Coronavirus

[gregs24]

4 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Nutters, or people who have a different view to you? To use the analogy from @ramjet how is the stance of the anti-vaxxers any different, really, than that say from a Jehovah's Witness who would refuse blood based transfusion/medical intervention even if it was the only way to save their life due to their belief that it is against God's will?  Does that make them a "nutter", or just someone who has a different point of view/belief system? Even though the empirical evidence "proves" that the blood transfusion would save their life, is that a reason to over ride or dismiss what they believe in?

It's very easy to use generic statements like "there have always been nutters" when it looks like you are referring to someone who does not share your beliefs, PoV, or point of understanding.

People who refuse to acknowledge facts or deny them, promote falsehoods, create conspiracies. 

Having a different view is fine if you have evidence to back it up, but when they just make up fairy stories then no it isn't OK

There are legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated, but they don't include 5G, nanoparticles, alien eggs or the vaccine kills your children. So yes, the former is OK, the latter are nutters.

4 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Typical - now we see folks demeaning those with mental health issues. Yet another N word added to the offensive register 🤭

Glass houses and all that Barry !🤣

Edited January 4, 2022 by gregs24

[yeller77]

4 hours ago, Bibs said:

Some cognitive bias examples... Most conspiracy theorists can tick a few of these boxes, if not most of them!

1. Foundational Attribution Error. When someone else is late, it's because they're lazy. When you're late, it was the traffic.  

2. Self-Serving Bias. Attributing all your successes to skill or effect and all your screw ups to bad luck or a bad situation. 

3. In-Group Favoritism. We tend to favor those in our in-group versus those who are different from us.  

4. Bandwagon Effect. Everyone likes to jump on a trendy bandwagon.   

5. Groupthink. Also just what it sounds like. Going along with the group to avoid conflict. The downfall of many a large organization. 

6. Halo Effect. Assuming a person has other positive traits because you observed they have one. Just because someone is confident or beautiful doesn't mean they are also smart or kind, for example. 

7. Moral Luck. Assuming winners are morally superior.  

8. False Consensus. Thinking most people agree with you even when that's not the case. 

9. Curse of Knowledge. Assuming everyone else knows what you know once you've learned something. 

10. Spotlight Effect. Overestimating how much other people are thinking about you.  

11. Availability Heuristic. Why we worry more about rare airplane crashes than objectively much deadlier road accidents. People make judgments based on how easy it is to call an example to mind (and plane crashes are memorable). 

12. Defensive Attribution. Getting more upset at someone who commits a crime we feel we could have fallen victim to ourselves.  

13. Just-World Hypothesis. The tendency to believe the world is just, so any observed injustice was really deserved. 

14. Naive Realism. Thinking we have a better grasp of reality than everyone else.  

15. Naive Cynicism. Thinking everyone else is just selfishly out for themselves.  

16. Forer Effect (aka Barnum Effect). The bias behind the appeal of astrology. We see vague statements as applying specifically to us even when they apply to most everybody. 

17. Dunning Kruger Effect. One of my personal favorites. This principle states that the less competent you are, the more confident you're likely to be because you're too incompetent to understand exactly how bad you are. The opposite is also true -- those with greater skills are often plagued with doubt. 

18. Anchoring. The way in which the first piece of information we hear tends to influence the terms or framing of an entire discussion.  

19. Automation Bias. Over relying on automated systems like GPS or autocorrect.   

20. Google Effect (aka Digital Amnesia). You're more likely to forget it if you can just Google it. 

21. Reactance. Doing the opposite of what you're told when you feel bullied or backed into a corner. Very topical. 

22. Confirmation Bias. We tend to look for and be more easily convinced by information that confirms our existing beliefs. A big one in politics. 

23. Backfire Effect. Repeatedly mentioning a false belief to disprove it sometimes ends up just making people believe it more. 

24. Third-Person Effect. The belief that others are more affected by a common phenomenon than you are.  

25. Belief Bias. Judging an argument not on its own merits but by how plausible we think its conclusion is. 

26. Availability Cascade. The more people believe (and talk about) something the more likely we are to think it's true.

27. Declinism. Romanticizing the past and thinking we live in an age of decline.  

28. Status Quo Bias. People tend to like things to stay the same, even if change would be beneficial. 

29. Sunk Cost Fallacy (AKA Escalation of Commitment). Throwing good money (or effort) after bad to avoid facing up to a loss. 

