sources—not just climate change but also nuclear power, gun control and fracking, among others.
In addition, this same pattern—the greater the proficiency, the more acute the polarization—characterizes multiple forms of reasoning essential to science comprehension: polarization increases in tandem not only with science literacy but also with numeracy (an ability to reason well with quantitative information) and with actively open-minded thinking—a tendency to revise one’s beliefs in light of new evidence.
The same goes for cognitive reflection. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) measures how much people rely on two forms of information processing: “fast,” preconscious, emotion-driven forms of reasoning, often called “System 1”; or a conscious, deliberate, analytical, “slow” form, designated “System 2.”
[...] But given what positions on climate change have now come to signify about one’s group allegiances, adopting the “wrong” position in interactions with her peers could rupture bonds on which she depends heavily for emotional and material well-being. Under these pathological conditions, she will predictably use her reasoning not to discern the truth but to form and persist in beliefs characteristic of her group, a tendency known as “identity-protective cognition.”
[...] Conceptually, curiosity has properties directly opposed to those of identity-protective cognition. Whereas the latter evinces a hardened resistance to exploring evidence that could challenge one’s existing views, the former consists of a hunger for the unexpected, driven by the anticipated pleasure of surprise. In that state, the defensive sentries of existing opinion have necessarily been made to stand down. One could reasonably expect, then, that those disposed toward science curiosity would be more open-minded and as a result less polarized along cultural lines.
This is exactly what we see when we test this conjecture empirically. In general population surveys, diverse citizens who score high on the Science Curiosity Scale (SCS) are less divided than are their low-scoring peers.
[...] The findings on science curiosity also have implications for the practice of science communication. Merely imparting information is unlikely to be effective—and could even backfire—in a society that has failed to inculcate curiosity in its citizens and that doesn’t engage curiosity when communicating policy-relevant science.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:50AM (76 children)
This suffers from the obvious problem. The authors decide which beliefs are true, and then judge that all who disagree with the authors are in denial of the truth.
Ahem.
It just may be that the authors are in denial of the truth. This is how I and many of their research subjects would judge them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:18AM (20 children)
That fault would prove their point about *tribe before truth* even better. It applies even to them.
I didn't see it. How much money was involved again? Is there more coming?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:21AM (19 children)
If no more money, the solution is simple: start the science of the science of science communication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Disagree) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:56AM (18 children)
It is called "Big Science". Has no connection to actual science, has to do with funding. If you pay enough, you can buy a governor of Wisconsin. But that is neither here nor there. Real science is about truth, and that is why Americans are so opposed to it. Americans: opposed to truth. There it is, I have said it, and it is true. Now if only Trump will shut down the government, including ICE, and DHS, and MFCB, then we will see what happens when an idiot is precedent. And then we start the science of the science communication. It is the only way to be sure. Oh, and TMB is most certain to be wrong on this, given his level of education.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:04AM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:41AM
Represent the khallow tribe! They are mean! They are flush! They love them some rich dudes! And, they have hand-sign. Not saying what it is, but it is definitely mos gangsta! You rock, khallow! You and your tribe! Of, . . . one?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:53AM (8 children)
Sorry, but no. It is not true.
You have to say it three times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:54AM (7 children)
Sadly, for Americans, I do not. They know it. Lincoln said it.
Makes me glad I am not an American. If I were, I do not know how I could bear with the shame. Such great promise. And now such, well, such desecration. And it is Lincoln's own party that has done it. America should be ashamed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:17PM (1 child)
Is realDonalTrump your alter-ego?
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:27PM
no.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:58PM (2 children)
Take it as a cautionary tale, and pity us. We didn't elect Trump. The Republicans committed massive voting fraud and cheated their way into office. That's the kind of fools they are. Rather than try to win an election honestly, they show their utter moral bankruptcy by resorting to cheating, and they can't see why they shouldn't do that.
Fools always want to be in the driver's seat, and will seize the wheel any way they can. They think they're such great drivers. Our problem is that our institutions and customs didn't shut down the cheating. They've seized the wheel. And they've been making a mess ever since. It's been a long national nightmare.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:14PM (1 child)
It's been a long national nightmare.
Caused by a bad diet [nih.gov]...
