Is that because the information is truly factual and logical, or because the aesthetics of fact and logic are satisfying? E.g. (Early, before true craziness manifested) Jordan Peterson came across as an arbiter of truth to many simply because he spoke well, held status and had confidence in his convictions
Edit: [continued…] despite providing no real evidence to back up many of his claims. Andrew Huberman is another example that springs to mind.
i always look for contradicting things. i choose the one with as few contradictions as possible, thats the best model. as far as evicence goes:
I dont really know the earth is round, because i can’t experience that. it could also be flat. i am not an astronaut, or a pilot, or a shipfaring guy.
so one guy says to me the earth is round. one guy says to me the earth is flat. How do i choose in what to believe?
I choose the modell that reopresants best what i see in real life with my own eyes, and thas has the best fitting internal logik, with so few contradictions as possible.
so I rule out flat earth, because i have seen ships descent behind the horizon at sea, with my own eys. so that makles sense to me.
as far as jordan peterson goes: he is a phylosopher and psyschiatrist. of course you think he is full of shit when the things he says hurt your ego. that is totally subjective.
andrew huberman: you would be shocked how many nutrionists, keto guys, vegan guys and so on are right on the surface, but wrong in the details. you would be shocked if you would know about the quality of certain studies.
for example: the reason alcohol gives you energy is that you partly metabolize it into acetate acid, and your cell can take that and make energy from it. its impossible to get fat from alcohol.
yet nobody mentions that. so calories in calories out doesnt work for pure alcohol, since what your cells cant burn, you breath out again.
so thats biochemistry, biochemistry doesnt lie.
if somebody says something wrong about acetate metaqbolism, i rule the guy out, because it contradicts biochemistry.
but to clarify: i am easely manipulated by lies and people pretending to be nice, i was convinced countless times to do something to my detriment and their profit.
i had a small buisness selling car parts. i couldnt do that anymore, since people were talking me into all kinds of bad deals. i only realized hours or days later.
Is that because the information is truly factual and logical, or because the aesthetics of fact and logic are satisfying? E.g. (Early, before true craziness manifested) Jordan Peterson came across as an arbiter of truth to many simply because he spoke well, held status and had confidence in his convictions
Edit: [continued…] despite providing no real evidence to back up many of his claims. Andrew Huberman is another example that springs to mind.
i always look for contradicting things. i choose the one with as few contradictions as possible, thats the best model. as far as evicence goes:
I dont really know the earth is round, because i can’t experience that. it could also be flat. i am not an astronaut, or a pilot, or a shipfaring guy.
so one guy says to me the earth is round. one guy says to me the earth is flat. How do i choose in what to believe?
I choose the modell that reopresants best what i see in real life with my own eyes, and thas has the best fitting internal logik, with so few contradictions as possible.
so I rule out flat earth, because i have seen ships descent behind the horizon at sea, with my own eys. so that makles sense to me.
as far as jordan peterson goes: he is a phylosopher and psyschiatrist. of course you think he is full of shit when the things he says hurt your ego. that is totally subjective.
andrew huberman: you would be shocked how many nutrionists, keto guys, vegan guys and so on are right on the surface, but wrong in the details. you would be shocked if you would know about the quality of certain studies.
for example: the reason alcohol gives you energy is that you partly metabolize it into acetate acid, and your cell can take that and make energy from it. its impossible to get fat from alcohol.
yet nobody mentions that. so calories in calories out doesnt work for pure alcohol, since what your cells cant burn, you breath out again.
so thats biochemistry, biochemistry doesnt lie.
if somebody says something wrong about acetate metaqbolism, i rule the guy out, because it contradicts biochemistry.
so thats my method.
but to clarify: i am easely manipulated by lies and people pretending to be nice, i was convinced countless times to do something to my detriment and their profit.
i had a small buisness selling car parts. i couldnt do that anymore, since people were talking me into all kinds of bad deals. i only realized hours or days later.