Life Advice - Don't Easily Dismiss or Lose Respect for People

[thm_w]

While I'm on a roll, one story comes to mind (well a lot of them do) but I remember when MIT pulled the plug on Walter Lewin.  At first I jumped to the conclusion that it was some child he had gotten involved with.  Nope some french lady in her 30's on the other side of the globe was able to take him out.  Both adults, I could care less what they did on-line.    Good job MIT!

https://thetech.com/2014/12/09/walterlewin-v134-n60
 
So many cases, so much BS.   (and there's my one comment on the educational system... oh wait, that's not off limits) 

Regardless of age or location, MIT is free to fire him for abusing the student teacher relationship and their policies. You cannot make an accurate moral judgment without seeing the evidence, which we will never be able to do.

The overreaction, however, of removing his past lectures etc. is sort of part of what Dave is getting at. It should not be necessary to "cancel" his content.

ataradov: I believe that’s about single occurances, not someone going completely nuts and mentioning what you disagree with in every other video.

Yeah that seems to be the disconnect.
Dave rarely mentions crypto, atheism, etc. and when he does its not a main feature of the content. If its the main focus of their content, its kind of a different story.

[ataradov]

Thunderfoot is a good example of a person who I stopped watching because I lost respect to. Not out of any particular view, but because he does not have respect for other people and talks like everyone but him is an idiot.

Yep. I stopped following him once he figured out that "debunking" generates clicks and just started debunking everything and everyone. Apart from the superiority complex, it is also not that interesting to watch.

[armandine2]

Society's Arbitrary Judgement 13:33 ->

it's a cruel world

[ataradov]

That's a huge pile of BS and has that self help inspirational scam vibe.

[Nominal Animal]

One tenth of what Isaac Newton wrote was about alchemy.  Will you ignore the rest of his output because of that?

Everyone has opinions, and they change.  They're not that interesting, really.  What is interesting, is the reasons for those opinions.

I know quite a few accomplished physicists who would love to investigate UFO phenomena and various fringe science topics, but cannot, because it would tarnish their reputation and damage their career, probably irreparably.  Yet, there is no harm in investigating anything scientifically.  While the likelihood of uncovering anything is very small, such discoveries would have quite a high value, so why denigrate anyone doing that?

Just because someone has an odd opinion or two, doesn't matter much.  It is how they interact with others that matter.  If they are not willing to examine the reasons for their own beliefs, but poke fun at others', what value does their own beliefs have?

Remember Isaac, and the effect he had on science and human life and everything.

[aeberbach]

I don't know... Dave uses the "cancel" word as if removing sources of bullshit from your life is an example of so-called "cancel culture". Then later says "simply ignore them". Also there's a "Dodgy Technology" forum right here for mocking various things (put your hand up if you have never teased an audiophile!) - seems like the dark path as he calls it is here and has been as long as I remember. What's the difference?

[T3sl4co1l]

Hah, Jordan Peterson -- dunking on him is kind of passe nowadays, not to say undeserved, mind -- but there's still a trickle of videos on that angle.  Here's a recent one from an economist:



Tim

[ataradov]

One tenth of what Isaac Newton wrote was about alchemy.  Will you ignore the rest of his output because of that?

No, but I'll let others sift though the garbage and pick out relevant parts. Same applies to a lot of smart people of the past. If the contribution was peer reviewed and deemed good, I'm fine with that.

If some of those youtubers come up with something lasting, I'll happily watch that too.  I just don't want to be in a position to constantly filter out stuff myself.

Just because someone has an odd opinion or two, doesn't matter much.

It depends. I personally would welcome smart people investigating UFOs. This is not offensive, it is actually great.

But if that physicist comes up with an opinion that women are inherently stupider than men and that's why you don't see them as much in science, I'd basically ignore any other opinions from that person.

[joeqsmith]

While I'm on a roll, one story comes to mind (well a lot of them do) but I remember when MIT pulled the plug on Walter Lewin.  At first I jumped to the conclusion that it was some child he had gotten involved with.  Nope some french lady in her 30's on the other side of the globe was able to take him out.  Both adults, I could care less what they did on-line.    Good job MIT!

https://thetech.com/2014/12/09/walterlewin-v134-n60
 
So many cases, so much BS.   (and there's my one comment on the educational system... oh wait, that's not off limits) 

Regardless of age or location, MIT is free to fire him for abusing the student teacher relationship and their policies. You cannot make an accurate moral judgment without seeing the evidence, which we will never be able to do.

The overreaction, however, of removing his past lectures etc. is sort of part of what Dave is getting at. It should not be necessary to "cancel" his content.

