People have LOT of attachments to concepts, thoughts and emotions. This is the main reason why. That includes most people even on this forum. Opinions are formed based on what we hear and see. We then attach ourselves to those opinions and they become "IMO". We don't want to hear alternatives. We come up with our own reasons to defy anything (even if new proven evidences) that oppose those opinions. The classic cognitive dissonance.
I went to a lady's house to answer a craigslist ad. After talking for a while and having nice conversations when it came to our jobs, told her I got fired because I refused the jab. She was surprised and asked why I didn't take the jab. Told her I heard bad things about it and I didn't think I needed it. She argued those are all false claims and insisted I need to take the jabs. She said why would doctors give bad things to people and that she was taking 2-3 shots every year! Nice lady, even sharp too, but the attachment to the belief that ALL doctors are good is so strong in her and the shots are protecting her from severe covid attacks - she admitted she still gets covid a few times a year but said paxlovid cures that in 3-4 days). I wasn't there to argue or change her mind as I wasn't prepared for those types of dialogs, besides she seemed pretty stubborn, so got the hell out of there after a few mins.
Thanks to the internet and the speed at which computers and technology have progressed, 'evidence' is basically 'what this person I happen to like said."
The arguments end up "That doesn't count because I don't want it to" or "I'm gonna call your source mean names until you give up and I declare myself winner"
well one thought which could sidestep the heated debate is because they didn't/don't know (by now they should, but I digress). "Doctors are people, too," would be one foot in the door...
I understand why you didn't push the issue, but it's a thought of course.
People have LOT of attachments to concepts, thoughts and emotions. This is the main reason why. That includes most people even on this forum. Opinions are formed based on what we hear and see. We then attach ourselves to those opinions and they become "IMO". We don't want to hear alternatives. We come up with our own reasons to defy anything (even if new proven evidences) that oppose those opinions. The classic cognitive dissonance.
I went to a lady's house to answer a craigslist ad. After talking for a while and having nice conversations when it came to our jobs, told her I got fired because I refused the jab. She was surprised and asked why I didn't take the jab. Told her I heard bad things about it and I didn't think I needed it. She argued those are all false claims and insisted I need to take the jabs. She said why would doctors give bad things to people and that she was taking 2-3 shots every year! Nice lady, even sharp too, but the attachment to the belief that ALL doctors are good is so strong in her and the shots are protecting her from severe covid attacks - she admitted she still gets covid a few times a year but said paxlovid cures that in 3-4 days). I wasn't there to argue or change her mind as I wasn't prepared for those types of dialogs, besides she seemed pretty stubborn, so got the hell out of there after a few mins.
Thanks to the internet and the speed at which computers and technology have progressed, 'evidence' is basically 'what this person I happen to like said."
The arguments end up "That doesn't count because I don't want it to" or "I'm gonna call your source mean names until you give up and I declare myself winner"
Getting information from the internet is like drinking from a fire hose. We all get a few drops here and there.
off-topic anecdote;
misread your post as thought just said hose, and immediately thought of a garden hose. reread and caught what i missed.
one train of thought later, and I'm thinking "I wonder how far a person standing on a firehose would get launched when the water was turned on...🤔"
The internet is also used by people to learn about themselves. I've changed for the better thanks to the internet.
Just think about how much good Jordan Peterson was able to do thanks to the internet.
well one thought which could sidestep the heated debate is because they didn't/don't know (by now they should, but I digress). "Doctors are people, too," would be one foot in the door...
I understand why you didn't push the issue, but it's a thought of course.
Poor woman, though...
But WHY do they?
Because critical thinking is not taught in schools anymore.
I took classes in logic and philosophy, and read books, and learned how to think critically.
Most poeple today have not, and so they don't know how to analyze information. They just accept "expert opinion" because they have no other option.
This has been done by design.
Exactly my point: she has never thought about questioning whether the "expert" really knows what he is talking about.
That's why psychology is the most important subject to research.