30. Gambler's Fallacy. Thinking future probabilities are affected by past events. In sports, the hot hand. 

31. Zero-Risk Bias. We prefer to reduce small risks to zero rather than reduce risks by a larger amount that doesn't get them to zero. 

32. Framing Effect. Drawing different conclusions from the same information depending on how it's framed. 

33. Stereotyping. Just what it sounds like -- having general beliefs about entire groups of people (and applying them to individuals whether you know them or not).  

34. Outgroup Homogeneity Bias. Seeing the diversity within the groups to which you belong but imagining people in groups to which you don't belong are all alike. 

35. Authority Bias. Putting too much stock in authority figures. 

36. Placebo Effect. This isn't strictly a cognitive bias according to Musk's graphic, but still useful to know. If you think something will work, you're likely to experience a small positive effect whether it really does or not. 

37. Survivorship Bias. We remember the winners and forget about the many, invisible losers. Big in startups. 

38. Tachypsychia. How exhaustion, drugs, or trauma mess with our sense of time. 

39. Law of Triviality (AKA Bike-Shedding). Giving excessive weight to trivial issues while ignoring more important ones. 

40. Zeigarnik Effect. Uncompleted tasks haunt our brains until we finish them. 

41. Ikea Effect. We tend to overvalue things we had a hand in creating. (In my experience not true of Billy bookcases, but still ...)  

42. Ben Franklin Effect. We tend to think more positively about people once we've done a favor for them. 

43. Bystander Effect. Again, not strictly a cognitive bias, but important. Describes how people are less likely to take responsibility to act if they're in a crowd. 

44. Suggestibility. Seen most often in children, this is when we mistake an idea or question someone else said for your own memory. 

45. False Memory. Mistaking something you imagined for a memory.  

46. Cryptomnesia. The opposite of the one above. Thinking a true memory is something you imagined. 

47. Clustering Illusion. The tendency to "see" patterns in random data. 

48. Pessimism Bias. Always seeing the glass as half empty.  

49. Optimism Bias. Always seeing the glass as half full. 

50. Blind Spot Bias. The bias that makes us think we don't have as many biases as other people. You do.  

TL:DR, (Sorry, Bibs)

Boils down to: definition of alcoholic: anyone who drinks more than me!

 

[andydclements]

I was looking for the reverse of no 28.: People assume that something new must be better than the Status Quo even if there are no known problems with the existing situation.

[Barrykearley]

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, gregs24 said:

People who refuse to acknowledge facts or deny them, promote falsehoods, create conspiracies. 

Having a different view is fine if you have evidence to back it up, but when they just make up fairy stories then no it isn't OK

Not what I said re the example I used which was based on a "belief" system, NOT on some wild conspiracies etc.  You seem to want to deny people's choice through their belief (as the won't have the evidence to back up their belief as, as far as I know, no one has met a God within living memory) as the current "science" provides you with evidence that you believe in.  A bit like clairvoyants, scientists get things wrong and todays science is not necessarily where science will go tomorrow.

By all means bang on with your evidence to inform people - (though there are plenty of times over the past two years were the science has been found to be wrong/wanting and quite contradictory with not all the science properly backed up by evidence! - to educate people in your belief backed up by the evidence that you believe in. But having a different view without "evidence" to back it up does not automatically invalidate that persons belief or make them a "nutter".

[Barrykearley]

Fret not @C8RKH there really are times I’d rather be a swizzle eyed nutter, sorry for any offence to snowflakes, millennials, gender confused or Labour voting individuals - this however is one of those times.

[Barrykearley]

14 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

scientists get things wrong and todays science is not necessarily where science will go tomorrow.

At many many times in my lifetime they have indeed been wrong. Off the top of my head medically - I can think of thalidomide which my mum was indeed offered and declined, hiv/hepatitis blood transfusions, vioxx painkiller, vaginal mesh implants, silicone implants etc. Anyone remember the vaccine trial that killer a few and others lost limbs ?

as for science - there was no shortage of nuclear scientists thinking it was a brilliant idea to let folks watch them blowing the living sh*te out of the world oceans. 

[thebartman]

Wine O'Clock it is then ..... 

[yeller77]

1 hour ago, Barrykearley said:

At many many times in my lifetime they have indeed been wrong. Off the top of my head medically - I can think of thalidomide which my mum was indeed offered and declined, hiv/hepatitis blood transfusions, vioxx painkiller, vaginal mesh implants, silicone implants etc. Anyone remember the vaccine trial that killer a few and others lost limbs ?

 

Oh, I don't know. There are some that say that silicone implants did a great service to mankind.

[pete]

And the same people who made a fortune putting them in made another fortune taking them out

[yeller77]

8 minutes ago, pete said:

And the same people who made a fortune putting them in made another fortune taking them out

And with a nice cut for the lawyers!

[C8RKH]

From, of all places, the Guardian. Now, we can all remember the simulations used for COVID only 2 years ago......   A lot of them showed these traits too.  No conspiracy. No promotion of falsehoods. BUT, a healthy dose of scepticism that through my experience has shown me that many of those whom think they are the most intelligent, and worthy of us all, because they do "science" or similar, quite often get it wrong as they either (1) can't believe they could ever be wrong or (2) are just biased that their "belief" is the best.

I "listen" to scientists. But I don't always fully believe what they peddle as "fact" - as anything truly new or leading edge is based on the "best knowledge" they have now, which does mean they have yet discovered "all" the knowledge. So, I use my own judgement to decide what is best for me based on the information presented. For the record, I'm not a "nutter" anti-vaxxer and have had both jabs, the booster, the flu jab and will have any further boosters offered as I do believe that some protection is better than no protection. It

 

When a theory is shown to be incorrect or a publication in error, it is all too easy to think that the scientist who came up with this theory is a liar or a dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain. Or as Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, puts it:

Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.

Smith goes on to talk about this in the context of a talk given by the "brilliant" and "cuddly" John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford (while Smith assures us that he would never describe a woman as cuddly, even if she were). Ioannidis has published a report in PLOS Medicine entitled "Why most published research findings are false". Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error, based on "simulations that show for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true".

[jep]

Australian Open tennis exemption: is the current champion now called No-vac Djokovic? 

[Barrykearley]

Glad to see theres uproar over that. About time governments were taken to task over the limiting of individuals rights and lock downs.

[jep]

Australian government is very totalitarian, effectively making Aus nationals overseas exciled. I assume this partly stems from their inherent insecurity, having invaded the territory originally. The treatment of the indigenous population is still a disgrace for a so-called mature democracy. Likewise refugees. 

Justin

 

[Barrykearley]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/macron-declares-his-covid-strategy-is-to-piss-off-the-unvaccinated

what a fantastic example of modern elected leaders. Bring on the backlash 👍

[Kimbers]

Am I the only one that thinks the only reason the Govt haven't imposed tighter restrictions is because they would have to compensate businesses such as restaurants and hospitality?

I know several people very well in this industry (My son in law is a Director and Exec Chef of a large local Restaurant Group and my local landlord etc) and Omicron has virtually destroyed their business anyway as people just aren't going out in enough numbers to make it worthwhile for them to run a normal service. They actually want Boris to lock down so they can get some help.

What Boris and those in charge have actually done is stop people going out with words and recommendations but put nothing in place for any business who suffers like they would have to if there were further restrictions. However what this is really doing is making it very difficult for any business in those sectors to survive. Banks have stopped lending to them as they are now classified as "High Risk", so they struggle to get help. Its all very underhand IMHO.

 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

100% what Kimbers states. But on the other hand, why should the tax payer continue to bail out the hospitality trade? 

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, jep said:

The treatment of the indigenous population is still a disgrace for a so-called mature democracy. Likewise refugees. 

Likewise with America! Somehow though the indigenous population in the US looks like, they are treated worse and have less rights than EVERY other incomer!

