• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    148
    ·
    1 year ago

    Starts to make sense how some conspiracies come out when you get examples like this of people being blatantly ignorant of evidence right in front of their noses

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my experience it has less to do with stuff like this where people are just not looking close enough or are mistaken and more to do with the idea of them being wrong being impossible. Conspiracies that I interact with don’t even discuss evidence. Because they can’t be wrong and there’s no way to falsify their worldview.

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A lot of it has to do with wanting to be superior. They have feelings of not having control so they tell themselves and each other that everyone else is stupid and being fooled but not them, they are the smart few, they know the truth, they are the in crowd.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have wondered if there is just a tolerance people have for feeling dumb. How much can you endure? If you can handle a lot you can continue to learn, doesn’t mean you will means you can. If you can’t handle a lot you make your life in such a way as you don’t have to feel that way. Like someone with a phobia who just always finds ways to not be around it. If I am right conspiracy theories are a coping mechanism to avoid the feeling of inadequacy.

          For myself my work is willing to pay for me to go back to school part time and I admit there is a part of me afraid of feeling stupid around all those kids fresh out of high school.

          • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This sounds well thought out. I would say inadequacy and superiority are two sides of the same coin. If it helps you probably will be stupid around those other kids but not forever. You’ll get through it and be better for it. It sounds like you already know that

      • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This, in the post truth era, evidence is only useful to educated people that are willing. For most victims, we have to de program them first.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every single discussion I have about climate ends with “yes, that’s one side of the argument, but who really knows what’s the truth”.

          Motherfucker, you said something that’s false. I showed you you were wrong by a factor of several million. Where ever the exact truth lies, it’s way on the other side of the fucking moon from your standpoint.

  • rothaine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    *every known letter of the alphabet.

    The implication that there are undiscovered letters creates excitement for the reader. Who knows what is out there!

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those same people do math incorrectly and shout at everyone else to do it their way.

    • sfgifz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      2+2=5

      Don’t take my word for it research about it yourself there are lots of good videos on YouTube the government and science liars don’t want you to know the truth /s

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          For those confused

          2.25+2.25=4.5 rounds to 2+2=5

          2.5+2.5=5 truncates to 2+2=5

          Both can crop up in programming, depending on the situation.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            2.25 + 2.25 = 4.5

            If you add two floats together then the output is a float, if you add an int and a float together the output is a float. Computers will always perform the calculation as is, unless you explicitly tell them to perform a rounding operation.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              However, if you stuff them into an int at the last minute, you can get that effect.

              Under the hood, it’s floats. On the output, it’s ints.

              It’s obvious and silly with small examples. The problem can creep in when you are using larger libraries or frameworks.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A few months back I had a floating point that had a single 1 like 16 digits past the decimal place and I couldn’t get rid of it.

      • tabris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Remember when Terrance Howard tried to explain how 1x1=2 because bird people from Atlantis tricked us? Good times.

    • hushable@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Just look at those viral math problems. I recently saw one that was something like (1+2*3)*(1*0) and most comments were arguing if it was 7 or 9

          • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was going to claim 9 because I though there was some markdown that italicised things with a single ^, and your intent was (1+2³). Before the (1•0) of course.

            • rmuk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              (1+2*3)*(1*0) = (1+23)(1*0)

              • glibg10b@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                And I agree. You’re completely missing my point, though

                The only advice I can give is to re-read the thread, starting from @hushable@lemmy.world’s comment. If the source of your confusion is that you don’t know what escaping the asterisks means, then just ask

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course, there’s also the times where we just make the research hard to do.

      Like, we teach kids PEMDAS, but then don’t actually follow PEMDAS in the original textbooks that introduce it and definitely not in common math or physics texts.

      Like, you’ll see 1/2√r in Feynman’s lectures being written not to represent ½*√r = √r / 2 as pemdas would suggest, but 1/(2*√r).

      Similarly, the original textbooks that introduced PEMDAS, if you read them, actually followed what you might call PEJMDAS, where multiplication via juxtaposition is treated as binding tighter than explicit multiplication, so 1÷2(2+3) would be interpreted not as ½(5) but as 1 ÷ (2 * 5), but they considered that so obvious they didn’t bother to explicitly spell it out in the rules.

      And now we have Facebook memes and tiktok livestreams arguing about what 1÷2(2+3) actually means.

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also by the time you’ve learned order of operations, you’ve outgrown the ÷ operator. You would never write 1 ÷ (2 * 5), you would write it with a proper numerator and denominator like anyone outside of elementary school would.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hate these math problems you see on social media. No one would write that way or code that way. It is ambiguous, and even if it weren’t it is still hard to figure out. I think in my entire career I have seen one single line of code that took PEMDAS to sort out, I remember that line and the programmer told me that they were exploiting a feature of the complier to get slightly faster results. He was an annoying person

      • FauxPseudo @lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Inglesh. Ingliti given the ti sound in words ending in tion. Englich if we use the soft ch option. I was functionally illiterate until my teens. By the end of highschool I had a college level reading comprehension but less than a third grade spelling ability. Trying to read something I wrote would have you convinced I wasn’t a native English speaker until I was in my late 20s. The less you know about English the more ways you can find to spell any word it offers up.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    W is in brown

    E is in over

    V is in over

    Z is in lazy

    K is in quick

    And I can’t endorse any viewpoint that tells me to accept something on faith. You might not have time to do your own research on every single issue but you are certainly welcome too

    • FauxPseudo @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t about not doing your research. It’s a lesson in the pitfalls of thinking you’ve competently done your research…

        • rhsJack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t look at the picture or read any other comments, so I am going to say ‘yes’. Or ‘no’. I’m going to need coffee first and that usually ends up with me forgetting this post by the time I get back.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people are incapable of doing their own research. It takes time and money to do studies. It takes years of training to define proper study parameters.

      Many people are also incapable of doing a meta analysis based on reading studies and opinions on the Internet. It takes years to root out the mental fallacies that we seem to be born with. But at least many can do this.

      Most people should find a trusted source or two and just read those.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Should say to have your research peer reviewed

      They did it and were wrong but now they can be corrected

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    the availability of text on the internet can make people believe they’re an expert on topics that take a lifetime to understand

    if people should do their own research, we may as well shutter the national labs and universities

    • misophist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      we may as well shutter the national labs and universities

      That’s an extremely desirable outcome for the “do your own research” crowd.

  • s_s@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I especially like when the person who says “theres[sic] no letter e” is wrong 3 times and makes a spelling mistake. 😂

    Absolute disasterclass.

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is actually a perfect representation of the shallow “research” conspiracy theorists do.

    Quoting only the first few lines of an abstract outlining a problem/open question then ignoring the rest of the paper where they address the issue in the abstract.

    This way, they can claim that the paper says the exact opposite of what it does.