Are we drinking out of lead cups? (informationally speaking)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Most of us are drinking out of lead cups and some of us are doing so because of people harassing others to drink from lead cups because they drink from lead cups.
Big Lead Cup has designed marketing that takes advantage of primative psychology and biochemistry to encourage us to drink from lead cups because their profitability is directly tied to increased lead cup usage. If we don't drink from lead cups enough, they can't have a bigger boat.
The anti-lead cup groups are reactionary to the detrimental effects of lead cup use on society and advocate for cups with less lead in them. Of course, the pro-lead cup brains are so leaded that they think themselves the same ones.
Here I am, drinking from a lead-free cup half full of mercury thinking I am better and can see reality with a sane mind, mad as a hatter.
-
Most of us are drinking out of lead cups and some of us are doing so because of people harassing others to drink from lead cups because they drink from lead cups.
Big Lead Cup has designed marketing that takes advantage of primative psychology and biochemistry to encourage us to drink from lead cups because their profitability is directly tied to increased lead cup usage. If we don't drink from lead cups enough, they can't have a bigger boat.
The anti-lead cup groups are reactionary to the detrimental effects of lead cup use on society and advocate for cups with less lead in them. Of course, the pro-lead cup brains are so leaded that they think themselves the same ones.
Here I am, drinking from a lead-free cup half full of mercury thinking I am better and can see reality with a sane mind, mad as a hatter.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Hypothetically, one could step away from the whole internet/media/information system. Stick with firsthand experience and the testimony of trusted friends.
To what degree would that include "science"?
What would that look like. Amish?
-
Did you say drinking out of cups?
Wow. Forgot all about this one! Thanks for the flashback!
-
Hypothetically, one could step away from the whole internet/media/information system. Stick with firsthand experience and the testimony of trusted friends.
To what degree would that include "science"?
What would that look like. Amish?
You can't even trust yourself or a friend to give an accurate depiction of reality. Reality is a totality of subjective consensus.
Science is so easily perverted by bias, that is why peer review is so important. There was a study done on saturated fats and their role in heart disease after Eisenhower had a heart attack in the 50s. The study concluded that there was a direct correlation between the amount of saturated fats and the increase in heart disease based on data gathered from 6 countries. Problem was that the study actually looked at 22 countries and they cherry-picked the 6 countries that showed that correlation and looking at all 22 countries showed no correlation. That is how saturated fats became maligned in nutritional guidelines. Best part? The scientist that did the study in the 50s was largely biased against saturated fats because he believed that cholesterol in the arteries had to be linked to fat in meat because it looked like animal fat. Real "meat makes maggots" logic, as disprovent by Redi.
Honestly, it would be more like the 90s. We didn't have smartphones. We barely had the internet. We didn't have 24/7 news media owned by like 4 people. Granted, bullshit, rumor, and lies spread really easily because we couldn't Google anything that contradicted it; but nobody looks into anything that confirms a personal bias today anyways.
-
You can't even trust yourself or a friend to give an accurate depiction of reality. Reality is a totality of subjective consensus.
Science is so easily perverted by bias, that is why peer review is so important. There was a study done on saturated fats and their role in heart disease after Eisenhower had a heart attack in the 50s. The study concluded that there was a direct correlation between the amount of saturated fats and the increase in heart disease based on data gathered from 6 countries. Problem was that the study actually looked at 22 countries and they cherry-picked the 6 countries that showed that correlation and looking at all 22 countries showed no correlation. That is how saturated fats became maligned in nutritional guidelines. Best part? The scientist that did the study in the 50s was largely biased against saturated fats because he believed that cholesterol in the arteries had to be linked to fat in meat because it looked like animal fat. Real "meat makes maggots" logic, as disprovent by Redi.
Honestly, it would be more like the 90s. We didn't have smartphones. We barely had the internet. We didn't have 24/7 news media owned by like 4 people. Granted, bullshit, rumor, and lies spread really easily because we couldn't Google anything that contradicted it; but nobody looks into anything that confirms a personal bias today anyways.
Could just be age and nostalgia, but the nineties reality were a magical time. The 80's weren't bad either but of course I was living at home then so thems some rose-colored glasses for sure.
-
Could just be age and nostalgia, but the nineties reality were a magical time. The 80's weren't bad either but of course I was living at home then so thems some rose-colored glasses for sure.
I honestly feel everything was downhill from the 90s.
-
I honestly feel everything was downhill from the 90s.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I see a strong correlation to broadband access. Once a direct, high-speed line was ubiquitous, it went from a place for nerds and enthusiasts to hang out to a market. High speed smartphones sealed the deal. Now it's possible to have a nearly continuous connection to every pair of eyes in the world. Or at least a sizeable percentage.
But I think it's the data speed. When you had to wait twenty seconds for a page of data to load there wasn't extraneous bullshit like ads or content suggestions, or scripts to track everyone. You had to send the absolute minimum and the only payment you got for your efforts was your hit counter.
I miss it.
-
Hypothetically, one could step away from the whole internet/media/information system. Stick with firsthand experience and the testimony of trusted friends.
To what degree would that include "science"?
What would that look like. Amish?
Unless the people around you were also doing the same then I think you would still be exposed to polluted views and knowledge.
-
You can't even trust yourself or a friend to give an accurate depiction of reality. Reality is a totality of subjective consensus.
Science is so easily perverted by bias, that is why peer review is so important. There was a study done on saturated fats and their role in heart disease after Eisenhower had a heart attack in the 50s. The study concluded that there was a direct correlation between the amount of saturated fats and the increase in heart disease based on data gathered from 6 countries. Problem was that the study actually looked at 22 countries and they cherry-picked the 6 countries that showed that correlation and looking at all 22 countries showed no correlation. That is how saturated fats became maligned in nutritional guidelines. Best part? The scientist that did the study in the 50s was largely biased against saturated fats because he believed that cholesterol in the arteries had to be linked to fat in meat because it looked like animal fat. Real "meat makes maggots" logic, as disprovent by Redi.
Honestly, it would be more like the 90s. We didn't have smartphones. We barely had the internet. We didn't have 24/7 news media owned by like 4 people. Granted, bullshit, rumor, and lies spread really easily because we couldn't Google anything that contradicted it; but nobody looks into anything that confirms a personal bias today anyways.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]We could order understanding by quality.
First there is perception. That's the closest. Then there is thought about that. Then there is the secondhand form of that, gotten from a friend. Then gotten from a mere associate. Then a stranger. Thirdhand and fourthhand. And so on.
Close to far. That close kind you don't even have to think or talk about it.
Perceptions like rightness, beauty, gut make a good guide. Art and invention are proof of that. Call it a good source of truth.
Not too good for building objective consensuses tho.
-
Yeah, probably.
Because of many factors, we're seeing an erosion of the 'third place' which has been somewhat replaced or supplemented by the internet.
But now the internet is turning into a watchdog which desperately wants to monetize you, or direct you towards something that it can monetize.
Its hard to say while we're in the middle of it, but I'm going to assume fifty years from now people will say we took privacy for granted and didn't realize how influential algorithms really were.
Privacy is the least of it, its just a means to an end for then. They are shaping our entire culture.