Agree and would take it one step further suggesting they needed no reason.  I want to be clear that I work in an "at-will" state and do not know anything about the law regarding this particular case.   I had not realized I had made a moral judgement by stating that I did not care what two consenting adults do.   "Good job MIT" refers to my view of how they handled the case by removing all of his content.  I considered the work as educational and a benefit and had not considered it's removal as being moral or not.  Rather a self destructing overreaction and not what I would expect from a place of higher education.   

There were other articles written at that time that provided more insight to what had happened. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forward

[thm_w]

Agree and would take it one step further suggesting they needed no reason.  I want to be clear that I work in an "at-will" state and do not know anything about the law regarding this particular case.   I had not realized I had made a moral judgement by stating that I did not care what two consenting adults do.   "Good job MIT" refers to my view of how they handled the case by removing all of his content.  I considered the work as educational and a benefit and had not considered it's removal as being moral or not.  Rather a self destructing overreaction and not what I would expect from a place of higher education.   

There were other articles written at that time that provided more insight to what had happened. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forward

Understood, I don't think the removal of the work is moral no.

[SiliconWizard]

Life advice time - Don't easily dismiss people from your life or "lose respect" for people, or unfollow them or stop watching their content because you didn't like something they said or something they do or don't believe in. This adds no value to your life and you will miss out on so much potentially good stuff. It will also make you more susceptible to binary tribalism, group think, and ideology driven politics and movements that will make things even worse for you and for society.

I agree with you. Just don't expect many people to ever change their behavior regarding this, though. It's probably not going to happen.

But I'd even go a step further: I would advise actively seeking to hear/discuss with people that you disagree with. It's a lot more interesting in the end, and will make you grow. OTOH, only sticking to people that have the exact same opinions as you is basically fruitless. It just reinforces your beliefs and acts as an ego boost, neither of which is known to make you wiser or more intelligent.

There are nuances in disagreeing of course. Some things are not opinions or views, but just bullshit. I'm not saying to waste your time with flat earthers, for instance, although listening to a couple of them may at least show you what this "movement" is all about and understand why this even exists, rather than just close your eyes.

But many things are not *this* clear-cut, and I've seen many people, no matter what their education level was, that would discard some views or opinions based more on prejudice than facts. And yes, ultimately acting "tribal" - what is now called the "cancel culture" is nothing much else than basic tribal behavior.

[Nominal Animal]

I just don't want to be in a position to constantly filter out stuff myself.

Me neither.  But I do like to hear people describe the reasons why they have a different opinion to me.  I often learn something, even though my current opinions are not swayed at all.  Hearing the same opinions again and again is tedious, really, even if I were to agree: nothing to learn there.

It becomes easier when you realize that most people are wrong most of the time (and I include myself here, too).

I especially like it when people more intelligent than I (which is not that rare ) have a direct, critical, but friendly discussion about completely different opinions (which is kinda rare nowadays); when the participants are interested in the reasoning, and not interested in "gaining points".  You know, civil, scientific or rational or philosophic discourse for the pleasure of it.

Just because someone has an odd opinion or two, doesn't matter much.

It depends. I personally would welcome smart people investigating UFOs. This is not offensive, it is actually great.

But if that physicist comes up with an opinion that women are inherently stupider than men and that's why you don't see them as much in science, I'd basically ignore any other opinions from that person.

I'd find it interesting to find out how they'd respond to their opinion being shown to be factually wrong.

(As an aside, nobody does science in full isolation, and how we interact with others matters.  Judging individuals based only on their membership in any group or tribe is just idiotic.  Unless, of course, the membership is exhibited by their behaviour, because how we behave, interact with others, matters.)

To most of those that control the research purse strings, anything mentioning UFO or LENF causes a similar reaction as the above opinion does in you.
There are very, very few organizations with administrations that are not affected by that or something like that to at least some degree.

In Finland, the Academy of Finland funds research to the tune of 250,000,000 € plus every year, but they really, REALLY prefer to fund research that is already being done elsewhere, instead of completely new research.  My guess is that they need to feel that they're at the very forefront of science, doing things that the big boys are doing.  Go submit a research plan about UFO or LENF or gravity shielding, and they'll most certainly blacklist you forever, muttering something about Eugene Plodkletnov.  Silly icky pink human stuff.

[ataradov]

I'd find it interesting to find out how they'd respond to their opinion being shown to be factually wrong.

They won't do anything.

