Mete mt svj nzor, not sv fakta. When you’re a greyhound on vdce, so podn

If you think about it, it often appears in discussions not only about coronavirus. When we play as a leader, we can learn the basics from them: Be skeptical of ourselves and the dates. Don’t worry, really. And refer to your sources. If you want to agree with, not to predvdt, we can tell you how to do it.

The first wave was equipped against en covid-19. The mon virus is receding, mon is entering, this link is not about that. The article is about all of us who dream to understand what is happening and what will last. And of course we discuss it with others.

Discussions, especially on the Internet, have always been quite a place for exchanging opinions. Suddenly, there is no discussion of any nonsense, optical illusion, or subjective preference. In the case of discussions about how measures make sense against the covidu-19 pandemic, it is literally about life. About the lives of the people who became infected or infected, but so about the lives of all others who, to varying degrees, are affected by related measures, restrictions and fears.

Practically overnight, all of us became experts in the epidemic, reproduction, analysis chart and the activities of the works. Discussions are full of controversy about whether to promote or grunt, trace, or return, in the Korean, widow (or Japanese or Slovak) way, to test in any other way…

First, an opinion is given, then let’s look for the facts

Not surprisingly, we don’t usually make our point completely rationally. It is formed quite quickly. If you are not careful, start a lot from the initial impressions and pn. Simply put, if nm nco lb, we’ll listen carefully. It is a manifestation of a familiar phenomenon: they confirm the distortion.

It is also important to agree with others or to talk to them at all on a rational level. No one is going to the discussion with neutral positions. It is great that we will subconsciously reject anything that we do not like, while we will uncritically accept what supports the opinion. The Internet supports this confirmation of error and the gradual polarization of the discussion in two ways:

  • Search at any time you can look for a search and in a few seconds look for the plates of lnk, which say first what you are. And the same thing, only in the guard, I can make a hunter who has a very good opinion.
  • Sociln st The news feed system is designed to allow you to choose what you want. So I can only show me, you can agree. Or, on the contrary, what goes against your opinion, if you respond from the past to such provocations.

So let’s see that the first and foremost piece of rational debate is in our heads.

Scientists are looking for the truth, regardless of opinion

If we treat the information as it is natural, let’s obscure it with a shortcut. Let’s not look for the truth, let’s look for what answers our opinion. And here is the first lesson we can learn from vdc.

The widows are just a people. Thus, their brains succumb to cognitive errors. And over the last few centuries, scientists have developed several ways to arm themselves with these mental shorts. How to suppress the human tendency to confirm one’s own opinion and instead systematically approach the knowledge of the real world. You could write a whole book about scientific methods, but for our purposes we will choose three standards that will be useful when working with information:

  1. Dkladn popis the scientist must describe no co in, but pedevm how that’s what he comes out of and how others can follow his steps.
  2. Skepticism Scientists must be open to subjecting their findings to skeptical scrutiny, criticism, and correction.
  3. Impartiality the scientist should spend the same force confirming his hypothesis as well as refuting it.
  4. Univerzlnost vdcm is not a subjective, but an objective knowledge, ie one that is meaningful and usable for others who describe reality.

These standards can be debated to the point even where they do not agree. Disagreement is not a mistake, on the contrary, it is always the driving engine, the bitterness of how to get to know the world and its functioning. If we did not learn anything else from the scientists, knowingly, for the mind, the criticism and be prepared to change your mind, it would be enough for nonsensical beauties to become meaningfully combined with the first answer.

Do you want to convince others or look for the truth?

Please note that it is now right to argue that online debate has different rules than scientific debate. And participants in such debates often have different motivations. Among the most common debates are performative and ton:

  • an effort to convince others of the truth
    Whoever happens to think, e X, look at Y
  • effort to show off his intellectual muscles
    People think, e X, but stupid we catch vme, e Y
  • the desire to establish oneself in one’s opinion
    Also vs you when…
  • trying to keep tv
    If you think it’s X, you’re naive
  • indiscriminately amused or neglected
    Look at this idiot, kad kiln in, e…

The problem with tones and performative debates is divided into darkness and the gluten-free moment. This precludes constructive debate, because people enter the discussion as if they had to choose a jersey. When you point out a mistake in the argument of co-play, it is taken as a snippet into your own ad, although if the duty is to find the truth, then everyone is alerted to a mistake.

Reln the facts quickly recede into the background and become mere ammunition. At that moment, the view of reality disappears and comes on tactically, through his prism we start accessing the information. Suddenly let’s not look for what is for us to know the world as it is, but let’s just choose what is appropriate as an argument. When the arguments run out, start the foul argument.

How does this tend to tingle? It’s tk. lovk me zat only with you. When there is a different view of things than the one you cover up, you have to get this different view in the discussion, offer Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia. And you have to present this argument, which you don’t agree with, in its strongest version, not create a clapping slapstick.

