Taking on the 5G nutjobs

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

[james_s]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

That's because you're a technical person and likely have at least a passing familiarity with any technology known to man, at least sufficiently to identify it as technology. I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker and do not believe in any sort of supernatural phenomenon, if you were to encounter something you didn't understand, you would have faith that there is a rational explanation despite not knowing what it is. That belief in a rational explanation is not so different from the belief others may have in a supernatural explanation, it's a belief. I recognize that even though I myself do not believe in the supernatural, I still can't prove it doesn't exist and it's certainly possible that I'm wrong though I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest this. I can totally see how the statement of sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic would be true for most people, especially those who do not hold a belief that there is no such thing as supernatural.

[james_s]

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

That sort of fearmongering while potentially harmful is also probably a necessary part of society. At some point I came to realize that there is a not insignificant number of people for whom the only thing that compels them to behave like decent people and keeps them from acting like complete sociopaths is the fear of divine punishment. A man trying to lead a group of people has little clout but if he can convince the group that he is the face of a higher power he (or she) can command a great deal more influence. The fearmongering has long been an instrumental tool in raising children as well, even a toddler knows that mom and dad can't see what they're doing 100% of the time, but Santa (or whatever legend) knows if they've been good or bad. It helps to keep them in line.

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

That's because you're a technical person and likely have at least a passing familiarity with any technology known to man, at least sufficiently to identify it as technology. I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker and do not believe in any sort of supernatural phenomenon, if you were to encounter something you didn't understand, you would have faith that there is a rational explanation despite not knowing what it is. That belief in a rational explanation is not so different from the belief others may have in a supernatural explanation, it's a belief. I recognize that even though I myself do not believe in the supernatural, I still can't prove it doesn't exist and it's certainly possible that I'm wrong though I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest this. I can totally see how the statement of sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic would be true for most people, especially those who do not hold a belief that there is no such thing as supernatural.

I think the point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if there isn’t one the Occam’s razor applies.

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

Well, my mother in law told me a couple of weeks ago about her hair stylist suggesting the vaccination will also implement a chip created by Bill Gates to control the whole world.
You can't make this up, can you?
Luckily I could talk her out of it (she trusts me in these "technical" things), but those diffuse fears are obviously more widespread than one would expect. At least the church still uses the concept of "devil" and "hell", which is similar fearmongering, and it worked perfectly fine for centuries...

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

That sort of fearmongering while potentially harmful is also probably a necessary part of society. At some point I came to realize that there is a not insignificant number of people for whom the only thing that compels them to behave like decent people and keeps them from acting like complete sociopaths is the fear of divine punishment. A man trying to lead a group of people has little clout but if he can convince the group that he is the face of a higher power he (or she) can command a great deal more influence. The fearmongering has long been an instrumental tool in raising children as well, even a toddler knows that mom and dad can't see what they're doing 100% of the time, but Santa (or whatever legend) knows if they've been good or bad. It helps to keep them in line.

That works until it doesn’t. At which point it leaves some people questioning the root of authority. Is it the faithful fear programmed in or the principle of reciprocity? One leaves a dangerous ledge if the concept evaporates and the other does not.

Honesty is the best policy for dealing with anyone or any age. We mostly don’t do that because it’s harder. Santa is a shit show.

[james_s]

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

[CJay]

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

[bd139]

Exactly and elegantly put.

[magic]

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

It makes perfect sense if you consider the greater picture. You could spend hours crawling social networks and discussion groups, tracking the origins and evolution of Internet memes and piecing together how the gossip perverted whatever original grains of truth, but in doing so you would missing the forest for the trees.

This theory is not an isolated incident, it fits into a greater landscape of similar theories originating from similar parts of the world. Take a step back and ask what they have in common instead of obsessing about each one in isolation. A common fault of "rationalists" is that they are directly motivated by knee-jerk reaction to some immediate consequences of conspiracy theories, which drives them to adopt an aggressive stance and invest their time in obvious, tried-and-failed, low-sophistication efforts at fighting them on case by case basis.

