And also assuming that someone who's not smart in one area is not smart in any area.

Good point I like that answer. Conflating knowledge on a specific topic with general intelligence.

Similarly, people who assume that anyone who struggles with English as a second+ language is an idiot

Yup this is me and my dad, he's great with handy work and has built numerous homes. I am good with technology and can build a server and make my own software. Put us in opposite roles and were both dumbasses.

Or if they are rich, they must be smart or a genius, because they got rich while everyone else did not, its further from the truth, since most of these people come from wealth to begin with. adjacent, same goes for these succesful youtubers/streamers/influencers, these top ones we see all the time dint come from rags to riches, they came from being rich or very well off.

I can differ 17 different kinds of glue by taste!

This effect was described by Dunning and Kruger.

Absolutely. I’ve learned over the years that it usually works out pretty well to find out how much the cheapest dogshit option is and aim for an option roughly 1.5x the cost. Obviously not a blanket rule but it covers a surprising amount of common items and I’ve gotten plenty of long-lasting affordable alternatives that I actually enjoy using rather than having the crappiest version of everything.

That’s true but the other direction is generally true. Not always, but often high quality does come at a cost.

That's a great one

With automobiles, there is an anti-correlation.

Broke: You get what you pay for.

Woke: You don’t get what you don’t pay for.

that is true, or just slapping a label like supreme, or tesla on thier products and people thinks its high quality. or with ELECTRIC toothbruses, 100-200 seems to be more likely to be defective than cheaper lines of the same company. Always seek out reviews and peoples experience on specific products. same goes with healthcare/insurance, paying more doesnt mean you will get better quality(it actually incentivized that customers dont seek out care due to potential costs), likewise if you get too cheap of insurance you will get cheap results, not decent and not so-so.

Or that refusing to understand is a valid counterargument.

Way too many people think that if you explain something, you're endorsing it--even when you explicitly say that you do not endorse it. So frustrating, and it's a huge problem here on the fediverse.

Or that not vocally disagreeing is agreement.

Folks, you can understand why someone decided to kill themselves: e.g. a tragic life, and from their perspective, there's no one to support them, no one to love them, no one for them to love.

But it doesn't mean you agree with their decision to kill themselves.

If understanding = agreeing, a lot more people would be committing suicide while trying to understand why such a person would kill themselves. It makes no logical sense. Or it means that those alive is either of these: they either don't understand it out of naivety, or choose to not understand it to not kill themselves. Assuming it's an adult with their full faculty, who witnessed such a tragedy, that's just... such a sad world.

On a related note, this is one of my favorite quotes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

I'm not sure if its get what you mean.

One thing to note is that they are allowed to lie to you, so like you said, important to know your rights, but mostly they can find probable cause to do whatever.

Best advice I ever heard.

Always treat cops as if they just came from dealing with something really awful.

They might have just seen a child abuse case, or a really bad accident, of a fire.

Assert your rights in the court, not in the street.

Fantastic response

It's the driver for misogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and so much else.

It has been my experience that, if you could identify these people, they are the best to avoid. Excising these people from your life can very quickly prove it.

Yeah I agree that isn't true

These people must fail to understand how consensual sex works

Capitalism is worse. It's literally Monopoly. We've all played that shitty fucking game. With capitalism you get perpetual inflation. A negative sum game. A zero sum game at least implies some basic conservation mechanics, perhaps even a fairness. A negative sum game is a total debt based economy. Waste is a feature. Disposability and commodities go together like peas and carrots, and that ethos sadly reverberates across ecosystems until the planet is dead but you got those pounds or dollars or pesos or whatever. Can't eat them. Can't really do Jack shit with them.

The rich gonna wake up some day soon and find the farmer has a well oiled rifle. They'll make rich fertilizer.... 🤑

The word you're missing is "arithmetic". For most people "math(s)" and "arithmetic" are the same thing, when the latter is only the commonly encountered part of the former.

And for many of those people, algorithms are the only way they can use arithmetic to reach a goal because the intuition isn't there otherwise.

I say this in full knowledge that even though I'm pretty good at arithmetic, much of the intuition I have now took me years after leaving school, and sometimes for more advanced things it's still not there.

For example, on a good day I can complete the square, and I understand the geometric intuition, but most of the time I'm just going to plug and chug with the quadratic formula.

Common core got a really bad rap because of the poor implementations by companies like Pearson. But the actual curricula are very good.

Pure maths that was taught over 5 years in the 18th century in university is now taught in 3 years in high school with several other subjects.

So material is stripped down into small pieces and learnt by heart completely out of context- it is basically just learning algorithms.

