6 ms·

That seems to speak to your own biases. Now if I spun this conspiracy to say that Chris Christie created a traffic jam so that child sex traffickers protected

That seems to speak to your own biases. Now if I spun this conspiracy to say that Chris Christie created a traffic jam so that child sex traffickers protected by the mayor of Fort Lee couldn’t easily escape, while the New Jersey state police conducted a raid on secret bunkers under the GWB. Would you believe that? Because if you do, I have a bike to sell you in the basement of the Alamo.

chrisco255 6y ago
Ok let me break apart your claims: 1. Christie has an interest in fighting child trafficking. 2. Christie used bridge closure to fight child trafficking. 3. Ft. Lee mayor defends child traffickers. 4. Ft. Lee mayor wanted to escape from a NJ police raid and bridge was the only path out. 5. Escaping via the bridge would have ensured Ft. Lee mayor's protection. 6. NJ state police were conducting a raid at GWB during bridge incident. 7. Bunkers at GWB involve child trafficking. 8. Ft. Lee mayor knew about child trafficking at GWB. All claims can be viewed independently. Some claims have dependencies on earlier claims. If earlier claims turn out to be false (or extremely unlikely), any subsequent claims that have dependencies on those prior claims must be dismissed. You apply some heuristic in your own mind like this all the time in the real world. You just probably never take a fully analytic and logical approach to it. But that's roughly the system I use to evaluate the world. I don't dismiss things automatically but I won't buy into a claim without some evidence. But I will look at each claim independently because sometimes there is signal in the noise.
- jonathankoren 6y ago
  This evaluation plan sounds nice, but people don’t actually do any of this stuff for things they’ve internalized. Instead, when presented with new facts that undercut their preëxisting viewpoints, people reject them. There’s a term for this: confirmation bias. Everyone does it. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-...
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Does everyone do it or are you just looking for examples of people doing it to confirm that hypothesis?

chrisco255 6y ago

Ok let me break apart your claims: 1. Christie has an interest in fighting child trafficking. 2. Christie used bridge closure to fight child trafficking. 3. Ft. Lee mayor defends child traffickers. 4. Ft. Lee mayor wanted to escape from a NJ police raid and bridge was the only path out. 5. Escaping via the bridge would have ensured Ft. Lee mayor's protection. 6. NJ state police were conducting a raid at GWB during bridge incident. 7. Bunkers at GWB involve child trafficking. 8. Ft. Lee mayor knew about child trafficking at GWB. All claims can be viewed independently. Some claims have dependencies on earlier claims. If earlier claims turn out to be false (or extremely unlikely), any subsequent claims that have dependencies on those prior claims must be dismissed. You apply some heuristic in your own mind like this all the time in the real world. You just probably never take a fully analytic and logical approach to it. But that's roughly the system I use to evaluate the world. I don't dismiss things automatically but I won't buy into a claim without some evidence. But I will look at each claim independently because sometimes there is signal in the noise.

jonathankoren 6y ago
This evaluation plan sounds nice, but people don’t actually do any of this stuff for things they’ve internalized. Instead, when presented with new facts that undercut their preëxisting viewpoints, people reject them. There’s a term for this: confirmation bias. Everyone does it. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-...
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Does everyone do it or are you just looking for examples of people doing it to confirm that hypothesis?