Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Gullible Naive Society or Just down right Lazy?

Options
13567

Replies

  • Candyspun
    Candyspun Posts: 370 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Candyspun wrote: »
    Recently, I was on social media discussing CICO and I was met with derision and lots of, ‘you just don’t get it!’ (What don’t I get? I’m safely losing weight!) and, ‘you’d sing a different tune if you had a chronic illness that means you can’t exercise sometimes!’

    I pointed out I do, in fact, have a chronic illness and sometimes I can’t exercise and am still losing weight. To which the reply (from many), was, it’s just not that easy!’ But I never said it was easy.

    I’d also like to point out I wasn’t fat shaming anyone. But I was made to feel as though talking about the science of CICO was a heartless thing to do.

    People don't want to take responsibility for themselves. It's much more comforting to look at oneself as a victim because it removes accountability for their actions. That epidemic reaches much further than just weight loss in our society.

    Very true. I was even told to go sit down because I had a lot of thinking to do. Because I just don’t get it. Ugh!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.

    It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.

    It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.

    It isn't that they are impractical, they are impossible (at least in the way they promote themselves)...they break laws of thermodynamics. They are scams, either intentional or self-deluded. My assumption is self-deluded but it is still a waste of time and money brought on by scientific illiteracy which is something to be shunned not given the benefit of the doubt.

    And I get the can-do attitude of if the inventors of yesterday listened to the nay-sayers we wouldn't have X Y and Z but there are some things that are hard to imagine how you would accomplish them (ie getting humans to Mars) and other things that are just in violation of physical laws or are impractical to such a degree that they are non-nonsensical and it is good to be able to distinguish between the two. If what your proposing can be done right now with current technologies and the only way your idea stands out is that you have way WAY over-promised on what can be delivered then that is some b.s.

    From my examples Fontus and SciO are impossible to deliver on because their claims break physical laws. Solar roadways and hyperloop are just ridiculous ideas that makes no sense if you think about the practicalities and there claims of what they can achieve are not at all within the realm of possibility. They rely on media hype rather than actual achievements. None of them have or will ever produce anything of value...they are psuedoscience money sinks that rely on people who genuinely do want a better future being gullible or naive. They give a false impression of what is possible that relies on public goodwill, goodwill which will get eroded by b.s. like this.

    Just out of curiosity out of respect for you being an excellent poster on these forums which of the ones would you defend as being valid?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Not to mention all the crowd-funded quackery the internet has brought us....ie Solar Roadways, Fontus, SciO etc. Plus the popularity contest impractical BS like Hyperloop.

    It's rare that I disagree with something you say. There's so many things that used to be impractical or even unthinkable say, 10, 20 years ago that is now commonplace. Not working on something because it's impractical now means it never gets done.

    It isn't that they are impractical, they are impossible (at least in the way they promote themselves)...they break laws of thermodynamics. They are scams, either intentional or self-deluded. My assumption is self-deluded but it is still a waste of time and money brought on by scientific illiteracy which is something to be shunned not given the benefit of the doubt.

    And I get the can-do attitude of if the inventors of yesterday listened to the nay-sayers we wouldn't have X Y and Z but there are some things that are hard to imagine how you would accomplish them (ie getting humans to Mars) and other things that are just in violation of physical laws or are impractical to such a degree that they are non-nonsensical and it is good to be able to distinguish between the two. If what your proposing can be done right now with current technologies and the only way your idea stands out is that you have way WAY over-promised on what can be delivered then that is some b.s.

    From my examples Fontus and SciO are impossible to deliver on because their claims break physical laws. Solar roadways and hyperloop are just ridiculous ideas that makes no sense if you think about the practicalities and there claims of what they can achieve are not at all within the realm of possibility. They rely on media hype rather than actual achievements. None of them have or will ever produce anything of value...they are psuedoscience money sinks that rely on people who genuinely do want a better future being gullible or naive. They give a false impression of what is possible that relies on public goodwill, goodwill which will get eroded by b.s. like this.

    Just out of curiosity out of respect for you being an excellent poster on these forums which of the ones would you defend as being valid?

    I was just speaking in general since I'm not familiar with most of them besides the hyperloop and solar roadways. Those are ridiculously large scale projects that as of now would be unthinkable for multiple reasons. But then I think that railway tracks connecting all of Europe for example were thought to be way to big a project to be feasible too. And now I could just hop in a train and enjoy the scenery while going from Madrid to Moscow with a few layovers. (Or just get a plane, which is faster, but that wasn't invented yet when they were doing that stuff) Or the short time between when flight was invented and when the first person stepped on the moon, I don't suppose the wright brothers would've even dreamed that being able to go to outer space would be developed on the shoulders of their discoveries.
    So, just saying, as long as it's physically possible and there's people who really want to make it happen and have the money to work on it, it can happen. Maybe not in the near future, but some time.
    And if it starts out smaller than initially advertised then so be it.
  • Derpes
    Derpes Posts: 2,033 Member
    Options
    They are probably anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    A lot of people drop science, but they don't know the math, because their minds are narrower than the righteous path.