You made no effort to understand why people vote and reelect corrupt politicians, even though it has all been well documented in every first year (animal) psychology book. Don't blame the winners, unless you can show real evidence the count was fraudulent.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 15 2018, @03:36PM
Please summarise the reason why. I don't have a first-year psychology textbook around.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)
You poor witless wonder. First, you tell us that Americans are opposed to truth. Then you hold up an American to make your case. If the former is true, then the latter has to be false. Fact is, you don't know truth from fiction, and are unqualified to make any posts on the subject.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:30AM
Please, tell us more! Enlighten wretches such as myself with your wisdom! Or, perhaps, you do not understand time as an element of truth?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:21PM (6 children)
I admire the score of 5 and the accompanying moderation of 'disagree'.
Does 5 mean strongly disagree, or that it's a great comment--full of what we want to see at Soylent as a component of the back-and-forth exchanges between contributors and a reason to return and read some more--but unfortunately is not what the moderating tribe believes in?
I can't tell what the moderation and score together actually are intended to represent.
I am going to guess it's the worst possible that someone can give when they strongly disagree, but the high score seems to indicate that it's either indicating that the post itself is of great merit, or the moderator hated it so much it didn't matter what it was except that giving it a 1 seemed to indicate that they barely disagreed, and a negative score would unduly bury it, preventing everyone from seeing just what was so strongly disagreed to.
Sometimes you have to parade around the enemy's head and put it on display in order for it to serve as a warning to others, which this may be as well.
That said, it's probably true that many Americans want to believe lies that are convenient to them. It's probably just as true that many Americans don't want to believe that.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:31PM (4 children)
My personal opinion, the Disagree mode is available to prevent abuse of the Spam/Flamebait mods. Generally, the comment will have both Interesting and Insightful mods giving the +5 score, and the Disagree mod (+0) because the moderator holds the comment in contention. Without the Disagree mod, the comment would likely get lost because of the constant +1/-1 voting between Interesting/Insightful/Spam/Flamebait.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
Or, instead of a bunch of dittoheads giving a post a +0 Disagree mod they could, like, you know, explain to all and sundry why they disagree with said post. Perhaps this would have the interesting side effect of...wait for it!...possibly moving the discussion forward a bit, cause an honest exchange of views/ideas, etc. But what do I know? I'm just an AC!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:32AM (2 children)
That would be the ideal, yes. Unfortunately it's one of those bits of perfection that's impossible to achieve short of hiring someone to stand behind every community member and flick the hell out of their ear every time they do a driveby shitting upon of a comment without engaging in the conversation themselves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
Is that what the Soylent News donations are for?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:20PM
Nope. Those go for keeping the staff from having to be sober while taking abuse for volunteer work.
Seriously though, those are entirely for for server and domain costs, a business license, taxes, and the labor of the CPA who files said taxes. Anything left over, and there's not much, gets socked away so we can continue paying said bills if we have a lower than usual period of income at some point.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:05PM
If you're unclear as to how moderation works on SoylentNews and other Slash/Rehash sites, I've attempted an explanation of that comment's moderation [soylentnews.org] in my journal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:22AM (49 children)
You're saying they did exactly what they accuse their subjects of doing? Say it ain't so!
Seriously though, how some fucking retards can be all "yay socialism" on the one hand and "boo tribalism" on the other boggles the mind. Socialism is tribalism. Hell, it's tribalism at the expense of self.
Here, I'll splain... Tribalism is why humans rather than felines dominate the planet. When functioning properly, it is nothing but self-interest that's able see past the end of its own nose. Looking out only for yourself will make sure you have to; nobody else will. Looking out for others before yourself is trying to fill a bottomless well with your own blood. Both are forms of insanity. A properly functioning modern human psyche picks multiple tribes to belong to at varying degrees of commitment. The core is generally immediate family and the outer shell being "some random schmuck half a world away". The former you put a lot of physical, mental, and emotional effort into keeping thriving while the latter you make essentially no effort.
Tribes compete for resources and the most fit tribes get the lion's share while the least fit die off or get abandoned. This is not just good for the most fit tribes, it is good for the species as a whole; the most fit tribes are obviously doing something right that the least fit are doing horribly wrong. Competition, bitches. It's how you figure out if your shit is awesome or cocktastic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:04AM (1 child)
Says the fucking Choctaw Siwash bastard! You got serious issues, TMB! VERY Serious issues. My Cherokee great-grandmother had a term for tribal members like you, and it was not complimentary.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:31PM
Chickasaw and/or Cherokee, thanks. And yeah, old indian women tend to be pretty good with an insult.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:05AM (36 children)
Socialism is tribalism at the expense of self? Piketty's three centuries of economic data have shown societies (or "tribes" if you like) with high inequalty LOSE economically... and yes, even relative elites suffer the consequences, though I guess if one is a social darwinist one might be willing to lose an arm if the competitors lose two.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:06AM (5 children)
Perhaps high inequalty is a predictor of impending failure, but that doesn't mean you can avert the failure by brutally enforcing a reduction in inequality. You're assuming high inequality is a cause of problems, not a symptom of problems.