Even in a more technical filed where 100% proof is possible there are still people rejecting reality. Look at audiophools. They are constantly and actively rejecting experiments that would prove them wrong. Like do you really think that talking to them adds any real value? There is an entertainment value in reading their BS, but not much more.

Go submit a research plan about UFO or LENF or gravity shielding,

I'd reject that too. I don't want public funds to go into fringe areas with no defined possible or expected results. That's just invites scam artists. If you want to research UFOs - do it privately. People manage to find investors for anything.

Also, research proposals must include expected methods and at least initial feasibility justification. What do you even put there for UFOs?

[pcprogrammer]

.....
But if that physicist comes up with an opinion that women are inherently stupider than men and that's why you don't see them as much in science, I'd basically ignore any other opinions from that person.

Women being inherently stupider then man is definitely not true, but they are different. I'm not saying it as a bad thing, it is just the way it is. Having said that, it eventually boils down to individuality, as to what a person is capable of. Some woman are very good scientists in whatever field and some are not, and the same applies to man. The same applies for race.

A problem with the human race is how we are still held back by basic instinct. We fear the unknown, and often it is justified because the unknown can harm you. Racism is born out of this fear. It is also basic instinct that brings the herd behavior. Safety in numbers, and comfort in what and whom is known.

I can go on and on, but you get the drift.

[pcprogrammer]

But I'd even go a step further: I would advise actively seeking to hear/discuss with people that you disagree with. It's a lot more interesting in the end, and will make you grow. OTOH, only sticking to people that have the exact same opinions as you is basically fruitless. It just reinforces your beliefs and acts as an ego boost, neither of which is known to make you wiser or more intelligent.

This only works if you are open to what others have to say and are willing to revise your own point of view, which isn't always easy.

I know a guy who is a member of Mensa, so has some intelligence, but is dead set in what he believes to be true and does not know the phrase "I don't know". During the whole covid endurance we had discussions about what was true and what not. To the day he still thinks the virus has not been isolated, and at some times even states it is not a virus. Where I say, does it matter what it is, there are people all over this world sick and dying from something. But that then is not true, it is just a normal seasonal occurrence. There is no end to that kind of discussions.

The same applies for free energy and Nikola Tesla. There is no way to get him of his believe that everything Tesla invented is kept under the wraps for financial gain and protecting the mainstream energy companies from loosing their right to existence. I can explain to him over and over again what some of Tesla's ideas where actually about, but no dice.

He kept the test he had to take before his Mensa admission, and gave it to me. Did not looked to difficult to me. They are in Dutch.

[ataradov]

I thought it was universally known that Mensa is a way to extract $80/yr from suckers. Of course admission is easy, you need to know who your target audience is.

[Nominal Animal]

I'd reject that too. I don't want public funds to go into fringe areas with no defined possible or expected results. That's just invites scam artists. If you want to research UFOs - do it privately. People manage to find investors for anything.

Rejecting is one thing; blacklisting is another.

But I do understand: you believe that if a person is racist, misogynist, bigot, or otherwise unsocial, none of their opinions matter, and it is okay to exclude them from the "civilised society".

I just disagree, mainly because some people change, some people stop changing in their early adulthood, and some people are just damaged somehow.
If we start ostracising them, why not go whole hog into eugenics?  It'd reduce the amount of people needed to be excluded, for one.  Also, why just exclude or ostracize them, and not simply kill them to save resources?  That's what happens in nature.  Are you better than nature?
How exactly do you determine where to draw that critical opinion line?  By instinct?  Popular opinion?

Also, research proposals must include expected methods and at least initial feasibility justification. What do you even put there for UFOs?

A practical experiment combining visual and IR imaging using multiple networked wide-angle cameras, and hopefully correlation to radar data, to start actually classifying the phenomena based on reliable observations other than human eyes and shaky potato cameras.

Start with a few clusters of full-sky (fisheye lens) cameras in both visual and IR, with a patch of sky covered in several cameras in each cluster for precise triangulation.  Have them be networked and synchronized, so that pictures are taken simultaneously, and location and distance (altitude) can be determined.  Best locations are government and university-owned land and structures to avoid vandalism and theft, which makes Academy support more important in principle than their monetary input.

This is not expensive, and yet, for some reason, it has not been done anywhere yet (as far as us public is aware).  Why?  The stigma of a "bad opinion".  It is a project where you need approval from many people (because they are full-sky cameras), too.

As long as people sharing your opinions are holding the purse strings, nothing like that will be done.  I guess the funds are better spend replicating research already done elsewhere.

[ataradov]

How exactly do you determine where to draw that critical opinion line?

