The so called wise men are fools...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,509
29,491
136
Also you would think the guy just being really wrong about COVID generally would make someone less likely to trust him on the topic.

As mentioned, he was one of the guys who advocated for essentially uncontrolled spread in the younger segments of the population so that we would develop herd immunity. The problem with that is, as Omicron shows, that variants can escape natural immunity. Imagine if we had done what he advised, we would have far larger piles of bodies to show for it and Omicron would potentially have us back at square one.

It’s always good to hear alternate viewpoints but you also have to use your own mind to evaluate them. The guy who has given consistently wrong and bad advice on COVID is probably a bad source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and pmv

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
555
213
116
@Moonbeam

The scientific community has historically had a weak response to folks like Dr. Jay since as a rule they avoid politics. But he's an outlier; a Covid-era version of creation-scientist or tobacco-company-doctor.

We live in an age where guys like Jay get an elevated platform. You did not just stumble across him.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,628
4,591
126
Calling wise men fools is of little consequence. It's calling fools wise that creates so many problems.
Perhaps you have no idea how interrelated those two are.

There are two issues here this post is intended to raise related to one aspect of people's psychology. We want to experience conformational information and shun information that deviates from our unconscious assumptions, our own personal doctrines and favored input styles. This can be as true for those who believe in scientific doctrine, especially scientific advise regarding issues that have been politicized, or religious beliefs especially ones challenged by scientific fact.

The issue that interests me after watching the link in my OP is that I did not expect to see something that sounded sincere. I have no problem with the fact the professor may be wrong, that he cites misleading data, etc. What I did not see was a person of ill intent. I saw a person who I think actually believes his recommendations are better overall than the ones we actually pursued. There is a problem with that and that it can't be tested because we can't rerun history following his recommendations. We can only make scientific estimations or biased estimations as to how things might have gone like how much better off we would have been in the Supreme Court hadn't stolen the 2000 election.

I don't really know anybody who attributes more to unconscious motivations than I do, especially ones driven by unconscious hate, so I find it rather odd that I didn't see that in this man. That he hates himself and has no idea he does, I have no doubt at all, but that he has given over his psychic life to revenge against others I didn't see in the interview. I also believe there is one truth that covers us all which raises for me endless puzzlement. What is going on in the minds of people who are wrong but who believe they are right. Do they know they are wrong and deny it or wrongly believe. I find it rather unfortunate that as the right drifts off into madness they pull the left along with them in my opinion. The contempt for differing opinions that people may sincerely hold is dangerous to my mind dangerous and I would prefer better dialog between opposing points of view.

If you suggest that someone is wrong expect them to attack you as a monstrous threat. Check to see if the stresses today are causing people to become more and more likely to snap. Consider that there may be only one thing in this world you can change and that is yourself. If it is change you undertake for the sake of ego you won't but strengthen it, but if it is change put into effort to examine how you may overreact to things perhaps that can be a good thing.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,755
19,773
136
Perhaps you have no idea how interrelated those two are.

There are two issues here this post is intended to raise related to one aspect of people's psychology. We want to experience conformational information and shun information that deviates from our unconscious assumptions, our own personal doctrines and favored input styles. This can be as true for those who believe in scientific doctrine, especially scientific advise regarding issues that have been politicized, or religious beliefs especially ones challenged by scientific fact.

The issue that interests me after watching the link in my OP is that I did not expect to see something that sounded sincere. I have no problem with the fact the professor may be wrong, that he cites misleading data, etc. What I did not see was a person of ill intent. I saw a person who I think actually believes his recommendations are better overall than the ones we actually pursued. There is a problem with that and that it can't be tested because we can't rerun history following his recommendations. We can only make scientific estimations or biased estimations as to how things might have gone like how much better off we would have been in the Supreme Court hadn't stolen the 2000 election.