Even if it were the cause, your cure may be worse than the disease. Maybe we haven't yet tried "real socialism" or "real communism", but why take the risk if we always get the "not real" kind with starvation and death camps?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:59AM (2 children)
Because if you don't try anything at all, you know you'll lose?
True, you don't necessary mean you need to try socialism, but starting with a 'my way or anything else is socialism' will surely get you nowhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:40PM (1 child)
Or, in other words, you can't win if you don't play.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:40AM
Umm. Pretty sure what was meant is that unless the rules change; we, the 95%, lose. The game is on going.
Personally I don't need to win. I just really don't want society to lose (i.e. vast majority forced to live at near poverty level)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:00PM (1 child)
Marx's critique of capitalism was unquestioned, both in the east and the capitalist west. The easts answer was socialism, and the wests answer was democratic socialism in the form of the high taxing welfare state. Post WWII the USA payed its domestic welfare bill, as well as the welfare bills of Europe and Japan... all with its 90% top marginal tax rate, and ~50% company tax. This wasn't a disaster... this was a golden age - "Happy Days" America. The USSR went from feudalism to a world power... and the USA had the best standard of living in the world. The USSR suffered a quicker corruption than the USA... the bolsheviks somehow justified a dictatorship even though communism is by definition democratic - the rest is history. Corruption came later with the USA - Reagans tax cuts used the oil shock as justification. As a result untaxed cash failed to "trickle down" to mainstreet, and this caused investment to leave real production for Wallstreet because there was an ever shrinking amount of cash to be captured in the real economy. These days Americans live in a second rate society, and skilled migrants are gradually preferring to move to the more democratic socialist countries in Europe, and to Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc... even unskilled workers are showing up less leaving farms short staffed. How does it feel to prove Piketty correct?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:54PM
There's about 10,000 unskilled Central Americans banging on our southern door demanding to be let in that contradict your assertion. The news has even reported that some are asking for $50,000 in blackmail money to go home.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by qzm on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:06AM (4 children)
Perhaps then you would care to give examples of socialist states that have been resounding successes?
No?
Perhaps some nice solid Marxist ones then? surely the purity should help...
That your false assertion is actually based on is that there is solid evidence that any successful system eventually leads to its own downfall.
The cause of that seems to generally be internal corruption, however that is not caused by 'high inequality', it is one cause of high inequality.
For reference: Ask a few people form communist Russia, Maoist China, The current Venezuela how well their 'equality' is working out..
The 200-300 year cycle of dynastic failure is VERY well established.. Socialist societies however seem to short circuit that period, and pretty much fail immediately.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:19PM (3 children)
The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic". I can't blame you though because both the USSRs and the USAs propaganda arms were repeating for half a century that the USSR was the ultimate definition of communism (each country for different reasons) - what hope did you have? Venezuela would be fine if it wasn't for the smell of its oil drawing a complete economic blockade from the USA. The most democratic socialist countries in the world are currently handing the USA its ass... eg. Germany, with its universal health care, unions REQUIRED on company boards, free college (even for non Germans) etc... etc... etc... Sweden, famous not only for its huge welfare state, but for the highest number of multinationals per head in the world (Volvo, Husqvana, Ikea, FHM, H&M, Ericson, SAAB etc...), oh, and they can also build a fighter jet ahead of time and under budget unlike the USA... no wonder they're winning contracts from American companies in the 3rd world. Oh, and to add insult to injury they have a population slightly less than Georgia... What were you saying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:46PM
> The USSR wasn't "communist", just as the DPRK isn't "democratic".
No. They were just run by evil people who believed in communism and socialism. They demonstrated that the adherents to communism and socialism have no morals, will kill dozens of millions (or more if given the chance).