I do things based on my opinion. And if enough people don't want anything to do with you based on their opinion, then here is your answer. The line draws itself.

There is a possibility of piling up, of course, and that's something we should work on.

This is not expensive, and yet, for some reason, it has not been done anywhere yet (as far as us public is aware).

Because it is clear that nothing would be found. It is as stupid as SETI, and those people manged to get private financing. I'm sure UFO hunters can do that too if they really wanted.

But also, if there is a vote and majority of people decide to fund UFO research, I'm fine with that. I personally would not vote for that, but I do support democracy.

[Nominal Animal]

And if enough people don't want anything to do with you based on their opinion, then here is your answer. The line draws itself.

Well, I like individuals, but dislike people, so the line just huffed indignantly and vanished in disgust.

Because it is clear that nothing would be found.

Well, the US military seems to disagree, but I'm sure you know better.  Your Opinion, after all, has drawn itself.

[pcprogrammer]

I'd reject that too. I don't want public funds to go into fringe areas with no defined possible or expected results. That's just invites scam artists. If you want to research UFOs - do it privately. People manage to find investors for anything.

Rejecting is one thing; blacklisting is another.

But I do understand: you believe that if a person is racist, misogynist, bigot, or otherwise unsocial, none of their opinions matter, and it is okay to exclude them from the "civilised society".

I just disagree, mainly because some people change, some people stop changing in their early adulthood, and some people are just damaged somehow.
If we start ostracising them, why not go whole hog into eugenics?  It'd reduce the amount of people needed to be excluded, for one.  Also, why just exclude or ostracize them, and not simply kill them to save resources?  That's what happens in nature.  Are you better than nature?
How exactly do you determine where to draw that critical opinion line?  By instinct?  Popular opinion?

But isn't that what the human race has done, putting themselves above nature. We eliminated, or at least we try,  all our natural enemies and lost the ability to balance our selves.

Excluding people based on whatever is a very tricky topic, but as an individual you can exclude then from your own life as much as you like as long as you don't offend them. The latter is very difficult nowadays, because a simple word can trigger an avalanche of shit.

Also, research proposals must include expected methods and at least initial feasibility justification. What do you even put there for UFOs?

A practical experiment combining visual and IR imaging using multiple networked wide-angle cameras, and hopefully correlation to radar data, to start actually classifying the phenomena based on reliable observations other than human eyes and shaky potato cameras.

Start with a few clusters of full-sky (fisheye lens) cameras in both visual and IR, with a patch of sky covered in several cameras in each cluster for precise triangulation.  Have them be networked and synchronized, so that pictures are taken simultaneously, and location and distance (altitude) can be determined.  Best locations are government and university-owned land and structures to avoid vandalism and theft, which makes Academy support more important in principle than their monetary input.

This is not expensive, and yet, for some reason, it has not been done anywhere yet (as far as us public is aware).  Why?  The stigma of a "bad opinion".  It is a project where you need approval from many people (because they are full-sky cameras), too.

As long as people sharing your opinions are holding the purse strings, nothing like that will be done.  I guess the funds are better spend replicating research already done elsewhere.

Why not take out the atmosphere in the equation and start the search in the near by space with observatories already in existence? One can also wonder why isn't there already some data available with all the space exploration ongoing?

I'm not one to say aliens do not exist, but taking into account the size of the universe and our inability so far to travel outside our own star system, would this not most likely be true for these aliens too? Considering the same size of the universe, if we where to receive some signal from far away would that not be so old that the sending species can long be extinct?

Just a couple of thoughts

Edit: just realized UFO's don't have to be alien and therefore might not show up in outer space. But then it just another man (sorry women, it is just the standard expression) made object and not really that interesting

[ataradov]

Well, the US military seems to disagree, but I'm sure you know better.  Your Opinion, after all, has drawn itself.

US military are exactly the people I don't want to have anywhere close to this. It is just another way for them to waste money. But it looks like they will be doing it anyway, so there is that. All we have to do is wait until they show us proof of UFOs.

[Zero999]

This may be applicable to trivial things, like what brand of laptops someone likes, or what OS is better. But there are so many clearly wrong opinions out there. And there is no chance that those people would contribute meaningfully to my life. And I'm not about to argue with random strangers on the internet or try to convince anyone that they are wrong.

Seriously?
So if a channel you follow and get value from goes and says they suport Trump, then there is suddenly no value in their content any more?
Sorry, but this says more about your personal hatred in something than it does about objective value in content.

IMHO at some point enough is enough. When people start to deny science or do really stupid stuff, I'm out.

