4 ms·
It's an interesting reaction. "I didn't bother looking at the studies, but I bet the doctors who studied this didn't realize that correlation != causation, didn
by Chathamization 9y ago
It's an interesting reaction. "I didn't bother looking at the studies, but I bet the doctors who studied this didn't realize that correlation != causation, didn't realize that Sri Lanka had a civil war, didn't realize Sri Lanka's economy was growing, etc."
It's worth keeping in mind when people wonder how there could be so many people who reject certain scientific findings. A lot of the time it's a similar attitude - "I'm not going to bother looking at the studies, but I'm guessing the people who studied it didn't think of the problem that immediately cam to my mind, and as such their results are probably wrong."
- achileas 9y agoI've always wondered if it was a defense mechanism of some people with certain attitudes about their own intelligence or achievement.
- tinymollusk 9y agoOutside of the slightly distasteful attitude ("I didn't bother" and "I bet" are slightly abrasive sounding), isn't the attitude one of the skeptic? It jibes with my understanding of how to make better decisions: don't start with the assumption something is true, question information before you store it in your brain. Annie Duke talks about this in her latest book.
- achileas 9y agoNo, that is being contrarian for its own sake. OP specifically said that they don't bother to look at or understand the actual research - that's not what a skeptic does.
- tinymollusk 9y agoI suppose I believe it's less important whether or not we collectively determine the correctness of the other person, and more important that I use their contrarianism to question my own knowledge. I'm less interested in judging their argument and more interested in using their comments to evaluate my own. Kind of a "less wrong" approach, but focused on my own model of reality.