So Sanger blames the deteriorating debate on socialism and their brevity: I feel it’s getting worse. I remember that in the 1990s there was more and more debate on the Internet. Bvalo bn ci: Also, if I want it first, the argument is that is it like this or not? Conciseness often means that it is not time to explain someone else’s opinion. In addition, it is greatly simplified in discussions. The people go straight to the heart of the conflict and do not refrain from arguments. often just weave opposite patterns at each other.

There is a lot of debate about the goal of gaining information and broadening horizons. The difference is simple and straightforward. While a performative or tonal debate does not allow its participants to change their point of view (or refer to such a possibility as a loss).

At the same time, changing the view to the basis of available facts is the most rational step that we as a people are able to do. From this point of view, therefore, the debate will be won by the one who has changed his opinion from one who does not answer reality to one who does not answer reality.

Likewise, forget the simple word nevm, which does not seem to exist in internet discussions. Bag who would write like that, he doesn’t know when to look for it in the oven. But to admit that I don’t know anything, not porka or shame. It’s the worst answer in case I don’t have enough data to create an opinion on it.

Why not the facts? N brain wants to avoid discomfort…

Mte first on nzor, never on own fact

There are debates in which it is obviously not wrong with objective reality, because the individual preferences of the participants are completely subjective. There is no argument that would make sparana a whistle or a lover of pineapple in the pizza of her refuge. For such topics, performative debate is the only option.

But then there are the darkness that deals with the real world in which we live. And don’t ask what your impression or preference is. If the impression contradicts reality, it is our loss. One such case is the debate on how to protect your health or how to solve problems in the real world. It should not be in our opinion to convince others. It should be a common knowledge of reality.

At that moment comes our aunt and perhaps the most recommended. Whenever you argue for any facts, you make a clear reference to those facts. Does that mean you’re right just because you referenced the PDF? Definitely not. But a link to a source of information will allow others to understand how you came to your opinion. What is possible to go by, the link can be able to track where your data comes from, and so your data comes from. It is based on them. When it turns out that you were wrong, it’s not a disgrace. You used this data, later you found the data more accurately and evaluated it.

I do not mention the source of their data for the people

  • Can you please refer to the source of the information?
  • I know that, I didn’t know that. Where did you get that information?
  • Z eho erpte? Can you please provide a link to that study?

These and similar sentences were written by the author of this article, perhaps a thousand times. These sources do not belong to the big bad habit in general, but it is especially freezing on the Internet. It improves a bit in online media (ten years ago, only a few percent of the link had a link to the source, now it is perhaps almost standard for horses).

In the discussion, however, people often do not mention the links, and they have a lot of reasons for that. I didn’t know where they drank the information. Somewhere etli or mon heard it on the radio, mon it was a podcast, or somewhere on Twitter? Let’s take data from so many sources that you can remember it. In addition, we tend to gradually forget the source of information and thus assign them full credibility (the so-called sleeper effect). But it is important for us to learn to cite our sources when we argue with them. Not only for the sake of others, but also for the sake of ourselves.

The difference is whether we remember information on the mortality of coronavirus from a study that had only confirmed the infection, or from a study that had the infection on board. The difference is whether the test results are preliminary or final. And the difference is whether the study was performed on humans or on invites. You can do this by providing a link to your data source, giving others the opportunity to assess their relevance.

  • Without listed sources
  • With the indicated source

A: God, for people to go out with their noses? The hands are always full of him!

B: Rouky help stop the virus, that in each.

A: Help stop blood flow to the brain!

B: I would spit in your face, shit, m tst, e mm rouku!

A: To ride the people outside nose noses? According to the study, is the infection very unlikely?

B: This is a good reminder, but the people do not want to take off your hands all the time and put on what is unhygienic, see the ECDC document.

A: But just talk about the document that refers, that the hands are not a necessary measure…

As you can see, even the sources mentioned do not guarantee that they will agree. But it is important to keep the discussion within a rational debate and what is important in the context of specific, verifiable and traceable information. This in itself increases the usefulness of such discussions.

Without listed sources? Don’t take it!

The sources mentioned are not large. If we are not careful, we will tend to list only the sources that support the opinion. Even if we look at the same force, we can interpret them differently. If our persuasion is strong, our ability to perceive weakness (so-called motivated numeracy) will also help me. Reference to data is a necessary condition, not a suffix.

We should get used to the fact that without the given source of data, our claim is not only neuiten, but even harmful. When we can’t trace the way to which the path leads to the spring, let’s release only worthless weeds into the public space, which also cause others in the discussion.

There are less than a thousand people in Brazil who speak the exotic language of Tujuka. Their special characteristics, which we can call mandatory evidence. Have you noticed that you don’t have to contact anyone long enough, nor would it be a question of whether the hunter is close (just) or not (howling). There is a similar verb in the Tujuka language, or you wouldn’t even know how to say it. Also not today pr, but I only saw how it passed today, I hear that outside pr, from overhearing vm, e outside pr…

The language of tujuka will certainly not become the world language. But we could take lessons and consider the arguments without referring to the source as grammatically meaningless, incomplete. They should drink strange, if it’s a topic, or we are going to write such an unsubstantiated argument.

And we should always reject such an argument, unsupported by source and data. Not just when it doesn’t fall into our control.