I don't really know anybody who attributes more to unconscious motivations than I do, especially ones driven by unconscious hate, so I find it rather odd that I didn't see that in this man. That he hates himself and has no idea he does, I have no doubt at all, but that he has given over his psychic life to revenge against others I didn't see in the interview. I also believe there is one truth that covers us all which raises for me endless puzzlement. What is going on in the minds of people who are wrong but who believe they are right. Do they know they are wrong and deny it or wrongly believe. I find it rather unfortunate that as the right drifts off into madness they pull the left along with them in my opinion. The contempt for differing opinions that people may sincerely hold is dangerous to my mind dangerous and I would prefer better dialog between opposing points of view.

If you suggest that someone is wrong expect them to attack you as a monstrous threat. Check to see if the stresses today are causing people to become more and more likely to snap. Consider that there may be only one thing in this world you can change and that is yourself. If it is change you undertake for the sake of ego you won't but strengthen it, but if it is change put into effort to examine how you may overreact to things perhaps that can be a good thing.
I just want to respond to this part of your post:

"The issue that interests me after watching the link in my OP is that I did not expect to see something that sounded sincere."

It was painfully clear to me within the first 5 minutes that this piece was professionally produced to appear sincere. This is precisely why I called the host a "cvnt." I don't really care if the interviewee sincerely believes his own bullshit or is paid to skullfuck us, or some combination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,443
539
126
Actually I think I am so deeply skeptical that I don't believe anything which makes it easy for me to entertain anything, being indifferent, as it were, to whether I am tempted to believe or not. Not believing in anything makes it easier, in my opinion of course, to not worry too much if I fall for something false, having the tendency as I do, not to believe even what I believe.

One of the things I note about hating myself is this terrible fear of being wrong. The fear of being naive and stupid and gullible. In a competitive world full of children starving for attention and praise, there is this tendency to want to assert oneself as being more competent than others. To survive in a world like that one needs to practice at competent pretension or seek better mental health. That second path requires some recognition of where the problem lies, within oneself.
I hesitate to offer a response as I have a terrible fear that I do not really understand the point you are trying to make. 😋

But it does seem to me that you must be resigned to the possibility that you will be wrong in order to function in this world. There are few topic/issues/problems that do not have a very wide range of possibly correct answers, and it would seem to be pretty presumptuous for a person to be completely certain that his/her answer could not be wrong. Nonetheless, we continually need to make decisions in our lives and base those decisions on our best guesses on what we think the correct answers are. As a silly example, I will be setting my alarm clock tonight because I an guessing that the world will not end while I am asleep. As a more topical example, I did get my COVID vaccine and booster and I do try to follow masking and social distancing recommendations. Now it is possible (and even probable) that at least some of what the experts are telling us about COVID will turn out to be wrong, and it may be that some of the decisions I am making now on their advice might not have been necessary. But IMHO the consensus of the medical community is a much better "guess" to accept (being much more likely to be closest to the truth) than those of the internet outliers/conspiracy theorists. It seems to me that life is all about making the best decisions that you can, and that means basing them on the things you judge (on the basis of incomplete information) to be most likely to be true. Basically Bayesian logic.

It's the people who are so sure of what they believe that they cannot imagine being wrong that scare me. But of course I could be wrong... 😉
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,628
4,591
126
I hesitate to offer a response as I have a terrible fear that I do not really understand the point you are trying to make. 😋

But it does seem to me that you must be resigned to the possibility that you will be wrong in order to function in this world. There are few topic/issues/problems that do not have a very wide range of possibly correct answers, and it would seem to be pretty presumptuous for a person to be completely certain that his/her answer could not be wrong. Nonetheless, we continually need to make decisions in our lives and base those decisions on our best guesses on what we think the correct answers are. As a silly example, I will be setting my alarm clock tonight because I an guessing that the world will not end while I am asleep. As a more topical example, I did get my COVID vaccine and booster and I do try to follow masking and social distancing recommendations. Now it is possible (and even probable) that at least some of what the experts are telling us about COVID will turn out to be wrong, and it may be that some of the decisions I am making now on their advice might not have been necessary. But IMHO the consensus of the medical community is a much better "guess" to accept (being much more likely to be closest to the truth) than those of the internet outliers/conspiracy theorists. It seems to me that life is all about making the best decisions that you can, and that means basing them on the things you judge (on the basis of incomplete information) to be most likely to be true. Basically Bayesian logic.

