Tiger example

True, but logic could also state that a group standing their ground and making loud noises would drive the tiger away. Quickly arming yourself, defence, deterrence, and group tactics are a logical response. A little pre-planning leads you to be able to curtail an emotional response later. Running and screaming as the emotional response would most likely lead to at least one person being injured (as tigers can outrun humans in short bursts) if not killed and eaten.

Kids example

Yes. As a parent, yes, you go a little insane. Logic led me to say that we could handle one (which isn't a decision everyone gets to make). Emotion led me to actually be a Father. Kids absolutely play on and demolish both of those processes. Kids are chaos incarnate.

I am strongly in the logic camp, though both can be used to great effect if the person understands themselves and can apply logic to emotion in advance. Emotions override or preempt logic and prevent us from thinking rationally in many cases. It harms FAR more than it helps, and is essentially a knee-jerk reaction executed before we can think.

This is why many people are the way they are. They react to something, and THEN try to apply a logical process to the reaction as if there was one.

Why are people overweight in most cases? Logic or emotion?

When people try to lie to others, are the lies generally emotionally manipulative, or logically manipulative?

Why do people stay in bad relationships?

Why are people religious in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Why do people not try to change things? Because it's hard, which is an emotional response.

I could go on and on. Empathy is a moral response, and morality is subjective. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be empathetic, it simply means that what it means to be empathetic at the very core is completely arbitrary.

This doesn't mean they can't overlap or be used effectively, but often they are at odds and faulty logic is used to justify the initial emotional response.

As an addendum, from my experience people are horrible at distinguishing between the two responses.

Okay, so speaking as a Mod here, this is not a CMV. That may be on us for not specifying more of what these entail, so I'm going to ask the OP to clarify and update the original post to comply with the new rule which was updated to the following:

• (CMV) Change My View can read like a rant or some scattered thoughts on a topic that the creator is looking to challenge themselves on. You must start with some initial reasons along with some thoughts on how those reasons led you to feel the way you do. If you can articulate things that would or wouldn't change your mind, please add those as well. If your mind is changed, we ask that you place a link to the post that did so at the end of the post.

The topic is fine, but the way it was done was not. This is a single statement that is not at all conducive to a CMV discussion.

OP, please change the prompt. Everyone else, please do not reply to this thread as it will be removed if not fixed to meet our rules.

Huh! I hadn't heard of them before, but I like the policies I'm seeing there.

I agree that I kinda hate the name (and their website).

I'm big on pragmatism, so it's nice to see people trying something real with it. I wonder if I'd be able to run locally under the banner... Hmmm...

The model that I learned in High School is here. You're correct in that it's how a scientist or an analytical mind would do things. I also agree that we should teach how to do these better to the general population; they were taught to me in class and I remember them well, and I'm 40.

The people I was speaking about (antivaxxers, Facebook Moms, or deeply religious people) don't operate with this model. They do get to your Step 1, but in the wrong order. Having grown up around these people nearly exclusively, the "Anti-Scientific Method" goes something like this:

Step 1: Feel a certain way (and be terrified of the opposite)

Step 2: Ask a (leading) question

Step 3: Look up unsourced, untested "evidence" (but only reinforcing evidence, anything to the contrary is to be discarded immediately)

Step 4: Test (by confirming with peers who feel the same as I do)

Step 5: Be satisfied that I was correct all along

You're right that it should be the way laid out in the Scientific Method, but it isn't. Some people just aren't built that way.

Fixed! Much appreciated.

Okay, the new rules are live and I basically stole your Disclaimer. Hope that's okay!

That's actually a very interesting idea. I don't want to discourage community engagement by limiting main posts, but maybe a pinned "Topic of the Week" would be fantastic!

Fixed the question about the disclaimer! Much appreciated.

I like your version of it and the idea of adding maybe a link to it to the disclaimer? I'll be adjusting the pinned thread today hopefully to add a little more detail than the sidebar allows.

Great suggestions!

I can agree that some of the governmental pushes worldwide weren't terribly agile or well thought through, but what I was following at the time was what the current scientific consensus was.

The way the "silencing" worked that I witnessed was some discredited doctor who had lost their license would say he'd studied something, but wouldn't submit to peer-review or data review. Then people who had studied things would roll their eyes and tell him to shut up because there was no science done by the dissenter in the first place.

That level of "science" is equivalent of getting a doctorate in "trust me bro."

A skeptic seeks the truth regardless of their feelings. A conspiracy theorist follows their feelings regardless of the truth.

Haha... you ass...

I would really like to do away with downvotes as well. I hope this is actually something that's coming in the Lemmy software itself - an ability for communities to have a bit more customization and options.

I would argue that most people don't even complete Step 1, and couldn't complete the next steps even if they wished to. They find a source, but they don't evaluate them beyond an initial "does it agree with me" sniff-test. This is what one major problem during COVID was.

