[Wyseguy]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

That's a perfect prescription for surrendering your liberty (and your country) to anyone with a sheepskin.

I don't need to understand quantum physics because it has no bearing on my life.

But when someone with a PhD tells me he's going to confiscate my right to earn a living or educate my children or participate in a secure election "for my own good", and he thinks I'm too stupid to understand his reasons -- that's a whole other thing.

I may not understand the math behind quantum physics, but I understand the basic concepts.

And I may not have a PhD in virology, but I'm perfectly capable of understanding disease death rates, vaccine response, acquired immunity, and the size of a virus compared to the size of the weave of a cloth mask -- not to mention the studies showing how pointless a cloth mask is at stopping the spread of a virus.

And you can be sure, if you tell me you need to crash the economy and pay workers not to work, in order to save them from a disease with a 99.5% survival rate that only kills retired people, I reserve the right to check your facts!

YES YES YES You are correct.

[Boomer]

I have been trying to figure out whatinthehellisthematter with people. As I have said before, the psychology of those who insist on digging in their heels by clinging to what they think is “research” would be fascinating — if the rest of us did not have to be trapped with them.

Recent, real-life, in-person reporting of hospitals having to postpone heart surgeries because of Covid patients (mostly unvaccinated) taking up beds and staff is damned scary.

The medical community is calling deaths from postponing needed surgeries “collateral deaths.” That term surely should get the attention of those who need to just get the vaccine — but it does not.

I saw the psychology term “cognitive dissonance” in an article on npr.org this morning. Maybe that explains the attitudes that I was beginning to see as bsc. I will have to read up on cognitive dissonance — you know — do my research. . .

Research — which I actually know how to do — and have taught others.

But geez, in those days, I never had to face down the Facebook snake pit. All I had to do back then was to teach them that Wikipedia is not a legit source BUT you can back-source it and then back-source the back-sources.

Boomer

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

I will continue to Google. Thank you very much.

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by Dana1963

Another conservative Florida radio host who dubbed himself "Mr. Anti-Vax" and criticized the COVID-19 vaccine died of the coronavirus on Saturday.
Proving Covid 19 Vaccine doesn't work if you refuse to take it POWER TO THE PEOPLE

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Boomer

I have been trying to figure out whatinthehellisthematter with people. As I have said before, the psychology of those who insist on digging in their heels by clinging to what they think is “research” would be fascinating — if the rest of us did not have to be trapped with them.

Recent, real-life, in-person reporting of hospitals having to postpone heart surgeries because of Covid patients (mostly unvaccinated) taking up beds and staff is damned scary.

The medical community is calling deaths from postponing needed surgeries “collateral deaths.” That term surely should get the attention of those who need to just get the vaccine — but it does not.

I saw the psychology term “cognitive dissonance” in an article on npr.org this morning. Maybe that explains the attitudes that I was beginning to see as bsc. I will have to read up on cognitive dissonance — you know — do my research. . .

Research — which I actually know how to do — and have taught others.

But geez, in those days, I never had to face down the Facebook snake pit. All I had to do back then was to teach them that Wikipedia is not a legit source BUT you can back-source it and then back-source the back-sources.

Boomer

Yup, I use wikipedia as a "first source" when I'm looking up a term, or phrase, or illness, or person. And then I back-source it by diving into the rabbit hole of footnotes, until I have enough information that I could write a 2-4-page summary report for a typical college course on the subject. WITH footnotes.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID

There've been plenty. But none of them went out of their way and became internet-famous for warning people to NOT get vaccinated.

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So true. The most egregious example of this was about a month ago, when someone posted that they don't listen to the CDC, NIH, WHO, or FDOH----they do "their own research" and then make "their own decision" Well, rotsa ruck with that.

Yep, we should all ignore Fauci, Birx, Walensky and all the experts and just listen to this guy---he did "research"
In fact, why isn't this guy standing at the podium at the White House instead of all the others???

I think that was me. The reason I don't necessarily listen to those entities is because they are too often political.

I don't doubt Fauci is a very smart man but I also don't doubt he has hidden agendas. When he flip flops several times on the advice he gives, he loses me. When he claims no one should question him because he is science, he loses me. When he tries to change the definition of gain of function research, he loses me.