It's the people who are so sure of what they believe that they cannot imagine being wrong that scare me. But of course I could be wrong... 😉
We’ll of course I share your point of view here and act the same as you. It is the issue of people’ certainty that caused me to post. I find that much of my certainty, especially when I was less aware of how certain I was about things, was based on an unconscious identification with the things I was certain about because they were a comfort to my insecure ego.

Now I am certain that this is dangerous. :)

I could be wrong, but really? Come on! Not a chance.

There is a strange place you can be and it is knowing you don’t know. It is based on the process of increasing uncertainty about anything believed so that you suddenly realize you don’t know anything. Then you know that what others believe is the same ton of cabbage you just plowed under. This isn’t about facts like it’s Wednesday but about ideas that support the notion that your ego is good, notions deemed of value to whatever group we believe we are in. Sacred cows. They come from feels we don’t know we feel but are terrified to lose. It is that fear that makes believers dangerous.

Now I would add that if you believe that good is better than evil I would completely agree. I believe that is built into our genes. The problem I have is in the belief one knows what the good is in a way that makes you violent if that faith comes under attack. I don’t think this means that one should simple be passive in the face of evil but I can’t get behind so much of what people believe they are morally justified to do.

Anyway, glad for your response.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,594
9,321
126
One of the things I tell people to do when they have been swayed by videos on the internet is to ONLY read transcripts and written word. STOP watching cults of personality sway you when the words themselves and lack of real evidence alone would not.

Propaganda is INTENDED to sway you. And EVERYONE is susceptible. If you think you are not, you're the easiest target.

People lie every day. Some are able to do so so sincerely they they make a living of it (acting, sales, trophy wives/husbands, gurus...).

An engaging, magnetic personality that seems sincere is NOT evidence.

To me, it's a red flag.

When someone sends me a video I ask them to send me a bullet point list of the claims made and evidence supporting them.

When you distill Jay's case to this, it falls apart. He's a crackpot who has been utterly debunked and currently he's being funded and produced by the anti-vax groups who have millions to produce very slick videos like "Plandemic" and "Vaxxed" and a regular video/podcast with Del Bigtree that rivals the best TV shows in production values.

Stop listening to the spoken word when it comes to stuff like this.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,755
19,773
136

I win. :) But nevermind that. Worth a listen, in my opinion.
Holy fuck Moonbeam, just fucking stop. Jesus Christ. Clearly you are every bit as susceptible to propaganda as the average magatard. There are no words to express the amount of rage and disappointment I feel knowing that you could watch that video and not immediately recognize how fucking dishonest it is.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,066
1,744
136
@Moonbeam

The scientific community has historically had a weak response to folks like Dr. Jay since as a rule they avoid politics. But he's an outlier; a Covid-era version of creation-scientist or tobacco-company-doctor.

We live in an age where guys like Jay get an elevated platform. You did not just stumble across him.
Responding to his points isn't politics, it's literally refuting BS conclusions drawn from observable fact. It's a fundamental tenet of the scientific method.

Masks work. There's strong evidence to support that fact.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that wearing a mask has any impact whatsoever on mental health or well being. I'm certain there are impacts to mental health from social isolation and interrupted development, but the extent of that is much less well characterized.

Doesn't mean he's not an idiot and shouldn't be called out on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardener

DaaQ

Senior member
Dec 8, 2018
764
477
106

I win. :) But nevermind that. Worth a listen, in my opinion.
Got to 1:34 in, after hearing that this incredible person has been "silenced" by Twitter, therefore eliminating scientific debate, I am sure his Peers are absolutely frightened by this and shall make sure they speak correctly to not be "silenced" by Twitter. To safeguard from character assassination.