Side story: I had people telling me that unsourced anti-vax blogs talking about a doctor (who worked there) who gave a speech in a small city where my brother was born were more valid than any study I could show stating that yes, masks functioned provided you didn't use a dogshit one, and yes, COVID was real, and yes, it was killing people.

I recorded myself calling the hospital and had a conversation with the person who answered who laughed and said they'd had calls about that "speech" before, but there was nobody who had ever worked there by that name and that no speech ever happened. They asked where it came from, and I said it was from some dumb blog and told her what to search for to find it.

I posted the audio on the group with a transcript. They called it fake. I gave the number of the hospital and the name of the person I spoke to and told them to verify. I was called a government plant. These people are not logical in my experience. They do not carry out Step 1 because their Step 1 is "What do I feel is correct?"

So, sure. "Trust the science" is said often. That's because normal people going about their lives can't test, verify, or disprove the science. Normal people who don't carry out "the science" as their job can't afford the time, education, experimentation, controls, or equipment to do anything except "trust the science." They are simply not equipped to do so, and that's okay.

At some point in every career, you need to trust experts, and as an expert in my field, I know nothing drives me nuts like someone with a casual understanding of my field telling me how wrong I am about something that I know inside and out.

"Do your own research" translated from Facebook commonly means "look some shit up, but only the shit that goes against the science, because if it didn't, it would be the science."

The people "doing their own research" have (for the most part) not done any research since high school science classes and feel that reading unsourced blogs is the same thing as actual research. This is not, and has never been, the case.

The stuff you mention about COVID was because they were being cautious at the outset. These variants hadn't been studied yet, and as time went on, those who studied it changed what the recommendations were. That's what you do, you learn and then adapt. That's science. Corona viruses are one thing; COVID-19 was another. Even a detailed study on what came before can only get you so far.

Although I'm sure you're correct about it, I was never told to clean my groceries when they got home by anyone. Recommendations around the world were a hot mess for a while and not every government was clear enough to say "do this for now" and corrected themselves along the way. Canada did pretty well on this front. The stations and other things were made available not because they were helpful later on, but simply because people wanted to feel like they were doing something. It was security theatre.

God damn it, you're correct. It didn't really occur to me until reading this just how little Canadian content is left. I still get some music, but I have to look for it. When I was a teen, Big Shiny Tunes albums were mostly Canadian and sold like crazy. Ed the Sock, The Raccoons, Mr. Dressup, Cube, Nothing, Much Music, Trailer Park Boys... man the list was long, and even then it was considered to be not as plentiful as the American media.

Now I think the only thing I've seen that's Canadian in recent years has been Letterkenny (which is now off the air) and Shoresy.

It's the importing of flat-mass media. That bland "everything for everybody" garbage that takes no risks and checks every box there is. Christ, the tasteless corporate pablum of my youth was Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys, and even they look decent compared to now.

And we're happy to have you!

I am definitely looking for feedback!

The initial disclaimer isn't meant to be patronizing (and does not read as such to me), it is a reminder that we operate differently than the rest of Lemmy does for anyone that may wander in here from browsing All. Yes, we have the rules in the sidebar, but nobody reads the sidebar on mobile.

Our goal is not to bury unpopular opinions, but to discuss those opinions with the holder.

And you're right that I have seen the open-ended topics to do better than the opinion pieces, but I always felt that the opinion pieces were a good start for people to work from. I welcome my mind being changed and new evidence being shown to me on any of those topics. The problem is is that we get an influx of angry downvotes anyway (often within seconds of posting, which means that it is not being read) and no comments.

Another problem we see are people coming in, commenting once to attack something stated, and then don't show up when replied to with evidence.

Do you have a suggestion for an initial disclaimer that you wouldn't see his condescending but still gets the message across?

March of the Pigs - Nine Inch Nails

And yes, it does make me feel better.

Is that what's going on here? I was wondering because this post had originally accrued a whole bunch of downvotes initially and I figured this was one of the "safe" opinions to have around left-leaning people and I became very confused.

The downvotes now make more sense, but the opinion makes no sense at all.

Yup. That's why I started up a new community:

!actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

To quote our pinned thread:

Why did I make this community? Well, mostly in response to the rest of Lemmy and the way many otherwise interesting discussion threads fall apart into downvoting and groupthink.

I don’t like people making baseless accusations and defend people on all sides when people are wrong about their opposition. I hate it when people think they know what others think and project incorrect (and often evil) bullshit on each other. It’s important to maintain solid reasoning and conclusions, not just one or the other.

I hate people being wilfully wrong because their group fetishizes a certain angle of the truth instead of the boring reality of the situation.

Ideas are important and I don’t feel we can get out of the current shitty slump we’re in with political discourse unless we are able to clearly articulate ourselves and discuss the world we’re in.

You (and all of you who feel the way you do) are welcome. You won't always agree with everyone there. That's okay. We talk about it. We're grown-ups.