Someone I know is born abroad but nevertheless is involved in a right-wing local party. The plans of this party would prevent him or his family to live in certain areas of the city. And don't get him started on Covid -even though that killed one of his siblings- . Sorry, but I can't have any respect for a person that is so obviously lost in a fantasy world.

Yes, like the women who believe gender is a social construct. Well that's nice until you're in hospital being raped by a 6' 6" man who was placed on a female ward because he identifies a woman.

EDIT:
This has actually happened. See links. Thank you to rsjsouza for searching for them on my behalf.
here, here, here

Yeah, I've unsubbed from a couple channels because they went all MAGA/Qanon/antivax. And no matter what anyone says it was a good decision for my mental health.

This may be applicable to trivial things, like what brand of laptops someone likes, or what OS is better. But there are so many clearly wrong opinions out there. And there is no chance that those people would contribute meaningfully to my life. And I'm not about to argue with random strangers on the internet or try to convince anyone that they are wrong.

I agree if their content was originally about something else, then they started to make it political, but if it's just because they stated they support Trump, then it's a bit pathetic. There are extremes on both sides. I also admit I stopped following a creator for political reasons. They did a video about how much they supported BLM, which I leg go, then they started going on about how much they hated Trump, so I stopped listening. To be honest I don't like either sides of the US political spectrum. I wish it wish it would stay over there.

[rsjsouza]

Thunderfoot is a good example of a person who I stopped watching because I lost respect to. Not out of any particular view, but because he does not have respect for other people and talks like everyone but him is an idiot.

Yep. I stopped following him once he figured out that "debunking" generates clicks and just started debunking everything and everyone. Apart from the superiority complex, it is also not that interesting to watch.

This was a similar process for me as well - the straw to me was a video about solar roadways that promised to have new information about the fraud but it was quite the repetition of older scenes to fill the 10 min mark for midroll ads. However, after a few years a redeeming video (at least to me) was released where he debunks a washing machine - despite still long and of debunking nature, it carried useful information that was interesting enough for me to watch.

All in all, I find the concept of "following" a bit weird nowadays, since it has become close to stalking. Just like with many things in the early days of the internet, the innocence of having a group of people with similar interests was quite appealing. The occasional disagreements and catfights (on the fora of the time) were easily dismissed by simply leaving the discussion, powering off the computer, etc. In this way this is similar to what Dave mentions in the video: leave a discussion huffing and puffing and clicking on the "ignore user" button have very little consequences but to yourself.

However, when an economy started to be created around it and, more importantly, people started to entangle their lives around it¹, social media has become inescapable to also be exposed to the bad actors that used to be only "on the streets". Not only digitally, but these bad actors exploited the amplification effect and reach of social media to organize mobs that can now physically target (and threaten) people far away from their own locales. No wonder irresponsible statements calling for threats to individuals and their employment, or even terrorist organizations that managed to wreak havoc on large parts of cities were (and continue to be) successful. Anyone involved with social media can be exposed to a mob these days, therefore many end up catering to the collective accepted opinions without truly voicing their own opinions - nobody really knows how many disagree with the ridiculous ideas of modern culture spouted today, since even corporations (which hold a very tangible part of one's life - salary) got in the same bandwagon.

¹ Before saying how only fools let their lives to be entangled by social media, think of how these sites are skillfully crafted by very smart individuals to be incredibly addictive - as addictive as cigarettes or drugs that plagued past generations, with the difference they are "free". Think that a child has any defense against it while they never lived in a world without social media? Think their addictive nature can be easily dismissed when the majority of the world's population consumes it in one way or another and the younger generations are becoming adults? Think again.

[tszaboo]

That's a huge pile of BS and has that self help inspirational scam vibe.

The speech is done by a clinical psychologist, whose job is to help you help yourself.
So yes, that's like saying that "Our comments here are filled with too much technical details".
JPB is also against cancel culture, so many people mark him as extreme right, while his only sin is that he is not extreme left. Listen to one of his earlier lecture, where he is much more structured, and doesn't go with these extreme swings of thought process, that is difficult to follow.

I agree with Dave, the issue with cancel culture, there is zero error for margin. People and American leftist corporations seem to put you on a blacklist after a single tweet, there is no possibility of redemption, no judge, no jury. Like Johny Depp, who become unemployed, after a certified mentally unstable person made some claims in an article. "That's it, you are done, and we are not even interested of what you have to say."

[bd139]

Cancel culture doesn't work anyway. If it did that absolute fucking mental bitch Katie Hopkins would be cleaning toilets but she's grifting on another social platform than instead. If you want rid of someone you need to let them burn in front of people.