    "The mind of a child is where the revolution begins." - Immortal Technique: Caught in a Hustle
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,442 Member
    Options
    kgeyser wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Because too many people, when they were in school, thought science was boring, and didn't learn any. Or math.

    When you have no science or math, the whole world is a magical mystery, and anything could be as true as anything else, so you might as well go with the magic that sounds easy.

    Depending on where you went to school, it may not have been taught. I went to public school in a good system at the time, and we got "basic nutrition" in school in the form of the food pyramid and avoid junk food in health class, and the basic definitions of stuff on the food label during home economics in middle school (and geared for a middle school level of understanding).

    I didn't encounter discussions about calories/energy balances and how everything really worked together until I took a dedicated nutrition class in college, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people wouldn't know this information. It's not necessarily the result of willful ignorance on their part. And before anyone goes into the "well you can research it on the internet!" - that assumes that you have a level of education where you know how to conduct a proper search, know how to vet sources, and know how to interpret scientific and peer-reviewed journal articles and statistics. Depending on what your focus of study, it may or may not have included those things.

    People are also likely to listen to people they consider "trusted sources" (family, friends, coworkers) over someone they do not know, and lots of people are good at positioning themselves as "trusted sources," especially on the internet. You can even see it in online fitness communities, where people will post body pics (which may or may not be anywhere near current, or even them) as evidence that they have knowledge and know how to get results, or try to use longevity on a site or post count as evidence that they are an authority. It's easy for people to get confused, and not always the result of a personal failing or character flaw.

    I didn't say nutrition, because I really meant science and math: Basic science, like how evidence and hypothesis testing work, what it means when something is a theory vs. a fact vs. a hypothesis in scientific terms, etc.; and basic math to the point of low-level algebra . . . really more just like dealing with "story problems" and applying basic computations to a situation.

    I understand that in severely deficient schools, even these may not be taught, but I believe they are taught in most. I went to a moderately deficient school (rural poverty area), and these things were taught . . . and taught over and over through the grades, at increasing levels of detail, nuance and complexity, starting in elementary school and continuing through high school. I truly (and sadly) believe that most people I went to school with (economically fortunate ones included) didn't learn them, even to the level needed for competent basic adulting, like recognizing a financial scam, understanding and evaluating the main scientific arguments about important environmental policies, or understanding a mortgage amortization schedule.

    Nutrition was taught in my school in about 6th grade, and there was some discussion of it in health classes in various grades, but the only real depth was in Home Economics in high school, which girls (only girls) were required to take back then. (Here's the "book report", if anyone's interested ;) : https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960 ).

    If someone learned basic science and math in school, they have the tools to evaluate nutritional information, if they're interested in diet and nutrition. The scamsters and click-bait marketers know that their audience largely lacks the tools to evaluate their claims . . . that they can get away with science-y sounding nonsense, and wow people with a bunch of footnote links that point to actual scientific studies (studies that don't support the scamsters claims at all, but they know that few will read them, because . . . boooorrrrrring. And haaarrrrrd. Still.)

    It really doesn't take advanced scientific knowlege or college statistics to begin evaluating these things, though it may require those to understand all the details.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    chicknsun wrote: »
    Someone mentioned the food. I am very new and learning constantly. My thing is you don't realize how bad the food you eat really is until you look up one day and realize you are overweight or have some kind of health issue. They make the (From my perspective at least) food addictive. The more salt, carbs, fat ... the better it tastes.. it's an addiction. Sometimes not even a conscious choice..just what you are accustomed to eating. I recently quit smoking and getting off the unhealthy food is by far harder than quitting the cigs. I decided I would take control of my body. I have made bad decisions about my 'diet' but at least i am trying. Someone mentioned the soda and chips (I would add tv and video games)..yeah if you don't know better it seems so much more appetizing than broccoli and water and exercise.

    Honestly I didn't know any better..So when some healthy looking person would say oh I use this or that..yeah I listened. Who knew there is actual work involved and personal responsibility for every thing you put into your body. Like I said.. learning in progress.

    People make food that tastes good....must be a conspiracy.

    It actually is, to be honest. There is such a thing called hyperpalatability. That's why people can eat a whole bag of chips or fries. They figured out the point of natural satiation - the point where you body has figured out it has eaten enough. Then they found out how to make you want to eat past that point. They intentionally make foods that is hard to stop eating, because of it's hyperpalatability, which produces a dopamine response, which is the same chemical that makes it hard to get off your phone or stop playing video games.

