all 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 4 months ago

My own.

It's cliché but listening to my gut typically works out

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago

    On what?
    Different people have different bodies of knowledge and experience. Their expertise on one question doesn't transfer to another.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago*

    Honestly, it depends on what we're talking about

    I trust my nerd friend's opinions on computers, and I trust my car friend's opinions on cars, but probably not so much the other way around.

    No single person knows everything, and trusting any single person completely about everything is foolish.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago* (7 children)
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (10 children)

    I trust the opinions of open minded and wise scientists the most. The people that should IMO have been our leaders instead of self serving politicians.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Disagree we should have no leaders and how do you define "open minded and wise" and how do you prevent scientists promoting something like eugenics again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

    We will always have leaders in some capacity. We are too wired to lead and to follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Based on archeological evidence, humans lived in horizontal egalitarian societies for most of our existence. It's only relatively recently that we have deviated from that norm and began to live under hierarchical, unequal societies.

    More recent history has demonstrated that we can quite easily return to a non-hierarchical society, and quite successfully.

    This seems to prove that we are just as wired for no leaders as we are for leaders, and we can choose which path we want to take. Currently, it appears that the leader path virtually always leads to corruption, control, and capitalist fascism, which is ultimately incompatible with a habitable planet/biosphere, so uh... I think we should take the other path, maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Weren't elders/shamans/gurus looked up to as sort of spiritual and worldly advisor/authority figures back then? Granted, it's not the same as being a chief/leader, but they talked, and their community listened and generally followed their advice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    As you say, a collective of people asking an elder for advice and collectively making a decision on it is quite different from being ordered by a leader and forced to follow it.

    Experts in specific fields are still looked to for advice and help in a egalitarian society, there just isn't a rigid hierarchical structure that makes them have more institutional power than anyone else. As an example, in revolutionary Spain, there was still a need for doctors, electricians, train operators, farmers, etc, but they no longer had a boss they had to listen to, they were able to self-organize whatever they thought would meet the needs of their society best, and those not skilled in those areas deferred to their knowledge and experience for situations that fell under it.

    This was documented quite thoroughly in Sam Dolgoff's book from 1974, The Anarchist Collectives Workers’ Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936–1939, along with Gaston Leval's 1975 Collectives in the Spanish revolution, if you'd like to investigate the specifics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Why? This is statement with no reasoning given.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, it's called an opinion. An opinion which is formed from my own observations. You can take it or leave it, but I'm going to keep saying it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Except it runs counter to all evidence but whatever use your biased "personal observations".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    Do you have a source for "all evidence" that humans are not actually "wired to lead and to follow" or that human society is functional on a large scale without having leaders in some fashion?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Hank Green, and Alec from Technology Connections. Wildly different energy levels, but broadly speaking I trust them to do their homework or to outright say they haven’t.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    No one’s. Not even mine. Everyone is an idiot. Especially me.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Greta Thunberg

    ❤️ 1
  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    That OP always has an agenda. Doesn't matter which OP but there is always one.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    I don't trust anyone's opinion unless it's based on sound evidence and repeatable results and even then, I'll only trust the opinions of those who are willing to change their opinion based on new knowledge. So, given that, I'll trust my young kids opinions on things they have researched and learnt about, or a doctor's opinion if it's on something they're knowledgeable about, and my own in areas where I'm an expert.

    How MUCH I trust them is a different thing. If it's something that doesn't really affect me if it's not 100% accurate....meh

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I trust no one.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    In general my brother. He has schooling equivalent to my own and we both have interests and specialties that can converge a bit but also complement each other. Basically I like to discuss things with him because he both can get things im talking about but also may have a perspective or knowledge beyond my own. I think he feels the same but who knows. He seems to call me to talk about things as much as I call him.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    My wife mostly. Followed by myself.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Mine. Unless my partner or best friend heavily disagree, then I know it's probably not right.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago
    [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Only 3 people i dont know whos opinions ive actually trusted.

    www.penny-arcade.com guy

    Yahtzee but I think hes stopped doing his thing

    Jonathan Pie - spoof news reporter who goes on rants at the cameraman between takes.

    All 3 of these people have almost exactly the same opinions on things I already know about and think I understand. I trust them enough to have the right opinion on stuff I dont.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Obviously I don't agree with anybody on 100% of all things, but if I had to throw out some of who I sarcastically call my personal philosopher kings:

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago
    [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    not my mom's

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago
    [–] 1 point 4 months ago
    [–] 1 point 4 months ago (10 children)

    I don't trust opinions, just facts.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    You don't need to trust facts.
    That's what makes them facts.

    Additionally, facts don't tell you anything about anything, outside the fact itself. The sun rose yesterday. It rose today. It doesn't automatically follow the sun will rise again tomorrow. That's speculation, based on interpretative pattern recognition. Or to put it another way: "That's just, like, your opinion man."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Whose facts do you trust the most then? After all - there aren't that many of them for which a universal consensus among even credible scientists exists. Most facts aren't the absolute truth anyway but rather just our best current understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
    1. Anthropic Claude
    2. Google Gemini
    3. ChatGPT
    4. Perplexity

    Edit: in that order.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    If I had to pick an "intellectual hero" of mine, it would be Sam Harris. It's not so much that I trust his opinions but I trust his thinking process. I can't think of anyone else I pay so much attention to while finding so little to disagree with.

    I bet that, considering the platform I'm at, if someone recognizes the name they almost definitely don't like the guy. If you want to discuss that then I'm willing to for as long as you can be civil about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Ehh he supports the Gaza genocide, supports some uses of torture and is an open islamaphobe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (9 children)

    If it was how can you trust someone with those opinions at all never mind "the most"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Because I'm perfectly aware of what he actually thinks about these issues and you're not fairly representing those views. I'm not going to defend views he doesn't hold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

    Look into any of his statements about israel palestine you are factually wrong no point talking to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Telling someone they're wrong is much less convincing than demonstrating it by laying out the evidence.

    It's pretty clear you just don't like the guy based on what you've heard someone say about him and are now just having an emotional reaction to someone bringing it up. If you actually had a point you would've already made it.

    This criticism is like the anti-Sam Harris 101 entry level talking points. I've heard it countered hundreds of times before. I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Bell Curve and racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    Look into any of his statements where he argues Israel has a right to defend itself, that Palestinians are genocidal, that colonialism isn't a thing on and on and yes I also think iq is nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    You just keep making noise, how about trying to make a coherent argument instead? Steelman a position of his that you disagree with and then tell me what exactly you disagree with about it.

    This incoherent, ambiguous hand-waving isn't going to achieve anything. You chose to speak up - then speak up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    He claims Israel isn't a settler colonial , isn't commiting commiting genocide, on and on

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    He claims Israel isn’t a settler colonial

    First, my general attitude: I’m not interested in exploring all the ways that Israel has missed the mark—from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s corrupt alliance with the far right, to the many crimes committed by settlers in the West Bank...

    Source

    isn’t commiting commiting genocide

    He argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide under any reasonable definition of the term. He's also pointing out that Hamas has openly expressed genocidal intent toward Jews and Israel, both in their founding charter and in public statements by their leaders. He views the genocide accusation against Israel as a moral inversion: it attributes genocidal intent to the side that has the means but refrains from using them for that purpose, while ignoring the side that has the explicit intent but lacks the capability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments