3 ms·

> Do flat earthers destabilize people's model or reality? Yeah, I'd say yes they definitely do, and this may be a great example. I have definitely seen people

by drooby 5y ago

> Do flat earthers destabilize people's model or reality? Yeah, I'd say yes they definitely do, and this may be a great example. I have definitely seen people express frustration and even anger when flat earther's views are expressed. > I find this reaction interesting because I can't see how it will help. Like are we going to intimidate, harm or kill people who disagree? We aren't perfectly rational beings though. By and large, I'd predict that most people operate on heuristics guided by more primitive feelings. Also, yeah, killing someone or incapacitating them is a great way to stabilize your reality. Our primitive brains aren't taking into consideration human laws or customs. > so maybe I'm missing what the goal originally was in an evolutionary context. Evolution isn't optimizing for intelligence, nor does it really have a "goal" - it may be more accurate to say that what exists because of it is just what is more fit for survival and reproduction. Our unique intelligence seems to also be a very new thing in the broad scope of humanity.

guerrilla 5y ago
> Yeah, I'd say yes they definitely do, and this may be a great example. I have definitely seen people express frustration and even anger when flat earther's views are expressed. How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? > Also, yeah, killing someone or incapacitating them is a great way to stabilize your reality. How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... > Evolution isn't optimizing for intelligence, nor does it really have a "goal" - it may be more accurate to say that what exists because of it is just what is more fit for survival and reproduction. Our unique intelligence seems to also be a very new thing in the broad scope of humanity. No, I didn't mean evolution had a goal, but the behavior had a goal, like getting the other person to agree or, as you say, stabilizing reality.
- drooby 5y ago
  > How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? They don't need to be right to destabilize one's model of reality. I don't believe a "stable model of reality" is necessarily correct in terms of objective truth either. It's only correct enough such that we can make accurate predictions about the future. Take Newton for example. His models of reality were technically wrong at certain scales of reality - but they were correct enough for most applications of physics. Newtonian physics created a model of reality that was thus "stable" for over 200 years until challenged by new discoveries. > How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... Our primitives brain is triggered to behave as if it is a fight over resources though. We are not perfectly rational.
- Jarwain 5y ago
  > How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? All it takes is to trigger a feeling of doubt in the listener to "destabilize their perception reality" > How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... It removes the source of the doubt/discomfort, doesn't it? It's easier to ignore your doubts if you don't have a reminder walking around and talking to you about it.

by drooby 5y ago

guerrilla 5y ago

> Yeah, I'd say yes they definitely do, and this may be a great example. I have definitely seen people express frustration and even anger when flat earther's views are expressed. How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? > Also, yeah, killing someone or incapacitating them is a great way to stabilize your reality. How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... > Evolution isn't optimizing for intelligence, nor does it really have a "goal" - it may be more accurate to say that what exists because of it is just what is more fit for survival and reproduction. Our unique intelligence seems to also be a very new thing in the broad scope of humanity. No, I didn't mean evolution had a goal, but the behavior had a goal, like getting the other person to agree or, as you say, stabilizing reality.

drooby 5y ago
> How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? They don't need to be right to destabilize one's model of reality. I don't believe a "stable model of reality" is necessarily correct in terms of objective truth either. It's only correct enough such that we can make accurate predictions about the future. Take Newton for example. His models of reality were technically wrong at certain scales of reality - but they were correct enough for most applications of physics. Newtonian physics created a model of reality that was thus "stable" for over 200 years until challenged by new discoveries. > How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... Our primitives brain is triggered to behave as if it is a fight over resources though. We are not perfectly rational.
Jarwain 5y ago
> How would they do that when what they're saying is clearly false? All it takes is to trigger a feeling of doubt in the listener to "destabilize their perception reality" > How? I don't see how this would solve anything in this situation. It's not a fight over resources... It removes the source of the doubt/discomfort, doesn't it? It's easier to ignore your doubts if you don't have a reminder walking around and talking to you about it.