Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Now THAT might just explain a major difference b'twn liberals & conservatives right there. The conservative empathizes but accepts reality; the liberal sympathizes but wishes for a different reality, whether it's realistically attainable or not.

Yin and yang. There's no progress without progressives; conservatives provide caution and reflection. Honest ones do, anyway.

[Go Wildcats]

So far you are the strongest advocate for identity politics. Your statement below ascribed people into three groups. Conservatives are realists, Liberals are impractical and everyone else is selfish. Interesting take.

Originally Posted by Exile

Now THAT might just explain a major difference b'twn liberals & conservatives right there. The conservative empathizes but accepts reality; the liberal sympathizes but wishes for a different reality, whether it's realistically attainable or not.

And then there are those who, despite superficial allegiance, are really in neither camp. These are the ones who claim superior moral insight in knowing what's best for others, but in reality are only advocating for themselves.

[wtmf]

remember the video of the man being assaulted by the police for refusing to accept the bribe. as the story goes 6 crew were needed at the destination and there were not enough volunteers so the airline selected the man that was later assaulted and litterly DRAGGED off the plane.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

So you're saying that we should ignore the obvious differences and facts to not offend and to get along? That is one reason why Peer review studies show that they are failing. Those photos ARE representative of the respective parties. People tend to hire others who are like them. Thats the point of the post, to show that one party is diverse. Race is but one aspect of the diversity. Again, demographics show one party is diverse, the other is not. This is factual.

I'm saying your partisanship is transparent and your posts are pointless. You can only offend if someone else chooses to become offended. And for that to happen someone has to care what you think more than you do. Getting along often entails being more interested in what others think and not consumed with your own self-importance. Maybe you have a subject closer to the thread topic you'd like to share.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

So far you are the strongest advocate for identity politics. Your statement below ascribed people into three groups. Conservatives are realists, Liberals are impractical and everyone else is selfish. Interesting take.

And nobody was divided up based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other immutable or irrelevant characteristic. Glad you found my take on it interesting. I find yours rather stale, boring, and unnecessarily polarizing.

[Go Wildcats]

I did share a very on point study, which you chose to ignore to take a swipe at me. You inserted yourself into a reply of mine directed to another poster. I also then pointed out peer review studies are becoming hi jacked by the same notion that educated people are more likely to ignore facts that fly in the face of their core beliefs. Would you care to read the former or the latter?

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm saying your partisanship is transparent and your posts are pointless. You can only offend if someone else chooses to become offended. And for that to happen someone has to care what you think more than you do. Getting along often entails being more interested in what others think and not consumed with your own self-importance. Maybe you have a subject closer to the thread topic you'd like to share.

[Go Wildcats]

And yet here you are.

Originally Posted by Exile

And nobody was divided up based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other immutable or irrelevant characteristic. Glad you found my take on it interesting. I find yours rather stale, boring, and unnecessarily polarizing.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wierd metaphor, bro. A smoker would be better off if they quit smoking, and an alcoholic would be better off if they quit drinking. These are still facts, regardless of whether voicing them has any effect or not.

For what it's worth this forum has an ignore feature that you can activate by clicking on the username that you wish to ignore.

[Go Wildcats]

I avoid doing that so i don't fall prey to echo chambers. But I can see the attraction to it though.

Originally Posted by Singularity

For what it's worth this forum has an ignore feature that you can activate by clicking on the username that you wish to ignore.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

I did share a very on point study, which you chose to ignore to take a swipe at me. You inserted yourself into a reply of mine directed to another poster. I also then pointed out peer review studies are becoming hi jacked by the same notion that educated people are more likely to ignore facts that fly in the face of their core beliefs. Would you care to read the former or the latter?

Nothing wrong with your studies, but your insistence on the basest form of partisanship frankly makes reading them less appealing. I may get around to it though, along with Mike's.

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

And yet here you are.

Indeed. The price of trying to get some insight into how others who I mostly like & respect have opinions often at variance from mine. It's one of those all-too-rare opportunities, but all the political bias will probably defeat the effort once again.

[Go Wildcats]

Just realized I forgot to attach the study on the peer review hi-jacking study.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

An emerging field of “meta science” has been documenting flaws in current scientific endeavors including in current medical studies- scientists are using flawed statistical methods to get positive publishable studies. I have difficulty following the science and am leaning on a friend to help me understand, but find it fascinating.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

For what it's worth this forum has an ignore feature that you can activate by clicking on the username that you wish to ignore.

Often tempting, but I find it preferable not to. There's often something to be learned about yourself and others.

[Go Wildcats]

EXILE, I'm sure your a great guy to share a beer (though I prefer bourbon and rum), but you've latched on to a post and inferred incorrectly of its purpose.

Consider this a cyber olive branch and high five.

Originally Posted by Exile

Nothing wrong with your studies, but your insistence on the basest form of partisanship frankly makes reading them less appealing. I may get around to it though, along with Mike's.



Indeed. The price of trying to get some insight into how others who I mostly like & respect have opinions often at variance from mine. It's one of those all-too-rare opportunities, but all the political bias will probably defeat the effort once again.

[kmacdonald]

Looks like the puppets have come out to play.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Just realized I forgot to attach the study on the peer review hi-jacking study.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

An emerging field of “meta science” has been documenting flaws in current scientific endeavors including in current medical studies- scientists are using flawed statistical methods to get positive publishable studies. I have difficulty following the science and am leaning on a friend to help me understand, but find it fascinating.

If you really want to offend, I'd suggest posting this over in the latest climate change thread, i.e. "There Is No Planet B."

More seriously, I have a brother who is a doc and an associate prof at a large medical school, and he complains about this sort of thing all the time.