Rationalism, as it happens, is a religion too. It is indeed the source of faith for rationalists. "If only everybody was like us, the world would be a better place" is the famous last words of about any major religion. Undermine this faith in a rationalist by stubbornly irrational behavior and he panics, even if the consequences of your actions are relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. Paradoxically, a common feature of conventional religion is that it gives its adherents a way out of this futile anti-bullshit whack-a-mole treadmill: You can't control the world, because the Supernatural does. You don't need to convince anyone, you can give up your life for the truth and that's okay too. You don't need to get your life perfect, you will be forgiven and/or granted another one. You don't need to worry, and worrying about things out of your control wears you down like nothing else.

For all the talk about potentially verifiable by anyone evidence of Moon landings, influence or lack thereof of RF on human body, China flu and whatnot, where is the evidence that practicing rationalism is of any long-term benefit to the rationalists, when the irrational are taking over the world and driving it into chaos? For all we know, it's been just a social experiment, one which really seriously lasted only for no more than a few centuries, and that's being generous IMO. If you believe in Darwinism, Darwinism is what you get. Being right about some random facts of Nature isn't the same as being fit in an environment full of lunatics, who often care about completely different things than silly facts of Nature, like competition for finite resources down on this planet.

You are right only as long as you are winning, and when you lose, you can be quite rationally considered wrong by definition. Maybe the postmodernists aren't even completely off the rails, lol.

[SilverSolder]

LOL I heard someone talking about that and I was at a loss for words to even respond, the whole thing makes no sense at all.

Seems like the source originated in a plan to tag vaccine bottles with RFID chips for distribution and inventory tracking. I don't know whether that was implemented or not but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

It makes perfect sense if you consider the greater picture. You could spend hours crawling social networks and discussion groups, tracking the origins and evolution of Internet memes and piecing together how the gossip perverted whatever original grains of truth, but in doing so you would missing the forest for the trees.

This theory is not an isolated incident, it fits into a greater landscape of similar theories originating from similar parts of the world. Take a step back and ask what they have in common instead of obsessing about each one in isolation. A common fault of "rationalists" is that they are directly motivated by knee-jerk reaction to some immediate consequences of conspiracy theories, which drives them to adopt an aggressive stance and invest their time in obvious, tried-and-failed, low-sophistication efforts at fighting them on case by case basis.

Rationalism, as it happens, is a religion too. It is indeed the source of faith for rationalists. "If only everybody was like us, the world would be a better place" is the famous last words of about any major religion. Undermine this faith in a rationalist by stubbornly irrational behavior and he panics, even if the consequences of your actions are relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. Paradoxically, a common feature of conventional religion is that it gives its adherents a way out of this futile anti-bullshit whack-a-mole treadmill: You can't control the world, because the Supernatural does. You don't need to convince anyone, you can give up your life for the truth and that's okay too. You don't need to get your life perfect, you will be forgiven and/or granted another one. You don't need to worry, and worrying about things out of your control wears you down like nothing else.

For all the talk about potentially verifiable by anyone evidence of Moon landings, influence or lack thereof of RF on human body, China flu and whatnot, where is the evidence that practicing rationalism is of any long-term benefit to the rationalists, when the irrational are taking over the world and driving it into chaos? For all we know, it's been just a social experiment, one which really seriously lasted only for no more than a few centuries, and that's being generous IMO. If you believe in Darwinism, Darwinism is what you get. Being right about some random facts of Nature isn't the same as being fit in an environment full of lunatics, who often care about completely different things than silly facts of Nature, like competition for finite resources down on this planet.

You are right only as long as you are winning, and when you lose, you can be quite rationally considered wrong by definition. Maybe the postmodernists aren't even completely off the rails, lol.

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

[james_s]

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level. You'll find this sort of thing everywhere, I've known people who were convinced that CFL and LED bulbs are some kind of liberal conspiracy and don't actually save energy, they believe they're junk and don't do what they're said to do. I can measure the power consumption and prove that they do save energy but that won't sway a believer. Look at any conspiracy theorist, they believe something so strongly that they will connect the dots in the most bizarre and convoluted ways in order to fit the evidence to what they believe is the truth. Some things are impossible to prove one way or the other but for someone who truly believes, even something that a rational person can prove is also impossible to prove.

