4 ms·

Being pessimistic just means having negative bias. Being cautious is emotionally neutral, we should strive for it, for sure. Acting only on negative predictio

Being pessimistic just means having negative bias. Being cautious is emotionally neutral, we should strive for it, for sure. Acting only on negative predictions without weighing in positive predictions or the uncertainty of the original prediction is stupid and unscientific, and likely the result of fear. That you see all the time right now. Where do people discuss the postponed cancer operations and their casualties, what is the cost of livelihoods destroyed, like yoga studios and hair dresser small businesses? How do you even measure it? Who's stating their opinion on coronavirus lockdown, while also adding the disclaimer about their steady and safe monthly salary as a conflict of interest? People who want to reopen don't care about the "money," they care about economical survival, most probably in most cases.

watwut 6y ago
I can do this too. Being optimistic just means having positive bias. My point was about optimistic bias you get when you frame every discussion about negative aspects of something as fear. Which is exactly what you was doing there. This rhetorical trick: > Why point out it could all go bad? That seriously can't count for an intelligent assessment of the situation. It's an expression of fear. Why don't you read the optimistic reading more often? It's almost like people think fear was virtuous. Buying this, there is no way to rationally point out that things could be bad. You just ruled out arguments of the people you disagree with without engaging with them. Only optimistic prediction or information is allowed in rational discussion. > Where do people discuss the postponed cancer operations and their casualties, what is the cost of livelihoods destroyed, like yoga studios and hair dresser small businesses? How do you even measure it? I distinctively remember those being discussed. You can discuss them. I am not saying that these should not be discussed. But they are not optimistic. They are pessimistic and if I wanted to frame them as "fear", I could. And it would be equally dishonest rhetorical trick.
- febeling 6y ago
  The "rhetorical trick" is your construction here, possibly even unaware. I didn't argue for taking only positives into account. I could go on an say you use the straw man fallacy against me now, but let's skip that part and talk like grownups. I'm arguing for balanced assessment of risk and opportunities. Because that's what is meant with "why point out it all go bad" part. The lack of counter arguments. You created the "only good" bit in your mind. I'd challenge you to perceive opposing views not as bad faith, deceptive or dishonest. The world has far less of those types than current media and political climate makes you think.

watwut 6y ago

I can do this too. Being optimistic just means having positive bias. My point was about optimistic bias you get when you frame every discussion about negative aspects of something as fear. Which is exactly what you was doing there. This rhetorical trick: > Why point out it could all go bad? That seriously can't count for an intelligent assessment of the situation. It's an expression of fear. Why don't you read the optimistic reading more often? It's almost like people think fear was virtuous. Buying this, there is no way to rationally point out that things could be bad. You just ruled out arguments of the people you disagree with without engaging with them. Only optimistic prediction or information is allowed in rational discussion. > Where do people discuss the postponed cancer operations and their casualties, what is the cost of livelihoods destroyed, like yoga studios and hair dresser small businesses? How do you even measure it? I distinctively remember those being discussed. You can discuss them. I am not saying that these should not be discussed. But they are not optimistic. They are pessimistic and if I wanted to frame them as "fear", I could. And it would be equally dishonest rhetorical trick.

febeling 6y ago
The "rhetorical trick" is your construction here, possibly even unaware. I didn't argue for taking only positives into account. I could go on an say you use the straw man fallacy against me now, but let's skip that part and talk like grownups. I'm arguing for balanced assessment of risk and opportunities. Because that's what is meant with "why point out it all go bad" part. The lack of counter arguments. You created the "only good" bit in your mind. I'd challenge you to perceive opposing views not as bad faith, deceptive or dishonest. The world has far less of those types than current media and political climate makes you think.