Twitter user Gurwinder regularly shares thoughts on various topics, including psychology, philosophy, and politics. However, one of their recent uploads offers all the above. And then some.
On February 11, Gurwinder posted a mega-thread, promising to broaden everyone's understanding of the world in just a few minutes.
In it, there are 40 concepts about human behavior and the world we live in. Scientists often spend years studying, researching, and analyzing complex phenomena but Gurwinder cuts to the very core of their findings and manages to explain everything in plain English.
Whether you decide to scroll through the entire thread or have time for only a couple of entries, I can assure you that it will be well worth it.
This post may include affiliate links.
Like the spinach error? http://super-myths.blogspot.com/2010/12/spinach-iron-decimal-point-error-myth.html?m=1
Such conclusions begin with a scientific method that allows us to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), designed to support or contradict a theory.
And that's really exciting. "As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data, you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."
According to Highline College, the steps of the scientific method are something like this:
- Make an observation or observations;
- Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis;
- Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced;
- Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary;
- Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.
Few years back, had been promoted to low lvl manager and was going nuts, trying to fix every problem so as to be well evaluated. One long time high lvl manager saw me once and said: "if we solve every problem we will not be needed to come to work tomorrow".
"Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, also told Live Science.
"The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."
Yes, we're finding that out now, to our great cost. The psychological harm that would have to be done for people to admit "He DIDN'T make America great again; he only passed one piece of legislation (tax cuts) which increased the debt and deficit astonishingly, and there's increasing evidence he is a white supremacist and wannabe-autocrat who lies endlessly and is actually guilty of everything he has accused others of" is massive, and people want to avoid it, so they keep defending him. Those who follow this comment with remarks like "living rent free in your head" will prove my point ;)
I would argue that people make their avatar based on the personality they want to have/show.
The backbone of the scientific method is generating and testing a hypothesis. After an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory explains a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato. Take the law of conservation of energy, for example. It is the first law of thermodynamics and says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"
If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed and if you read the newspaper you are misinformed. - Mark Twain
If I remember correctly, it wasn't that people wanted to criticise, it was that they couldn't stand letting a false statement stand uncorrected. It's the need to go "I think you'll find.." which isn't quite the same at criticism (and a concept I do realize I've just demonstrated)
Laws are usually considered to be without exception, though some get modified over time if further testing finds discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.
But this does not mean theories are meaningless. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists have to conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines. Saying something is "just a theory" can be misleading as the scientific definition of "theory" and the layperson's understanding of it can be very different. To most people, a theory is a hunch but in science, it's the framework for observations and facts.
As a previous journalist I always took "burying the lede" as a criticism that you missed the real story in your story and need to rethink it. Outside of organizations who are only interested in propaganda (Fox News) most journalists I know would be ashamed, and have no motivation, to do this purposely.
I read that truly objective journalism has been on the decline for decades and that virtually every bit of news is tinged by the journalist‘s view. This is dangerous, of course - as much as it is human. I wonder whether it’s somehow linked to the need to correct others?
Load More Replies...
My grandpa was a newspaper editor and he always said if the headline asks a question (ie "Is chicken bad for your children?"), the answer will be "NO" and will be in the last paragraph. If the answer was yes, the headline would have stated it as a fact ("Chicken is bad for your children").
Occasionally I see this and I think it's a cheeky yet muted way of sneaking a story in, which relies on the audience to read between the lines whilst the reporter does their best job of drawing those lines. Think of the above as "Tell me the US has insane military spending without telling me the US has insane military spending." A recent example was the BBC reporting on Matt Hancock. The entire story was about how public and government had lost confidence in this health minister for breaching his own COVID guidelines regarding social distancing. The breach was that he kissed and embraced a coworker, with no mention of the fact that he's married, she's married, attractive, and also his own aide whom he secretly hired with little qualification or experience in government or health. As if the journalist was coyly saying, "Affair? What affair? Noooooo, I'm not a gossip columnist, just talking about government here! 🙃"
I saw in my Facebook feed a headline by Breitbart: "Spotify Dumps Neil Young". I almost pity the fools who read that website.
Neil Young gave Spotify a choice: keep my music or keep Joe Rogan. Spotify kept Joe Rogan.
Load More Replies... 
The headline is not wrong. That chart shows a steady increase for China. We could also share Russia has decreased their military spending, and it be correct according to this chart. However... The headline also served and succeeded at its other purpose: took my attention away (very briefly) from the US line. This seriously reminds of the exams we'd get in public school. Study the chart, makes some inferences and answer the questions.