Marxist Socialism and its derivatives are evil; the people who support it are evil. They put the state above all other interests and by design deny people basic human rights. They give no rights to common people and use an elite-driven ideological secular religion as an excuse to deny people of their life, liberty and property.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)
No true Scotsman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:33AM
No true Runaway1956, but that is both offtopic, and redundant, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:05AM
Scheidel [theatlantic.com] thinks differently and his theory also supports the wealth leveling effects of communist states. Under communism, wealth inequality is achieved by transferring wealth to the ruling class while impoverishing and murdering citizens. This perfectly fits Scheidels's hypothesis, presenting communism as the murderous plague and human catastrophe it is.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:35PM (23 children)
You're asserting that it's not? You do understand the basic mechanics of socialism, yes? I mean, shit, the entire premise behind socialism and communism is that the needs of the tribe outweigh the needs of any individual.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Pav on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:32PM (22 children)
Yes, exactly how it worked in the USA. The capitalists of the post-WWII era (in their suits and black rimmed glasses) had to struggle against the huge tax burden involved in supporting a socialist-inspired welfare state, and only the fittest survived keeping the economy healthy. Even the television of that era reflected that stereotype : the careful miserly penny-pinching banker... the workaholic captain of industry. Still, if they performed they were well rewarded. Since Reagan the US economy has slowly cast off its wealth-taxes and regulations, and gradually slid into the hands of entitled frat boys who never grew up and never had to work to maintain wealth... hell, they can snort coke and bang hookers, and the bank accounts look after themselves (and the social mobility numbers back this up). The flip side of this is of course that potentially more talented peoples lives are squandered in poverty, and the country as a whole isn't managed efficiently and slides into the toilet. "But if those born with nothing were truly talented they'd transcent their poverty!". Yes, and the truly talented boxers would win with one hand behind their backs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:38AM (21 children)
Actual social mobility numbers say any given person has pretty good odds of being part of the one percent at some point in their life, though they're very unlikely to stay there, so anti-mobility arguments are kind of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:05AM (20 children)
Actually Americans pay a hefty nepotism penalty compared to northern Europe and Canada for instance due to inequality. 30% more of your elites hold their social position simply by virtue of birth... that's quite a drag on your society, and why Trump with his past of hookers, blow and neoliberalism-enabled financial mismanagement is so perfectly emblematic. I'm glad you can wave away that tax on your own success so glibly.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:28AM (19 children)
Explain how it is a drag, please. I don't know about your economy but ours over here is not a zero-sum game. Even assuming there were a fixed number of dollars out there to be had (which isn't true), taking a lot of them out of circulation (which does not happen) would make the remaining ones worth more not less.
The only reason to complain that someone has more than you that can stand up to logical scrutiny is envy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:01AM (18 children)
Because currency that doesn't enable economic activity is pointless? Look up "velocity of money" for why your ever more unequal society is failing. Also, weak hegemons suck. The Europeans are anticipating a failing US, and this has made geopolitics potentially much more complicated and dangerous for them, both locally and globally. Even long term ally Britain has sided with Iran and China against the USA, along with France, Germany etc... My country (Australia) has fought more wars than America over the last century because we've deemed it necessary to support the global sea power of the day... this is the unfortunate consequence of being an exporter located on an island. The naval hegemon was once Britain before WWII, and for the moment it's the USA. We're the only US ally that has fought in all US conflicts, and during the 1950's we were fighting wars for BOTH Britain and the USA. We've done something out of character in recent decades... we've built a submarine fleet "just in case" things change in the intermediate future, and past prime ministers are now openly questioning the value of the US alliance. You guys are even getting trouced building cars these days, and are flagging as a trading partner... China imports almost six times as much of our stuff - their growing middle class is why we along with Europe (Germany in particular) are looking to China as the US sags. Maybe TPP2 will change things, but I doubt it... the only hope is the Chinese become worse nepotistic losers than the US (which certainly is possible).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:23AM (17 children)
Currency cannot help but enable economic activity. That's its fundamental nature in any form ever. Even Venezuela's fucked up situation right now is better than barter. You're going to have to clarify what you mean.
The rest of it? None of that is in any way related to who has how many currency tokens within the US. You're also neglecting the fact that pretty much everyone is bigger trading partners with China now than with each other. China is sitting on the happy side of a very off-kilter currency exchange ratio (we made the rules and they exploited the fuck out of them) and doesn't give a happy damn about the quality of life of its workers relative to those of the western world. This means that they can produce anything a hell of a lot cheaper than we can, so we trade with them instead of each other or producing domestically.