For me it was estimation that unlocked the magic of mathematics. What's the fastest way you can get close enough to the correct answer that the innaccuracy doesn't matter?

For example, in salary negotions if you need to convert between hourly and annual salary take the annual value, drop 3 zeros and divide in two and you have the hourly. Or in reverse, take the hourly, multiply by 2 and add 3 zeros for the annual. It gets you close enough that you can know you're talking about for salary negotiations, budgeting, etc. and you can let the computer calculate out the exact conversion for payroll and tax withholding purposes

Benefit cliffs do exist however.

This depends on the country

Is this really a common misconception?

And also worth mentioning that 1 great photo comes after 50 or so not-so-good ones. A lot comes down to luck, especially with more dynamic shots. Take a shit ton of photos and a few of them are bound to turn out nice.

I learnt the team "Point and shoot engineer" to refer to modern cinematographers/ photographers.

Great answer!

Yeah, I wholeheartedly encourage constructive debate and skepticism. However, it doesn't excuse repeating shitty arguments without doing anything thinking or research just because it makes you feel less bad and lets you not do anything.

One example that particularly bothers me was "humans affect on the climate is less than a single volcanic eruption". There are a lot of things you could not trust about scientific reporting, but the base premise of 8 billion people flying around the world using decomposed dinosaur mass is at least an order-of magnitude larger in scale compared to a single volcanic eruption. At that point, you'd have to believe that there isn't really 8 billion people or that oil is actually from somewhere else.

In summary I agree, I just want to add nuance that this doesn't excuse people acting in bad faith. It's important that everyone, not just scientists, recognize their emotions and bias and challenge their own arguments against these (I.e. am I just making this argument because I feel defensive?)

The phrase I've heard is "epistemically privileged." And deservedly because from a standpoint of pure ethics, "science" has done way more good than damage than competing ways of looking at the world.

But let's say someone asks you how a car works. You go into a bit about the internal combustion engine. You explain how little explosions make pistons go. They ask you about these explosions, so you have to take them to a chemist to explain. Then they ask the chemist why does this reaction happen, and the chemist sends them to the physicist. You go through the Newtonian bit, which seems intuitive enough, but when you ask about atoms, you have to go into subatomic physics. Which is something you cannot experience without special equipment that you trust the physicist is telling the truth about.

So, yeah, while the empirical method is fantastic and the best model we have, in the end it relies on faith as much as any religion.

in pseudoscience, person will seek answers they want to hear, and not ones that will contradict them at all. an example, chronic lyme which is a pseudoscience, is a belief that Lyme is a 'permanent infectious disease', and you can get it numerous ways other than the known vector, a deer tick(it is the actual way to get lyme) theres a whole industry built over this surprisingly, and hazardous because MDs have jumped into the scams too, and its primarly amongst MIDWESTERN white woman/men, how this scam works is the "patient" will go seeking online forums, sources and eventually end in the office of LLMD("lyme doctors" which are actual doctors peddling the fake disease) which often charges alot of money per visit, usually several hundred and they dont take insurance(red flag) or the insurance rejects the DOCTOR and they give all thESE BS excuses why you have this symptoms and then prescribe you a blood test for lyme(another red flag), and then have you multi-month ANTIBIOTIC regiments, which can be hazardous because of the side effects. i happened to find these forums along time ago. most of these people have underlying mental issues, or a psychosomatic illness.

Looking up scientific papers of any kind will immediately blow up the notion that science is rational and objective lol

Great answer.

I was surprised when I learned that. Same with the idea that adding more people to a software project doesn't make it go faster. To be clear, I am very ignorant on software stuff in general.

Even open source projects with lots of contributors, most work is only done by a fairly small number generally. Have seen delegation before though, like "would be cool if you all make PRs for this" where it's a time consuming but essentially low programming high creative skill task.

Sure some software has huge numbers of people working on it

But this makes usually a overengineered and buggy bloat for the task at hand. Just like Google.

'Made with real fruit' is a perfect example...they almost never say how much

"I might have eaten a ton of ice cream today, but I had a lot of protein so that'll make up for it")

There is another one. In the end, you can see proteins as just another form of calories; if you don't exercise them off, a overabundance of them becomes fat. Proteins are not generally healthy or make muscles just like that.
And btw, eggs are the best protein source. While of oats it's still around 10% accessible.

I think some offsets are valid. For example exercise for ice cream. Especially if you do it while the sugars from the ice cream is still in your blood

The fact there's a fairly large amount of people eating raw meat and milk and there isn't widespread illnesses in those communities is an endorsement of how safe our food industry is.