Right?! The bigger headline is how much more other countries spend in comparison
It made me so upset in the Marines, I gave up on writing. I was a Combat Correspondent and Media Chief for the base in Public Affairs. I would interview people (our unit was in the Battle of Fallujah....I would write gruesome details that would put the reader right by the Marines' or especially the Corpsman's side)...Anyway, I was told by my major that although heartbreaking and incredible....it won't fit because there are too many military wives, family and whatnot who read their publication. No need to upset them. I felt destroyed because one particular Corpsman didn't talk to anyone...I got him to open up, told me horror that I wrote...and the next week it was cut down to, "Yeah it was tough, but we all hung together..." Then they print it with my name on it. ...still haunts me, what that poor corpsman must have thought. He finally opened up. Finally gave his story. Read it, and essentially looks like I screwed him over. That hurts. His story should have been printed. Propaganda.
Look at CNN taking a nosedive in credibility. They've misled and outright lied, only to have to admit later (very quietly) that they were wrong. They will sit there and let a guest spout off refuted lies but not correct them- thereby letting the lies continue. Look at CNN's and MSNBC's ratings. The public has no faith in what they are peddling.
CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, the list goes on and on and on of those who do this
No, no, no. Aren't you the same person who wrongly "corrected" the correct usage of British English not long ago? Please stop "correcting" people who are already correct. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede
Load More Replies...
This doesn't work on Deborah! I got her to do me a favour once, now the resentment levels are through the roof!
Tribalism is less dangerous if people also develop some self-awareness. The ability to self-examine and say "I may not be being consistent here" or "If I believe X (which I like) then logically that leads to Y (which I don't like at all) but the two are bound together so I can't just pick X and ignore Y" is absolutely crucial to being balanced but a lot of people do not seem to be able to be self-aware at all.
Probably all of us know someone who constantly questions and challenges everything they see and hear. No matter how much evidence is in front of them.
"The quality of cynicism, in its extreme, can be one component of the personality trait known as Machiavellianism," Susan Krauss Whitbourne, a professor emerita of psychological and brain sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, wrote in Psychology Today. "You might already know what this quality is just by the term alone, but its formal definition includes not just a tendency to manipulate and exploit others, but also a deeply-held belief that others are, as the saying goes, 'out to get them.'"
I want to upvote this entry but of course they're all numbered so I can't! This is so important. My favorite example of this right now is climate change. We have SO MANY SOLUTIONS and around 25% of emissions reductions can be achieved at the normal household level. And yet there are so many people saying "Oh, it's all big business, it's out of our hands, we're doomed" etc. We are not doomed. Things are bad but you CAN take action. Top thing you can do: 1. Throw away less food. Next best: 2. Eat less meat (particularly beef). Those are ACHIEVABLE. Problem-solving FTW! 🙂
Some of my teachers uses to tell us to find someone who can sit with us so that we can explain the things we learnt that day. Or at least sir a doll or something in front of us and teach it. I have subjected my mom to a lot of my "teaching" over the years and still do. She studied commerce and I'm a science student so that makes it hard sometimes but I think she understands some of the stuff I talk about. And it makes me really happy when she does
If you grew up in Germany after the war and before 1989, you know how hard the Cold War was fought in our heads. Both, West and East have constantly been trying to picture each other as the villain.
"In research on the underlying motivation of the Machiavellian, TU Dorman University's Christian Blötner and Sebastian Bergold proposed that what they call 'avoidance' motivation leads these individuals to experience a deep sense of distrust and highly 'negative views of human nature," Whitbourne explained.
But not all cynics would qualify as people high on this overall trait of Machiavellianism. "It's possible that the very skeptical have simply developed a so-called 'cognitive style,' or analytical type of mindset that causes them to look at situations from all possible angles."
Or simply wait the 48 hours after forming opinions and beliefs before voicing them?
I disagree. For example, graphs A and B could be of the same data but viewed from different axes. Likewise, C could be the same data, but more accurately shown.
"Indeed, you might argue that some form of cynicism is adaptive," Whitbourne said. "Think about the highly gullible people you know who are easily swayed by whatever winds might be sweeping over the media landscape. Not only could they put themselves at risk for being swindled by the ads that fund the media landscape, but they can also be led to accept faulty information that puts their health and well-being in jeopardy. Maybe it is better to think twice or perhaps three times before rushing into such a poor decision."
I've also heard this argument misapplied to a degree. If you have someone who is a constant, selfish, lying manipulator, and that person seems to come up with a good idea, it's time to examine that idea very closely. Not because that person couldn't possibly suggest something helpful and good, but because of the high likelihood that they're presenting misleading facts along with it, or misrepresenting what the effects will be, because you know the person must have a selfish agenda behind the idea or they would never ever bring it up.
Whenever my mom tells me some shocking news she learned from F'book, I assume it's not true.
In fact, knowing why some people believe in unsubstantiated claims and why misinformation guides their actions can be a valuable tool for resisting these traps. If you question loud phrases, you aren't automatically a cynic. Maybe you're just (a very healthy) skeptic.