You really need to brush up on picking out causes and effects. It would help if you could distinguish between value and tokens as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday December 14 2018, @02:17AM (16 children)
Money is like manure... if it's allowed to pile up it doesn't do much except stink, but if it's spread around it can do a lot of good.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 14 2018, @12:43PM (15 children)
The thing most people miss is how many tokens are in existence is irrelevant, so long as there are enough in circulation to fulfill their function as a thing to be traded for other things. That could genuinely be a problem back in the day with physical currencies. Today, with most currency being ones and zeroes, it can never become a problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday December 15 2018, @02:03AM (12 children)
Hence the problem... the tokens accumulate into big sluggish underperforming piles without state intervention (Piketty's and Marx's observation).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 15 2018, @11:39AM (11 children)
You did read the last sentence of my previous reply, yes? It's not actually possible for this to be a problem anymore with how we manage the economy nowadays. If you're using a fixed amount of physical gold as currency, this is a legitimate but quite uncommon worry. If your money largely only exists only on paper or in computers and can be (and is every day) created from nothing, it's really not possible to reproduce this as a legitimate issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:17PM (10 children)
It's certainly true they can print money, and due to the nature of todays economy it won't cause inflation... but they won't spin the presses near enough. It's the same reason they don't raise taxes - it would require actual work in the real economy which the US capital class isn't up to anymore. They'd lose to "new money" and foreigners. Military spending is an exception - it's socialism for the wealthy that can be dropped directly into contractors pockets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @11:41AM (9 children)
You're absolutely correct except that not remotely all large capital holders are incapable or unwilling to compete. Even for those who don't wish to compete though, simply investing their money means it is back in circulation. Sticking it in a bank even means that many times its face value enters back into circulation in the form of loans. It has to or the banks wouldn't be able to pay interest on it.
Military spending is pretty fucked up, yes. Not because we shouldn't spend enough to have the most powerful military on the planet but because of the corruption within the current system. If you have wealth as a nation, you must protect said wealth or you will not long have it. We don't however have any need of billions of dollars worth of boondoggles or massively overpriced staples.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday December 17 2018, @10:00PM (8 children)
But there's a worldwide debt bubble... both governments and the middle class have been making up for low taxes and stagnant wages with borrowing for decades in the hope that things would change. And what's the point in real economy investment if customers disposable income is mostly captured in debt repayments?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @11:12PM (7 children)
This I do not disagree with but you cannot and should not try to legislate away stupidity. It would help if we taught children how to think for themselves and how not to be a bloody moron in everyday life still but this is no longer legally allowed apparently. Sometime between when I was in school and the present we decided to raise children instead of raising adults. This is both bloody stupid and sad. Children already know how to be self-absorbed little shitheads. What they don't know is how to be a productive and responsible adult and they're going to have to learn the very, very hard way unless their parents and schools start teaching them again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:12AM (6 children)
Soo... you're saying you shouldn't legistlate away... ... ... a problem caused by legislating away taxes on capital? Which resulted in capital lending those untaxed dollars to those that needed to fill the shortfall caused by lowered taxes? You're saying the problem is instead the fault of "lazy people" failing in a system that, without tax-and-transfer state intervention GENERATES failure as a mathematical certainty... failure that climbs from the bottom to the top REPEATEDLY over time.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:43PM (5 children)
No, I'm saying you can't legislate away human stupidity. Getting rid of taxes on capital doesn't cause a problem, it only exposes one that was solved improperly in the first place.
That's not just a bold claim, that's an insane claim. History hasn't just proven it false once, it's done so so many times they can't be counted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:47PM (4 children)
Piketty HAS those statistics on historical data - distilled : wealth grows faster than economic output.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 19 2018, @11:26AM (3 children)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt there and assume you spoke before you thought that out. You sound like a pretty smart guy who should understand that economics is not a single function with only one variable and no calls to other functions. The complexity of the feedback sources and a constantly changing tax code alone make that data unfit even for use in a top shelf video game.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 20 2018, @06:59AM (2 children)
I could have said "the house always wins" about casinos, and what you said would have been equally true, but...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 20 2018, @12:27PM (1 child)
Yup, you're saying "In practice, foo..." while I'm saying "Yes, so let's change the practice.".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday December 20 2018, @10:13PM
"I've got this system"! Granted, if people gamble hard enough some will come out ahead, but...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 15 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
Until the logarithm of the amounts of currency become too large for floating-point calculations....
Not to mention that floating-point currency calculations are problematic in themselves.
Can the poor sustain themselves on the rounding errors in the bank accounts of the rich?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 15 2018, @04:33PM
You raise a good point. It's technically possible for the numbers to grow to the point that it would cost more in energy to keep track of them than they're earning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:31AM (3 children)
Herpee derpee doooo
*mating call of mighty buzzards*
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:37PM (2 children)
Actually, that would be "Hey, you in the mood for some wild monkey sex this weekend?" or a reasonable approximation thereof of late. Effectiveness has been pretty solid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:18PM (1 child)
Humans are descended from apes not monkeys, but im not surprised you still go looking for monkey sex. I wont judge your predilextion for bestiality, but around your area id keep that on the DL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @05:26AM
It's the poo-flinging that gets the Buzzard all aroused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:06AM (5 children)
(In short: wtf has socialism to do with anything you reply to?)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:41PM (4 children)
The same people who shit on tribalism spout the benefits of socialism. They genuinely don't understand the lunacy of holding those contradictory positions, which makes them unqualified to publish research in the field.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:53AM (3 children)
Says TMB, PHD. Which stands for, especially in this particular case, "Piled High and Deep", referencing bullshit. Admit it, Buzzturd, you are way out of your league, and your libertarintard "everyman" objections do not hold water, even while carrying water for the dying Republican party.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:27AM (2 children)
Ad hom, ari? Couldn't refute the argument even if you ignored all the contradictions of your own position?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @08:50PM (1 child)
Tu Quoque, oh Carrion Eating Bird! I did not see any argument, only yourself engaging in such ad hominem.
Why should we take your word on what qualifies anyone to to publish? It is called "peer review" because they are peers. You, evidently, are not, and only harbor some irrational hatred of academics.
Yes, calling "researchers" lunatics is what passes for reasoned discussion here on the Mighty Buzzard Blog! May I suggest that the contradiction you see is more a result of your own ideological predisposition than any logical necessity? Could it be that once again you fail to understand that you fail to understand? This is why arguing with you is only slightly less futile than arguing with khallow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @09:10PM
To buzztard the egregious the Venn Diagram of every word and concept is a single circle. Except when he needs two words to mean the same thing, then he adds in as many circles as he needs. A sort of Epicycles Renaissance!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:03AM (4 children)
The article is actually very reasonable. At its foundation, it says that "proficient reasoners are revealed to be using their analytical skills to ferret out evidence that supports their group’s position, while rationalizing dismissal of such evidence when it undermines their side’s beliefs."
This is true, and it is a very human trait. The article uses climate change as an example, but - to the author's credit - he doesn't pick a side. It's just an illustration.
He then goes on to discuss people who are "scientifically curious", i.e., the rare people who enjoy the surprise of discovering something new, or discovering that their beliefs need to change in the face of new evidence. He suggests that science journalism needs to support and encourage this trait in the general public.
Which is true enough, if only "science journalists" weren't subject to the same tribalism as the rest of the human race. Too many journalists use their profession as a pulpit to promote their own personal views on topics. So maybe the root question really is: how can we improve scientific journalism?
FWIW: I subscribed to Scientific American for many, many years. However, the articles became shallower and shallower as the magazine went for a popular audience. They eventually reached a point where the articles aren't really any better than the occasional science piece in your local newspaper. This was 20-25 years ago, when I dropped my subscription. This article is no exception: there's no detail on the underlying studies, just a couple of pretty graphs. No depth at all...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:55AM
Same thing happened to BYTE! magazine as it went mainstream ca. 1990. Up until the point when they became a windows tips&hacks magazine, I'd read every single issue cover to cover and was my only education in CS.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 13 2018, @01:30AM (2 children)
What the hell? Who modded that post as "flamebait"? Is that some sort of ironic mod here?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:32AM
Fixing shitty moderating without resorting to the tyranny of centralized intervention is why we give out so many points every day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:58AM
Windows shill, obviously. And where has our Later Day Saint minder been lately? Oh, if only we had some proper aristarchus submissions, the moderations would be much more fair, and cromulent.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:08AM
It's no consensus. Something’s happening and it’ll change back again. I don’t know that it’s man made. We have scientists that disagree with that one. We did a very big, very expensive report. 4th National Climate Assessment. 1600 pages, folks. And nothing to worry about there. You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda. I'll tell you, I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.
