4 ms·

As evidenced by?

kurthr 5y ago
The rise and fall of rationality based words in English language (rose until 1980s and has plummeted since): https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107848118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107848118
- IsThisYou 5y ago
  Thanks for the link, that's really interesting.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  That seems methodologically quite questionable for the conclusions drawn. Like many blind semantic analysis attempts which consider language of a crash report for bug testing toxic due to the instances of "does not work", and "kill" and "fail". Meanwhile "I hope you enjoy eating your family then." is positive. Falsely presenting subjective viewpoints as objective would appear more rational. It isn't the trappings which make it rational or even distance from emotions. One can rationally make "non-optimal" decisions from subjective personal costs.
conception 5y ago
The large scale antivax movement for one.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  Funny enough I expect Venn diagram of antivaxers and people who don't let their kid use screens to have a significant overlap. Sometimes raw distrust is justified.
  - smt88 5y ago
    This probably used to be true, but (in the US) the demographics and politics of anti-vaxxers changed significantly after 2020.
- astrange 5y ago
  Antivaxxers tend to use scientific/rational language though, as opposed to new age vibes or what they heard from their priests. They’re using a modernist mindset, they just happen to be wrong.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > using a modernist mindset Would be curious to see data on this. I most frequently see an emotional appeal against authority, vague anxieties and fears and/or slippery slope arguments.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Use of rational language does not mean that the conclusion is reasonable, nor free of fallacy. For example, people saying the covid shot interferes with long term immunity is rational and modern, just not based in fact (or misapplying fact).
      - astrange 5y ago
        There are mechanisms that could cause that (“original antigenic sin”) and it does happen with dengue fever. Of course, it’s not true here, but it was reasonable to think it might be in 2020. And covid vaccines being spike-only may be less effective against variants than whole-virus vaccines or actual infections. But flu shots manage to be ineffective a year later with whole viruses in them, so maybe that wouldn’t help.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "They’re using a modernist mindset, they just happen to be wrong." They are certainly not using a scientific mindset - they are just using language that sounds scientific, so it sounds smart and solid. But is not, when you look closer and try to find their data and sources. But common people does not do that - and fall for it. It is basically fraud, in most instances.
  - croes 5y ago
    I doubt that, most of them just copy & paste parts from studies or headlines shared in social networks One of my latest memories is the introduction of a test that can be used to test for Corona and flu at the same time. The relevant article headline spoke of a test to distinguish flu from Corona. This then turned into the antivaxxers saying that previous PCR tests could not distinguish corona from flu.
- clavicat 5y ago
  Antivax is literally as old as vaccines are. There’s an enormous Victorian corpus of antivax literature, complete with crazy claims that vaccines were causing leprosy. In this respect, nothing has changed. Nor does it evince the collapse of rational thinking. If people just suspended their critical judgement and did whatever they were told unquestioningly, there would also be no antivax movement, but their compliance would not speak to their capacity for rationality, only their bovinity.
1270018080 5y ago
Whatever their answer ends up being will probably kill a few braincells.

As evidenced by?

The rise and fall of rationality based words in English language (rose until 1980s and has plummeted since): https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107848118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107848118

IsThisYou 5y ago
Thanks for the link, that's really interesting.
Nasrudith 5y ago
That seems methodologically quite questionable for the conclusions drawn. Like many blind semantic analysis attempts which consider language of a crash report for bug testing toxic due to the instances of "does not work", and "kill" and "fail". Meanwhile "I hope you enjoy eating your family then." is positive. Falsely presenting subjective viewpoints as objective would appear more rational. It isn't the trappings which make it rational or even distance from emotions. One can rationally make "non-optimal" decisions from subjective personal costs.

conception 5y ago

The large scale antivax movement for one.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago
Funny enough I expect Venn diagram of antivaxers and people who don't let their kid use screens to have a significant overlap. Sometimes raw distrust is justified.
- smt88 5y ago
  This probably used to be true, but (in the US) the demographics and politics of anti-vaxxers changed significantly after 2020.
astrange 5y ago
Antivaxxers tend to use scientific/rational language though, as opposed to new age vibes or what they heard from their priests. They’re using a modernist mindset, they just happen to be wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > using a modernist mindset Would be curious to see data on this. I most frequently see an emotional appeal against authority, vague anxieties and fears and/or slippery slope arguments.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Use of rational language does not mean that the conclusion is reasonable, nor free of fallacy. For example, people saying the covid shot interferes with long term immunity is rational and modern, just not based in fact (or misapplying fact).
    - astrange 5y ago
      There are mechanisms that could cause that (“original antigenic sin”) and it does happen with dengue fever. Of course, it’s not true here, but it was reasonable to think it might be in 2020. And covid vaccines being spike-only may be less effective against variants than whole-virus vaccines or actual infections. But flu shots manage to be ineffective a year later with whole viruses in them, so maybe that wouldn’t help.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "They’re using a modernist mindset, they just happen to be wrong." They are certainly not using a scientific mindset - they are just using language that sounds scientific, so it sounds smart and solid. But is not, when you look closer and try to find their data and sources. But common people does not do that - and fall for it. It is basically fraud, in most instances.
- croes 5y ago
  I doubt that, most of them just copy & paste parts from studies or headlines shared in social networks One of my latest memories is the introduction of a test that can be used to test for Corona and flu at the same time. The relevant article headline spoke of a test to distinguish flu from Corona. This then turned into the antivaxxers saying that previous PCR tests could not distinguish corona from flu.
clavicat 5y ago
Antivax is literally as old as vaccines are. There’s an enormous Victorian corpus of antivax literature, complete with crazy claims that vaccines were causing leprosy. In this respect, nothing has changed. Nor does it evince the collapse of rational thinking. If people just suspended their critical judgement and did whatever they were told unquestioningly, there would also be no antivax movement, but their compliance would not speak to their capacity for rationality, only their bovinity.

1270018080 5y ago

Whatever their answer ends up being will probably kill a few braincells.