I shall eagerly await the journal "SCIENCE" to follow suit.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,294
11,159
136
If that is an aspect of this topic and the wisdom of men.....

Stop Wearing Cloth Masks
Experts say that your old cloth masks simply aren't enough to fight Omicron.

The majority of available, reusable, masks may not have been worth much at all.
I thought it was pretty easy to figure out that any generic old face covering was sub par, though in some short contact cases better than nothing.

I bought a mask that took reusable kn-95 filters from a swedish company called airinum and also the meo air mask from new Zealand also with replaceable filters rated the same.

I think they knew there weren't enough medical grade masks around for so long they didn't want to have people say fuck it and wear nothing, so they just said masks

I have seen quite a few articles say that if you really want protection, get an n95 or kn-95 rated mask, or double mask
 

rmacd02

Senior member
Nov 24, 2015
228
218
116
If that is an aspect of this topic and the wisdom of men.....

Stop Wearing Cloth Masks
Experts say that your old cloth masks simply aren't enough to fight Omicron.

The majority of available, reusable, masks may not have been worth much at all.
It bears repeating, cloth masks were never intended to protect the person wearing it. It was to protect others, and if it didn't work, you can blame all the folks who refused to wear a mask.

That being said, I ride a train to work.
Too many riders were not wearing masks, so I upgraded to KN95 masks months ago.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,148
4,883
136

I win. :) But nevermind that. Worth a listen, in my opinion.

As I've said many times, I don't watch political youtube videos. Tell me what the point is in words, please. That's the appropriate format for a forum.

There's something quite arrogant about expecting people to docilely sit and watch a crafted propaganda video, rather than actually making whatever point it is you want to persaude your audience of, yourself, in your own words. Even linking to some partisan writer's written argument is a more reasonable approach, than saying 'now quietly sit there like a good citizen and consume this propaganda film'.

I tried to google who "kim Iversen" is but couldn't find any information that wasn't an obvious self-written puff-piece. Never heard of them. Don't even know what that video is about, as all I see is "emails REVEAL Fauci & Co...'. You could at least have provided the full title. Sounds like it's some conspiracy-theory nonsense about Fauci, but as you couldn't be bothered to summarise anything, I have no idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,628
4,591
126
As I've said many times, I don't watch political youtube videos. Tell me what the point is in words, please. That's the appropriate format for a forum.

There's something quite arrogant about expecting people to docilely sit and watch a crafted propaganda video, rather than actually making whatever point it is you want to persaude your audience of, yourself, in your own words. Even linking to some partisan writer's written argument is a more reasonable approach, than saying 'now quietly sit there like a good citizen and consume this propaganda film'.

I tried to google who "kim Iversen" is but couldn't find any information that wasn't an obvious self-written puff-piece. Never heard of them. Don't even know what that video is about, as all I see is "emails REVEAL Fauci & Co...'. You could at least have provided the full title. Sounds like it's some conspiracy-theory nonsense about Fauci, but as you couldn't be bothered to summarise anything, I have no idea.
The general idea of my intention in this thread regards the topic of certainty, how people know what they don’t know at all, how some people believe one thing and others believe the opposite and how any challenge to that certainty can create a firestorm of defensive retaliation. I find this certainty everywhere and also in myself.

I am reminded of that certainty in myself when I come in contact with people who believe things that conflict with my orthodoxy.

I presented a video about a Stanford professor who along with two other people published different advice on how to deal with Covid and I think the one interviewed was sincere in his belief, whereas my tendency toward anybody with such opinions would actually have to be motivated by malice and ideology. I wanted to share that discovery with others here to see if others agree. The doctor, and I as the messenger were generally roundly attacked, him as a quack and me as a gullible idiot.

The second video was a critique of that kind of certainty and mentioned criticism of that very doctor by the establishment as closed minded bigotry. The result, again was that I am the bigot.