So I sent my guys to Conference of the Parties. To the Conference of Parties. Big shindig in Katowice, in Poland. They love me in Poland, huge crowds there. And my guys are saying, "eat, drink and be Merry (Merry Christmas). But don't forget about Beautiful Clean Coal from West Virginia. You can always count on it. 100%."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:20AM (2 children)
So this is where the White supremacists think they can take on the liberals, eh? What a bunch of incestuous losers! Matthew Heimbach can suck my, um, his mother-in-laws cock! There! The circle is complete, and pure whiteness will flow from the, OMG, what the hell do they think they are doing? Tribe, or incest? Incest, or Tribe? Right-wing, or alt-right? Traditional Worker, or White supremacist? It is all so confusing. But I want to suggest, after the alt-right is all done banging their mother-in-laws ( if not someone of a more direct tribal connection, Oedipus? ) that the whole tribal thing belongs to the right. The Left, the superior and intellectually more advanced Left, we understand these things. We have for millennia. We are citizens of the world, cosmopolitans, and so none of this "division" stuff affects us at all. It is merely the deplorables trying to create an identity, as some sort of sub-humans, so that later they may be able to make the case for a "World Heritage Site" like Arkansaws. Just think, in the future, tourists could come an see actual Trump voters, preserved in their natural environment, and Runaway1956.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)
And yet - your left is all about identity politics.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday December 13 2018, @05:11AM
White male Polack hetero allegedly Xian truck-driving redneck hillbilly yokel Trump facilitator: And you dare accuse! Muslin terrors are hiding in your bed, Runaway! Women you thought liked your cat-calls actually put viagra in your coffee, just to laugh at your crass faux pas! And you call yourself a christian? Jesus wants you to reconsider your entire outlook. "Consider the Cheesemakers, they shall inherit the orth." [youtube.com] So shut up, Bignose!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:31AM (4 children)
Eds accepted this, over an aristarchus submission? I am seriously starting to question both the mental competence and the ideological orientation of the SN staff. Seriously, Eds? Seriously? (Starting to suspect that "SoylentNews Ed" is a tribe, and evidently a Mighty Buzzard affiliated Tribe. )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:55AM (3 children)
Well it is Scientific American, usually respected publication.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:13AM (2 children)
Tenses, use them. In this case, any non-continuous past tense will do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @05:14AM (1 child)
It "was" Scientific American? Or it Scientific American was? Were it not? And what would it have been, for the future pluperfect, which any decent tensed language must have? Obscure Grammar Nazis are no fun. Seriously.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday December 15 2018, @04:26PM
Also fun: the imperative past tenses.
Don't have done that!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:25AM (14 children)
I may agree with leftists regarding at least some of the science of global warming, but I'll deny that. This has nothing to do with the social risk issue. It has everything to do with what comes next, after you get agreement on global warming. You want massive government control of the economy, hurting my country in many ways. That is just a "NO" from me. Working backwards from that "NO", obviously there is no global warming.
I'm science-minded, but I'll cast that aside if you are trying to abuse science to implement communism or 1-world-government or any other nasty leftist fantasy. Fuck no.
Of course, it doesn't help your cause that Al Gore has a huge mansion and is jetting around the world. Every climate change gathering has lots of private jets. Hmmm. Maybe this really is just about domination of us little people.
If you really want to do something though, the most important thing would be to prevent the Third World from upgrading their lifestyle. They need to be prevented from migrating to Europe, the USA, and other places with high per-capita carbon footprint. In other words, build the wall, and don't help them modernize. I have a feeling you'd rather destroy my culture though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:34AM (2 children)
Holy shit, build a wall and keep the savages out.
Wow
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:47AM (1 child)
just make sure you are on the right side of the wall when it is finished..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:51PM
Too late!
大人不計小人過／大人不计小人过
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:16AM (4 children)
Fuckin retard
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:13AM (3 children)
That's right, if you don't agree with someone's opinion, call them stupid / moron / imbecile / retard.
Wins the argument every time.
And it's much quicker and easier than thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:26PM (2 children)
Some arguments are not worth engaging with, and it becomes easy after a while to tell which posts will result in more bullshit replies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:16AM (1 child)
Translation:
My mind was made up long ago, and I can't risk having it changed now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @09:12PM
Oh THAT is what you meant to post? My apologies, that makes perfect sense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:53PM (4 children)
If your discourse is representative of your culture, then you've given us every reason to want to destroy it.