I think the decision to provide the exemption was crass and untenable. Those who made me need to leave their positions.  Novak has the right not to be vaccinated, but he has to also respect the "rules" that each nation has put in place.

27 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

what a fantastic example of modern elected leaders. Bring on the backlash

Nice to see he has decided to piss-off people other than the British for a change.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

I think Djokovic is determined to get that record 21st Grand Slam title, whatever the cost. Don’t forget he helped spread the disease amongst tennis pros with his own silly tournament a while back.

[Barrykearley]

9 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Nice to see he has decided to piss-off people other than the British for a change.

I’m glad you had the insight to identify that chap - this is one of the architects of the EU response to Brexit. The same people whom consider his opinions and policies valid over vaccinations are the very folks whom criticise the uk government for enacting the will of the people.

[C8RKH]

11 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

why should the tax payer continue to bail out the hospitality trade? 

Agreed. But let's also see some Public Sector jobs put at risk or lost too! After all, why should we subsidise them and shield them from the risks and impacts to their jobs and livelihoods when they are not working or delivering services at a reduced level? Surely the pain needs to be shared equally across the public and private sectors?

@Kimbers - hear what you are saying. However, we have too many "chains" in the UK selling either over priced stuff (Starbucks, Costa etc) or selling quite awful stuff very cheap (hungry Horse etc). Maybe, as part of a rebalance we get to realise that cooking healthy food at home, is better for us mentally, physically and nutritionally and we get back to going out for meals as a treat, as opposed to just an easy option? 

I feel for people in Hospitality, but how long do we subsidise their businesses for?  And are you willing to pay more taxes to fund it?

4 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

I think Djokovic is determined to get that record 21st Grand Slam title, whatever the cost. Don’t forget he helped spread the disease amongst tennis pros with his own silly tournament a while back.

Good job Tennis is not run by the FIA and Massi isn't an Umpire. He might have a chance....

[gregs24]

Beyond nutters

 

 

[gregs24]

17 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Not what I said re the example I used which was based on a "belief" system, NOT on some wild conspiracies etc.  You seem to want to deny people's choice through their belief (as the won't have the evidence to back up their belief as, as far as I know, no one has met a God within living memory) as the current "science" provides you with evidence that you believe in.  A bit like clairvoyants, scientists get things wrong and todays science is not necessarily where science will go tomorrow.

By all means bang on with your evidence to inform people - (though there are plenty of times over the past two years were the science has been found to be wrong/wanting and quite contradictory with not all the science properly backed up by evidence! - to educate people in your belief backed up by the evidence that you believe in. But having a different view without "evidence" to back it up does not automatically invalidate that persons belief or make them a "nutter".

I think you will find nobody has ever 'met' God full stop - Jesus maybe!

I made my position very clear, evidence based medicine. You don't need to 'believe' in anything that works based on evidence, it works whether you believe it or not. Planes fly, bridges don't fall down. Not because the people using them have to believe they will.

Comparing scientific research to clairvoyance is ridiculous! Scientists know what they don't know, they don't just fill in the gaps with fairy stories.

17 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Correct. Science is a process not a thing. Unfortunately some see science as politics these days, especially in the US so they just question everything that isn't part of their agenda.

[gregs24]

17 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

At many many times in my lifetime they have indeed been wrong. Off the top of my head medically - I can think of thalidomide which my mum was indeed offered and declined, hiv/hepatitis blood transfusions, vioxx painkiller, vaginal mesh implants, silicone implants etc. Anyone remember the vaccine trial that killer a few and others lost limbs ?

as for science - there was no shortage of nuclear scientists thinking it was a brilliant idea to let folks watch them blowing the living sh*te out of the world oceans. 

But they also get things right, very right and very often in many walks of life.

Blanket 'anti science' rhetoric (especially over the pond where there is a close link between extreme right wing politics and anti science sentiment) shouldn't be confused with legitimate challenge to scientific theory.

Thalidamide is actually an incredibly useful drug and is being used today, together with derivatives. Clearly the use is tightly controlled, but this is a good example of the scientific understanding of the drug has developed and changed the use of the product. My mother did use it, fortunately without any side effects. Not to deny the catastrophic side effects it caused in the 60's.