Thread by @owenbroadcast

friendly PSA reminder that most people u talk to dont have any larger framework that their ideas are hooked into and theyre just saying whatever comes to mind in that instant, so you literally cant reason with them. these two replies were posted within 60 seconds of each other:

99% of people will take something as evidence for their view, but if that same evidence was presented for a different view, they would reject it outright. if u tell them this theyll just get mad and reach for whatever comes to mind first to pathologize u to dismiss what ur saying

hate to bring it up twice in one week (actually i love it) but thats what happened when i spoke with daniel pinchbeck. when i just point blank asked him if he would take the evidence he’s putting forth for his view as evidence for christianity or other religions he couldnt answer

so, lots of people know this already but its just a friends sanity reminder that its not pretentious or egotistic to realize that if you actually have a larger cohesive framework you fit your ideas into, even if youre wrong about those ideas, youre in the extreme minority. (gm)

maybe i should say there is no [direct] way. in my experience once you hit that wall theyll just parachute into “oh, youre dogmatic” “oh, youre only saying that because..”, and then youre arguing against something with no bull hypothesis or that infinitely regresses on and on.

https://twitter.com/JJTweets6/status/1470793400656056327

no *null hypothesis

i have recently learned that you can have a life with minimal typos or you can have a life with a newborn baby in it and ive already made my choice

this is a fun thinking exercise to do urself with your own ideas or (internally) when people talk about their views on controversial topics. they (or you) put forth evidence, ask urself, theoretically, if it was the opposite, flipped, equivocal, would that really change anything?