The President would outsource the kill and avoid confronting reality personally.
This is basically what Diogenes the Cynic said. You have to get outside of your society's norms to see your society as it is.
See also: "Sugar makes kids hyperactive", and the myths surrounding MSG.
Describing Zersetzung like this, would be like describing the Hindenburg disaster as 'an inconveniently timed surprise campfire'. It was systematic deconstruction of people's lives to prevent them from any rebellion against the state - including ruining their careers, their home life, separating them from their loved ones, their children. It was targeting the human soul, it wasn't an April Fool's prank.
I am so glad I fulfilled my biological imperative already. Now I don't have to impress anybody.
People loved the thread and some even provided more interesting insights
www.yourfallacy.is and www.yourbias.is are great sites with similar content.
Dunning-Kruger is one of the most unusual and inventive concepts, but by golly, it's so damn true.
The irony of Dunning-Kruger is it's one of the most known, but also most misunderstood effects of it's kind. And most people don't realize they didn't get it right.
Load More Replies...
I have the Tony Effect, named after my friend. It is thus: the problem where someone can't take a compliment, turning everything into a "no u" battle. I have the Gracie-Inara Effect: in every children's choir there will be that one kid who sings the loudest and the most out of tune. And finally, I have the Queen Kate Issue, where if you think about someone as a romantic interest for long enough, you'll actually think you're in love with them. These are things I have experienced and what I have found to be true. And now I show them to the world.
If I never read anything on BP again, this piece will be the one I will remember!
Very interesting. However, after reading the typical left rants ( I'm neither left or right. Registered independent) I've come to the conclusion that skagsy is the the smartest poster on here. My favorites were the ones where they stated "oh he meant this not what he said". No, I'm pretty sure he said exactly what he meant. Again, interesting. I've heard/read about half of these previously but always good to review.
The last two commetns made me laugh. Personally, I probably use Hanlon'S Razor in my life, the most and I suffer most under the Peter principle, but there were a lot of additional nuggets in this thread-
Honest question... Are there really that many people that are so obsessed with being "Anti-Trump" still, or is BP just filled with bots and trolls continuing to try and stir division. Like #14 above, it was just unnecessary. I know that BP is very left leaning as are (what seems) most people on here, but seriously, it is almost every post there is some anti trump/right wing comment. I think I am just about done with BP because of all of the hate filled comments by people that claim to be tolerant. Just wondering how much is by actual people and how much is Russian/Chinese/Whoever bad actors sewing more division to keep the US divided.
PTSD sticks around. Some are still miserable because or the crap he pulled, and is continuing to pull. Every day theres some new revelation in the news about some bad thing he did. Having family members that are forever-trumpers is like having a scab picked off so the wound never gets to heal.
Load More Replies...
www.yourfallacy.is and www.yourbias.is are great sites with similar content.
Dunning-Kruger is one of the most unusual and inventive concepts, but by golly, it's so damn true.
The irony of Dunning-Kruger is it's one of the most known, but also most misunderstood effects of it's kind. And most people don't realize they didn't get it right.
Load More Replies... I have the Tony Effect, named after my friend. It is thus: the problem where someone can't take a compliment, turning everything into a "no u" battle. I have the Gracie-Inara Effect: in every children's choir there will be that one kid who sings the loudest and the most out of tune. And finally, I have the Queen Kate Issue, where if you think about someone as a romantic interest for long enough, you'll actually think you're in love with them. These are things I have experienced and what I have found to be true. And now I show them to the world.
If I never read anything on BP again, this piece will be the one I will remember!
Very interesting. However, after reading the typical left rants ( I'm neither left or right. Registered independent) I've come to the conclusion that skagsy is the the smartest poster on here. My favorites were the ones where they stated "oh he meant this not what he said". No, I'm pretty sure he said exactly what he meant. Again, interesting. I've heard/read about half of these previously but always good to review.
The last two commetns made me laugh. Personally, I probably use Hanlon'S Razor in my life, the most and I suffer most under the Peter principle, but there were a lot of additional nuggets in this thread-
Honest question... Are there really that many people that are so obsessed with being "Anti-Trump" still, or is BP just filled with bots and trolls continuing to try and stir division. Like #14 above, it was just unnecessary. I know that BP is very left leaning as are (what seems) most people on here, but seriously, it is almost every post there is some anti trump/right wing comment. I think I am just about done with BP because of all of the hate filled comments by people that claim to be tolerant. Just wondering how much is by actual people and how much is Russian/Chinese/Whoever bad actors sewing more division to keep the US divided.
PTSD sticks around. Some are still miserable because or the crap he pulled, and is continuing to pull. Every day theres some new revelation in the news about some bad thing he did. Having family members that are forever-trumpers is like having a scab picked off so the wound never gets to heal.
Load More Replies...