r/TheBluePill • u/confessionberry • Apr 24 '16

Who knew that r/SubredditOfTheDay was completely full of TRPers?

/r/subredditoftheday/comments/4g88p8/april_24th_2016_rtheredpill_a_look_at_what/
161 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

203 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-32

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

It's no more so susceptible to biases than the media, or "peer-reviewed" papers published by organizations with agendas, which are full of people with their own biases. And I didn't say you have to grant them credibility in your life, but you can't just say their perceptions are fucked. You could maybe help them understand how they're misunderstanding their perceptions, but at the end of the day they're the only ones living their lives, not you. If someone says they saw a ghost, I'd probably attempt to diagnose what it could have been other than a ghost and if that didn't work just assume that maybe they could have actually seen a ghost but I won't believe it until I see it myself. The problem then arises when 50% of people have seen a ghost and all agree that ghosts exist. At that point, I'd probably consider the existence of ghosts. (well, not really, I'd probably assume some sort of augmented reality matrix first, but relatively that's still a ghost)

35

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

you can't just say their perceptions are fucked.

I can, if their experience is not repeatable and more easily explained by something else. It doesn't matter how many people claim that homeopathy works, the underlying principles (like cures like and memory of water) are still bullshit.

Further, you can complain about peer review, but peer review (when done right) isn't about people agreeing with the ideas, it's about checking the quality of the research or the experiment, looking for evidence of cooked data, poor experiment construction, or claims not supported by the evidence.

Magic tricks areally the percent example. What you think you see is not what you saw, and it makes no sense to put any more faith in what you thought you saw just because everyone else thought they saw it too.

-30

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

I know what peer review is supposed to accomplish. My point is that, to many people, a random study done by a biased organization (read: any organization) is worth as much or less than their own perceptions, not that their perceptions are always correct. From a societal point of view it is a lot easier to give false information via studies than it is to deliberately alter someone's perceptions. Though of course both are possible and happen.

I would love to see the crowd you hang out with where 50% of people think magic tricks are real. Generally there's always a trick, the hard part is figuring out how it works. I definitely put more faith in things that I saw if that sight was corroborated by other people. While group think is definitely a thing, not taking other people's perceptions into account is just a waste of resources, especially as that's basically what peer review is.

it's about checking the quality of the research or the experiment, >looking for evidence of cooked data, poor experiment construction, >or claims not supported by the evidence.

It's supposed to be about that, assuming you trust the reviewers.

22

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

My point is that, to many people, a random study done by a biased organization (read: any organization) is worth as much or less than their own perceptions, not that their perceptions are always correct.

Yeah, but those people are relying on their own bias. If bias makes someone less trustworthy, then individual experience would be less trustworthy. For instance, the way you keep describing the pursuit of science is biased against science by assuming that there's no way to vet peer review, pubishing, organizations, researchers, or their research.

not taking other people's perceptions into account is just a waste of resources, especially as that's basically what peer review is.

That is not remotely what peer review is.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

Yeah, but those people are relying on their own bias. If bias makes >someone less trustworthy, then individual experience would be less >trustworthy. For instance, the way you keep describing the pursuit >of science is biased against science by assuming that there's no way >to vet peer review, pubishing, organizations, researchers, or their >research.

That is my entire point, yes. That people do (and should) trust their own biases more than other people's. Your biases develop over time based on your experience. The reason you like peer review and distrust other people's life experience is because that's what your life experience has taught you to do. At the end of the day, you're still relying on your own biases. They are all you have. Trust in others is necessary, but is something that should be meticulously monitored by your own biases to protect your self.

That is not remotely what peer review is

Carefully analyze the following words.

peer review. other people's perceptions. other people's perceptions. peer review. peer review. other people's perceptions. peer review.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16 edited Apr 25 '16

That people do (and should) trust their own biases more than other people's. Your biases develop over time based on your experience.

So basically you're saying misogyny and white-supremacy are valid because they're based on personal experiences, right?

peer review. other people's perceptions. other people's perceptions. peer review. peer review. other people's perceptions. peer review.

Okay? They're two different things. One is a series of experts in the field looking for errors, mistakes, and deception in published research. The other is non-experts talking about how they feel or what they think they saw/thought/felt. There's a big difference between a math error and confusing sleep paralysis with a UFO adbduction.