Humans are on average not very rational, they hold emotional beliefs very strongly.

[james_s]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Unfortunately for us, the rationalists are a small minority and probably always will be. Those with a strong tribal identity are better suited to assemble into powerful groups of like minded people, following a leader. Those of us who tend to be loners and march to a different drum are at a substantial disadvantage. A handful of really smart rational people is no match for an emotionally driven mob of idiots with a common belief and unified goal. Most of the conditions that led to humans evolving the way they are have not really changed.

[BravoV]

You're confusing trust and faith.

You trust that Antarctica exists because people tell you it does, but if you so choose you can prove it for yourself, .

Ditto Jupiter, Uranus and gravity, they're all real world, observable and provable, if you have the mental acuity and time you can observe them and derive formulae that predict their orbits, the rate of acceleration etc. to prove it.

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level. You'll find this sort of thing everywhere, I've known people who were convinced that CFL and LED bulbs are some kind of liberal conspiracy and don't actually save energy, they believe they're junk and don't do what they're said to do. I can measure the power consumption and prove that they do save energy but that won't sway a believer. Look at any conspiracy theorist, they believe something so strongly that they will connect the dots in the most bizarre and convoluted ways in order to fit the evidence to what they believe is the truth. Some things are impossible to prove one way or the other but for someone who truly believes, even something that a rational person can prove is also impossible to prove.

Humans are on average not very rational, they hold emotional beliefs very strongly.

Some cases ... these lunatics are just dying for attention, especially in internet age.

At some cases, just pay attention at real world if you had a chance, where you physically meet and watch people like this kind, when making the "speech" in the crowd/audiences, just look and pay attention on how they loved the attention and focus they harvested.

-> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/28/us/nashville-bomb-christmas-monday/index.html

Quote : 'Yes, I'm going to be more famous. I'm going to be so famous Nashville will never forget me.'

Common sense, if certain people would kill themself or made themself killed nowadays, just for attention/view counts (its a fact), then what makes them not even to consider harm/kill other people ?

[wilfred]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Well, we evolved to include people who hold beliefs in things not well understood or based on proven science so then you have to ask how does Darwin explain that. If it was not useful surely it would have faded away.

And they really aren't lunatics and can't be defeated. To set out on some Quixotic quest to try is doomed to failure. You should read "Denialism" by Michael Specter. It uncovers some of the reasons people have a deep rooted mistrust in governments, Big Pharma  (eg Vioxx) and scientists. You'll soon realise you're not dealing with stupid people generally. Even those who appear on TV and social media probably make money from the issues and that to them is reason enough to continue. They all have their reasons.

[CJay]

Is there really any difference? Certainly the line is blurry. We could go the opposite direction and take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

Faith can exist in a vacuum of evidence, that faith becomes the evidence they need to place their trust, a circular, irrational premise but one that exists because humans are irrational.

You can trust in faith but not have faith in trust.


 

 

[PlainName]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

[madires]

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

[bd139]

Not a bad idea 

[bd139]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

On magic, I appreciate magic but most of the fun for me is working out how it’s done, then replicating it badly.

[CJay]

On magic, I appreciate magic but most of the fun for me is working out how it’s done, then replicating it badly.

Conjuring is easy, you do it just like that.

[SilverSolder]

If the lunatics become a real problem and force the rationals to become motivated to actively find a way to defeat them...   that is where the ultimate Darwinism occurs.

Well, we evolved to include people who hold beliefs in things not well understood or based on proven science so then you have to ask how does Darwin explain that. If it was not useful surely it would have faded away.

And they really aren't lunatics and can't be defeated. To set out on some Quixotic quest to try is doomed to failure. You should read "Denialism" by Michael Specter. It uncovers some of the reasons people have a deep rooted mistrust in governments, Big Pharma  (eg Vioxx) and scientists. You'll soon realise you're not dealing with stupid people generally. Even those who appear on TV and social media probably make money from the issues and that to them is reason enough to continue. They all have their reasons.

Let's not conflate conspiracy theorizing with healthy skepticism of government, big pharma, military industrial complex, etc.?

