On September 20, 2019 at 17:28, davidcasemore said...
So, it IS the dead one!
An interesting conundrum.
If the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias of those with low intellect believing their intellect to be higher than it truly is, are those who are delusional able to comprehend their delusionality? Delusionality however must, by definition, also be a function of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Would, therefore, an individual afflicted with such a psychological disorder be able to rationalise a question about delusionality and offer a reasoned response? Or would said individual's limited intellectual resources simply resort to lowest common denominator insult to buttress a related cognitive bias of illusory superiority?
In essence, I believe one is unable to comprehend a world beyond one's constrained mental bubble and is lashing out with conspiracy ideation as a form of self-defence mechanism. Amusingly this is somewhat analogous to 'consensus science': ignoring (denying?) empirical evidence, for 'tuned' climate models, and denigrating those who have the 'audacity' to point it out. Consensus scientists, though, are well paid for their views (however misguided) whereas yours are just twaddle and merely highlights your ignorance and inability to formulate a compelling argument. Hardly surprising, therefore, that many regards you as a jackanapes and simpleton.
On September 21, 2019 at 10:00, BizarroTerl said...
WTH is the matter with these kids? Who cares if it is their future, we have an accountant that says it isn't happening!
I have no objection to passion and idealism, but it's clear their understanding of climate change is limited to headline news which, of course, is very much biased in favour of alarmism and not mainstream science. The situation is little different in the UK, even in my neck of the woods.1
As for this: "Who cares if it is their future, we have an accountant that says it isn't happening!" may I first direct you to one of your previous comments:
"No. You made an assertion. I quoted information that proved your assertion was wrong yet you still go on making the assertion. This makes it clear that you have no interest in discussing this, just interested in pushing a personal viewpoint which has been proven wrong. It's actions such as you're doing that just makes the denier movement less and less credible.
Since you're not willing to discuss this in an adult matter I leave you to your delusions. Good luck with that."
To which I replied thus:
"Well, what can I say? Doggedly sticking to the view you’ve 'proved me wrong' when I've proffered a detailed argument (with supporting evidence of my own) countering your 'quoted information' rather defeats me.
To have an adult discussion one needs to proffer a compelling argument of one's own. Copying and pasting a few easily refutable quotes doesn't cut it."
Yes, I make assertions (as do you), but I endeavour to offer supporting 'adult' arguments whereas, to date, you haven't. In your comment above not only do you repeat your Modus Operandi, you also add misrepresentation. This is precisely my argument against consensus alarmism: they are misrepresenting science to support a political objective. Hardly any wonder then the kids think as they do.