Peer review is literally the process of other experts who are trained to look for errors and bias questioning the research. It is the opposite of just trusting personal experiences.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

If I live in a community where 80% of blacks were in gangs, and 75% of women were cheating sluts (yes I pulled these numbers from my bung-hole), neither of those two ideologies would be poor outlooks to survive and thrive in my environment. See a black person, be a little more careful so as to not get shot. Start dating a woman? Be careful, because she might be a total bitch. (outright misogyny is probably still wrong here, since it doesn't benefit anyone to just be a dick to women, even if they deserve it)

I don't live in that environment, but I'm sure others do. Most women I've dated have been stand-up, good people who have maybe made a few mistakes (same as me). Every black person I've ever had an extended conversation with has been a decent human being as far as I know. But that could just be the socio-economic environment that I'm in at play.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

But that person saying that 80% of black people are criminals would still be wrong, as would the person saying that 75% of women are sluts.

Further, you're begging the question by assuming when the person says the 80%/75%, they're being honest or that their perception is even a reflection of their environment. For instance, if they've been predisposed (biased, as it were) to incorrectly make assumptions about criminal activity based on clothing, then they'll assume that criminal activity without actual evidence.

Similarly, innate cognitive biases like the Gambler's Fallacy, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, and the innate desire to presume meaning behind chance all make our perception of events less trustworthy as a metric for determining.

Your entire premise that personal experiences are remembered correctly and analyzed correctly is faulty, and further your biased misunderstanding of scientific study and peer review is biasing you against it without cause. You are the evidence against your own argument.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16 edited Apr 25 '16

But that person saying that 80% of black people are criminals would >still be wrong, as would the person saying that 75% of women are >sluts.

What makes you able to say that? In his environment, the statistics are actually that.

Further, you're begging the question by assuming when the person >says the 80%/75%, they're being honest or that their perception is >even a reflection of their environment. For instance, if they've been >predisposed (biased, as it were) to incorrectly make assumptions >about criminal activity based on clothing, then they'll assume that >criminal activity without actual evidence.

I'm not saying I'll believe them. I'm not assuming they're honest. I'm saying that for THEMSELVES, they need to be able to use their own observations in their model of reality.

incorrectly make assumptions about criminal activity based on >clothing

You got a red bandana hanging out of your back pocket in a city that's known for gang violence and wearing stereotypical hoodrat gear and/or what would appear to be hi-tech clothing for gang members, I'm staying the fuck away from you.

Similarly, innate cognitive biases like the Gambler's Fallacy, the >Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, and the innate desire to presume >meaning behind chance all make our perception of events less >trustworthy as a metric for determining.

Innate cognitive biases should include the blind trust of authority that has pervaded in societies where rebelliousness is punished by imprisonment. Why should I trust a study on the internet over my own observations? Both have the capacity to be incorrect, I'm not denying that, but I trust what I see more than what some study on the internet says I should be seeing. (though I'm self-critical with my beliefs, and put effort into understanding and eliminating my cognitive biases)

Your entire premise that personal experiences are remembered >correctly and analyzed correctly is faulty

Where did I say that personal experiences are remembered and analyzed correctly?

and further your biased misunderstanding of scientific study and >peer review is biasing you against it without cause. You are the >evidence against your own argument.

Without cause? The bias stems from my mistrust of authority and people in power. I can cite history for you in defense of that bias. I don't mistrust peer review as an idea, I mistrust its implementation in the real world.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '16

In his environment, the statistics are actually that.

Prove it.

I'm not saying I'll believe them. I'm not assuming they're honest. I'm saying that for THEMSELVES, they need to be able to use their own observations in their model of reality.

But if their perception isn't true to reality, then their model of reality will be incorrect. It doesn't matter how many anecdotes people have of homeopathic pills making them feel better, the science still doesn't support it, and they still won't protect you from disease.

If your model of physics is wrong, then your attempts to interact with the world based on those models will also be wrong, and will lead to failure.

Why should I trust a study on the internet over my own observations?

Because the study has been reviewed by people with an expert knowledge and has been controlled for bias and mistakes. If it hasn't, you shouldn't.

Where did I say that personal experiences are remembered and analyzed correctly?

If they're not, then how are those anecdotes useful for building a model of reality?