    Right....because they want people to by their chips....so they make them tasty. Does that count as a conspiracy now?


    Facebook employees have quit over what they say is manipulation of the human brain circuitry to make sure you spend as much time as possible on their site.

    Food scientists say the same thing about their industry.

    Call it whatever you want to call it, but it is not in the favor of the health of the consumer, and that is coming from the industry insiders.

    If you don't agree, that's fine.

    Yeah, because they are in the business of making money not the buisness of making you healthy. That isn't a conspiracy and it isn't a crime....it is just market economics. It isn't the job of a company to make you healthy, it is your job to make you healthy. If you value health over taste you can choose to purchase other items or moderate as you see fit. You have control of your own decisions. Someone making a particularly entertaining or appealing or tasty product isn't mindcontrolling you, they are just offering you something you like....you of course have the choice to decide to prioritize something else instead.

    Take a look at my avi. I went from the red skirt to the blue one. I workout nearly every day. I am extremely fit. I eat 70% clean. I'll have you know, I don't feel that the MAJORITY of my eating and workouts are a choice. It is habit. Even when I don't want to go to the gym, I do. Not because I decide to, but because my body naturally starts getting ready at a certain time, because that's the power of habit. It works both ways, to reach for the cigarette, the donut, or the weights.

    And I also remember what it was like when before I could fit into the red skirt. And how many tries I had. And how many things I tried. I remember working as hard as humanly possible to lose weight and eat only low calories and see no movement on the scale. It's only through the grace of God that I found the strength not to quit.

    Just because I've made a lot of progress and it's (a lot) easier for me now, doesn't mean I have to ignore the challenges the people who are still trying their best and finding it very difficult.

    People hollering about personal responsibility and Calories in Calories out sounded the exact same way to me as when you ask someone how to be a millionaire and they say, make more profit than expenses. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have business incubators and mentors.

    So unless you are rolling in several million dollars, please stop being so condescending to those who are still struggling. Because MATH.

    Because when I make my billions, I'll give credit where credit is due.

    A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.

    So how's that portfolio doing?

    Because I'm guessing you aren't working hard enough on it. You really should consider what you are doing in that regard because income in minus expenses is simple math.

    Just get it done. No excuses if you haven't at least made a million by 45. Income minus expenses. Personal responsibility bro.

    He said:
    A message of personal responsibility and agency should be empowering not condescending. You do have choice, everyone had choice. I made no statement about how easy it is to make choices or to be successful and the world doesn't really owe you or anyone else anything.

    What you countered with doesn't bear on that at all.

    I agree with him, obviously: We need to understand the personal responsibility and agency we do have, even if it's not total agency. If we believe we have no control over any aspect to any degree, we truly have none, but only because we're not seeing the (perhaps meager) tools on the workbench in front of us. If we believe we are manipulated victims, the focus is on what we can't control; that's an unproductive focus.

    To say that we have (some) control and influence over our situation says nothing about how easy progress will be, or how successful we'll be.

    I think the same thing does apply to finances, BTW: I'm old, and retired, as are many of my friends. The people who looked at the financial workbench with a clear eye in their youth, and figured out what tools than they had and how to use them, have done better overall than those who believed they had no control, or didn't think about it. Doesn't mean it was easy, doesn't mean they were bang-up successful in a big way, didn't mean some weren't set back by illness or other uncontrollables . . . but they were more successful than they would've been had they not taken responsibility, and used what few tools they had as best they could.

    You're doing exactly those things when you keep trying, and end up figuring out what works, and moving down in skirt size.

    To say that a message of responsibility and agency is empowering is not to say that people aren't working hard. It's to say that working hard is worthwhile.

    In the same circumstances, people who focus on their own agency make better progress than people who focus on what's being done to them by others. Easy progress? No. To the most ultimate imaginable success? No. But more progress.

    P.S. I don't understand where habits come from, if they don't flow from choices.

    Absolutely. When I chose to focus on my weight, eating habits, and exercise. I have success. When I stop focusing on those things, I may or may not have success. It's more by happenstance, if I do, and the results are not the same.

    Finances are exactly the same. When I make the choice to be purposeful with my money, I do much better. In fact, I started focusing on my finances in September of last year, and am financially in a much better position because of it. I can assure you, the last year has not been easy, but it was worth it.

    I do, however, seem to have difficulties focusing on both at the same time. So it comes down to priorities. I can intensely focus on one or the other, or I can kind of focus on both. Regardless of which of these I chose, it is my choice.

    Not everyone is going to have the same results. We can chose to do the best we can, or we can chose to blame others.