My criticism or reaction to your post here is that what I wanted to do was to create a bit of self reflection in others that this typical rejection of others as evil heretics might in fact be the result of honest disagreement and that the capacity to entertain that idea could be a better or more open way to see things. I rather like being able to hear what others say without reacting as though hearing them would give me some sort of deadly contagion. So when I try to suggest that people look twice at the hostility they can exhibit to the other peoples’ thinking for their own sake, finding it as I do to be personally beneficial, I really don’t want to hand over any potential benefit I fancy there to be tied up tidy and easily digestible with a bow. I don’t want to have to do all the work. If you feel me to be arrogant in that regard, that is fine by me. I say, fuck you if you don’t want to watch the links. I’m not here to spoon feed you even though I just spent this post doing so the best I can. You can thank me in the future by carefully considering my posts to offerings of self improvement from one of the deepest minds you have ever been in contact with.

Hope this passes the arrogance test.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,628
4,591
126
Holy fuck Moonbeam, just fucking stop. Jesus Christ. Clearly you are every bit as susceptible to propaganda as the average magatard. There are no words to express the amount of rage and disappointment I feel knowing that you could watch that video and not immediately recognize how fucking dishonest it is.
OK, OK, I went on Amazon and ordered a flail.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,755
19,773
136
The general idea of my intention in this thread regards the topic of certainty, how people know what they don’t know at all, how some people believe one thing and others believe the opposite and how any challenge to that certainty can create a firestorm of defensive retaliation. I find this certainty everywhere and also in myself.

I am reminded of that certainty in myself when I come in contact with people who believe things that conflict with my orthodoxy.

I presented a video about a Stanford professor who along with two other people published different advice on how to deal with Covid and I think the one interviewed was sincere in his belief, whereas my tendency toward anybody with such opinions would actually have to be motivated by malice and ideology. I wanted to share that discovery with others here to see if others agree. The doctor, and I as the messenger were generally roundly attacked, him as a quack and me as a gullible idiot.

The second video was a critique of that kind of certainty and mentioned criticism of that very doctor by the establishment as closed minded bigotry. The result, again was that I am the bigot.

My criticism or reaction to your post here is that what I wanted to do was to create a bit of self reflection in others that this typical rejection of others as evil heretics might in fact be the result of honest disagreement and that the capacity to entertain that idea could be a better or more open way to see things. I rather like being able to hear what others say without reacting as though hearing them would give me some sort of deadly contagion. So when I try to suggest that people look twice at the hostility they can exhibit to the other peoples’ thinking for their own sake, finding it as I do to be personally beneficial, I really don’t want to hand over any potential benefit I fancy there to be tied up tidy and easily digestible with a bow. I don’t want to have to do all the work. If you feel me to be arrogant in that regard, that is fine by me. I say, fuck you if you don’t want to watch the links. I’m not here to spoon feed you even though I just spent this post doing so the best I can. You can thank me in the future by carefully considering my posts to offerings of self improvement from one of the deepest minds you have ever been in contact with.

Hope this passes the arrogance test.
There is a saying that goes something like "a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth even gets out of bed."

The lying bitch in that video says @3:50 "an email from NIH to Fauci asking for a takedown of the 3 authors and the agreement." She then quotes the actual email and it is actually asking for a public takedown of its premises. When scientists say that they are talking about countering misinformation with facts. The lies were already halfway around the world, which is why they are expressing urgency.

If an idiot like me can recognize that there is no excuse for you. As a fan of yours for years, I am tired of this shit. You aren't getting people to examine themselves, you are acting a fool. You might as well go grab the nearest gun and start shooting people on the street. It would be less harmful.

But who gives a shit what I say when you have the deepest mind we've ever met.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,032
14,115
146
Seems they couldn’t get government funding for reasons:

That's awesome, now even anti vaxxers cuz "new technology" can stfu and get it. It's old school, effective, and lower cost!

Although I am more than a little disappointed this wasn't pursued after sars1, or mers. Someone should stepped up.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,755
19,773
136
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ASK THE COMMUNITY