Sometimes, they really are out to get you! 

[BU508A]

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

The weirdos can be found in the TEA section 

[SilverSolder]

take a look at the flat earth people, they believe the earth is flat, they have faith that it is flat, they could get onto a jetliner or send a camera up on a balloon and see the curvature of the earth with their own eyes, they could be shown conclusive evidence that it is not flat, but it will make no difference, it's a belief they hold at the emotional level.

We only see it like that because we know how it works (that is, why we see the curvature of the earth and how that means the thing isn't flat [which builds upon our disbelief that it could be flat, so just reinforces our view]). But consider bd139 and magic - I don't know if he is entertained by magic, but he knows that the magician is somehow cheating and the impossible thing he is doing isn't actually impossible and probably isn't even being done. He sees it with his own eyes but knows it's impossible or, at least, possible in some way he hasn't yet worked out.

How is that different from the flatearther knowing the world is flat but seeing some trick that pretends it isn't? He doesn't know how that trick is being done but he knows that what it's showing isn't possible all the same.

And you can't even rely on an expert to start you off on the right track - just look at the conflicting expert views regarding the pandemic. In the end it basically comes down to a personality contest, and scammers by definition are going to do well there.

Hence the need for science / "rational man" to have good representatives that can explain science in an emotionally compatible way! 

[AVGresponding]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

Yes, and the tldr; of modern psychological anthropology is pretty much that we believe in the supernatural to prevent us from going insane when (a) we lose loved ones to death, and (b) we encounter phenomena we can't explain.

If you're interested you can find links to relevant papers on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_anthropology

I think this forum needs new sections:
- Philosopher's Corner
- Modern Psychology
- Social Impact of Technology

The weirdos can be found in the TEA section 

Hey, I resemble that remark!   

[bd139]

I don’t have one. There is no magic. There are just magicians.

....I suspect that you are also a very rational thinker....

Don't count on it, he's an iPhone user...   

 

Faith is a terrible problem. We shouldn’t have invented that silly concept or built our society on it.

I don't think it was "invented" as much as it is an innate part of human psychology, which evolved because it offered certain evolutionary advantages. We (humans) are not nearly as far removed from our less advanced and more instinct driven tribal/pack animal ancestors as we like to pretend. Every known culture since the dawn of civilization has had some form of religion, and some things based on faith. You have beliefs based on faith too, they just aren't beliefs in the supernatural. I guarantee there are many things you believe and take as absolute fact despite never having personally investigated and proven them to be the case and I do as well. I've never been to Antarctica but I believe it exists. I've never seen Jupiter or Uranus but I have faith that those who have studied them are not lying to me. I don't really understand how gravity works but I have faith that if I hold a hammer above my foot and let go, it will fall straight down and hurt, I do not feel compelled to test this hypothesis. You (and I) find these beliefs to be entirely rational as they align perfectly with our worldview, but for many people that exact thing can be said about the supernatural.

Yes, and the tldr; of modern psychological anthropology is pretty much that we believe in the supernatural to prevent us from going insane when (a) we lose loved ones to death, and (b) we encounter phenomena we can't explain.

If you're interested you can find links to relevant papers on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_anthropology

The death thing is an interesting one. Every perspective is selfish really. Someone else drops dead and you try and fit your mind into the scenario. A lot of people mourn not for others but for themselves (which is marginally correct although the thought framework around it is a bit borked). It doesn't fit the mind still so manifests itself as fear, so you look for other explanations to quell that fear. Eventually you come up with some argument which displaces the fears with an artificial reality. Someone else buys that idea because it's cheaper than thinking about it themselves. Eventually this turns into a massive organised way of thinking, causes a whole bunch of trouble and ends up causing more death than thinking about it. I digress as we don't want to go down that route too far, but ultimately it teaches people to not think, to accept others' arbitrary ideas without proof and everyone just gets stupider.

The outcome when facing an unknown should always be asking questions and doing research, not demanding answers from someone else. There is a large market for off the shelf stupid answers from the above process.

[AVGresponding]

Thinking takes effort, and people are mostly lazy, and prefer to let other people do their thinking for them.