By your own admission, you put loyalty to your tribe before reality, on purpose. You will gladly intentionnally and knowingly spread deception, misinformation and lies before truth because you feel that your own personal set of beliefs is more important that the advancement and well-being of all of humanity. You're like the clergy that condemned Galileo of heresy, or those who mocked and tried to destroy Darwin's reputation.
You know what ? Climate scientists never wanted to "destroy your culture". In fact, they didn't give a shit about your culture. At first, anyway. But then, your culture started to act like a giant ass. It started to attack not only the climate scientists' work and conclusions, but the climate scientists themselves, then ALL scientists, and finally science itself. It started to attack one of the fundamental pillars of modern civilization: A society based on true knowledge of reality, and not on anecdotal evidence and superstition.
You claim you're "science-minded", but everyone with half a brain reading your post knows immediatly that it's bullshit. You're not science minded: you're a primitive, bigoted, tribal, dogmatic, xenophobic caveman. You and the likes of you are exactly the kind of dead-weight that evolved, rational people have had to fight against for centuries in order to pull humanity out of tribalism, superstition and savagery.
You bet we want to destroy your culture now. For the same reasons the body has to try to destroy the cancer growing within it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:39PM (3 children)
Nope, not this: "By your own admission, you put loyalty to your tribe before reality, on purpose."
Loyalty to tribe would be the social risk issue. I'm not doing this for social reasons.
My motivation is that I don't want more government control. I don't want communism. I don't want 1-world-government. I don't want treaties that choke the life out of the economy. I don't want the finance parasites getting richer via carbon credit trading. I don't want giant government boondoggles for carbon sequestration.
You're using global warming to justify all that crap. I will oppose that crap in every possible way, even if it means pretending that the science is wrong. If I have to oppose all funding for science, then sadly I'll do it. I'll team up with the Jesus freaks if I have to, even though their dumb stance on evolution makes me feel ill.
Quit abusing science to justify government action that I hate, and I'll quit opposing science.
Can you do it? Say it for me: "A significant portion of climate change appears to be human-induced, but we shouldn't attempt any government action to influence this."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:59PM (2 children)
So you're of the "The end justifies the means" crowd. To you, if your cause is just, every action is justified, regardless of the possible side effects or unintended consequences. Well guess what ? That's the textbook definition of barbarism. Everyone thinks that their cause is just. Even barbarians, and sometimes they were even right. But that's not the point; the point is that you fail to learn the lessons of history. Even if you win, you still loose, because you will have sold your soul to the devil to achieve your goals, you will have compromised the future of your children and your granchildren, and all that for purely ideological reasons, whether you want to admit it or not.
During WWII, a luftwaffe commander told his men: "If I ever find out that one of you has shot a parachute, he better never show his face here again, because I will shoot him myself. This is not something you do for the ennemy, this is something you do for yourself, so you don't completely lose your humanity".
That commander had understood what it meant to be civilized. And he was a fucking nazi. So what does that make you ?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @06:43AM (1 child)
You're of the "The end justifies the means" crowd. To you, if your cause is just, every action is justified, regardless of the possible side effects or unintended consequences.
Why: to get control of a possible climate change, you justify massive government control. You justify it, ignoring the possible side effects and consequences like prison camps.
You fail to learn the lessons of history. Even if you win, you still loose, [...] you will have compromised the future of your children and your grandchildren, and all that for purely ideological reasons, whether you want to admit it or not.
Why: the world already tried communism. Letting the government run the economy is your ideology, and it leads to starvation. It leads to dictatorship. It leads to death camps.
It's better to be a fucking nazi (merely a socialist, slightly left of Bernie) than a damn fucking communist. Both suck however, with socialism being watered down communism. All that left-wing stuff is horrible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:14PM
I rest my case. You're completely brainwashed by the liberal-demonizing conservative propaganda. To you, liberals are the devil incarnate, and you'd rather destroy humanity than let it fall under their rule. You sound exactly like one of those pathological stalkers who'd rather kill the woman they lust over than see her in the arms of another. "If I can't have you, nobody will !"
And what's worse, your intellect is so constrained and choked by your brainwashing that you refuse to even consider that there might be other solutions to prevent science from being used as a weapon than to destroy science.
Seriously man, get help. You're so completely filled with hate that it will consume you from the inside.
I've waisted enough time with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:50AM
There are so many logical fallacies in there, it is well nigh impossible to know where to begin. Amazingly, you wear your emotional appeals to slippery slope arguments like it is a damn badge of honor. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.