The CDC loses me when it claims gun violence is a disease. The WHO loses me when it covers up for China. The NIH loses me when it won't admit it funded gain of function research. Those organizations all have agendas.

I'm not really a sheeple type of guy. Go ahead and accept everything hook, line and sinker that comes out these governmental agencies. Me, I'll continue to take everything they say with a healthy grain of salt and look for other reliable sources to validate or refute.

[KAM+6]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

YEP! “Mr. Anti-Vax” was his name… (you can’t make this stuff up) 3rd Conservative radio host to die of covid in the past month or so.

Anti Vaxer Linda Zuern dies of covid. Held signs at Cape Cod bridge.

Outspoken anti vaxer Caplain Joe Manning died of complications of covid yesterday. He was self medicating with ivermecten. Sheep wormer.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yes, and as we all know, there hasn't been a single liberal that has died of COVID

And your point is? dying from the thing you are downplaying and dying despite fighting are two very different things. The irony is deep on this one...

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

And your point is? dying from the thing you are downplaying and dying despite fighting are two very different things. The irony is deep on this one...

My point is that COVID does not care what political party, philosophy or religion one follows, therefore it was unnecessary for the OP to label those 3 radio host deaths as "conservative". Radio host would have sufficed. His post was just a sideways political "jab"

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

My point is that COVID does not care what political party, philosophy or religion one follows, therefore it was unnecessary for the OP to label those 3 radio host deaths as "conservative". Radio host would have sufficed. His post was just a sideways political "jab"

Thank you! It seems that there are some (I label as TROLLS) that bait folks on here, to get them to respond with defensive political posts, with their intention of getting the thread closed or persons suspended from posting.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Many people of today conflate reading up to educate themselves on a topic, <good> with research, which is a professional term as described in the original post's quote <not the same as posters have referenced here as it won't hold up in a professional setting>. In order to perform professional research, you must have a professional education to properly evaluate the research, either performing or reading. Otherwise its just general education for your own benefit, and it won't qualify you to skip professional course credits without passing an exam. Bachelor's degrees are not professional degrees, just general education to be able to be competent in the non experienced job market.

I laughed at the posters to the medical mandate history post who argued lay legal arguments between their lay education's interpretation of today, with legal precedent and legal history. Without being a legal professional, they are just arguing their hopes and dreams with a conceptual construct which can give the illusion of being informed, but not being a professional.

The distinction is that non professional research doesn't confer professional status, nor does it confer knowledge equal to a professional. At best, it will give one confidence to better understand a professional, make a choice between two professional's for your primary source. . . that's why i argue even with my professional background in finance, to go see a CPA for tax advice, as my ability to fill out and understand taxes is better than a lay person, but its not a professional tax advice.

None of these google conferd professionals would succeed in a professional setting. I was a profession oil tanker ship captain and ship pilot in my 20s, and on a national championship sailing team in college. When i was introduced to boat owners who called themselves captains with my background, generally they stopped talking and changed topics. They realized that they were not professional, but were only trying to impress others with their stories. . .

I am sure doctor golfing raptor would most likely agree. . there is a huge difference between a professional and an amateur, you should try going one on one with any professional with experience without hiding behind anonymittee and most non narcissists will look and feel foolish. . . the narcissists, not so much. . . . I have tried in athletics, always get my ass whipped thoroughly and I surely respect the difference between my being an amateur and their being a professional. Huge gap of years of education and experience and abilities. . .

[PennBF]

There is an area at Harvard that contains Phd research papers and it is extensive. These really humble you when you claim to have done research on a particular subject. Unless you devote a significant portion of your time to this kind of research you are probably very opinionated and accept your opinions as reality and therefore you've already started out on a contaminated conclusion basis. Over time I have only seen a couple of responses in the of postings on TOTV that may qualify as valid "Research Studies".

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Many people of today conflate reading up to educate themselves on a topic, <good> with research, which is a professional term as described in the original post's quote <not the same as posters have referenced here as it won't hold up in a professional setting>. In order to perform professional research, you must have a professional education to properly evaluate the research, either performing or reading. Otherwise its just general education for your own benefit, and it won't qualify you to skip professional course credits without passing an exam. Bachelor's degrees are not professional degrees, just general education to be able to be competent in the non experienced job market.

I laughed at the posters to the medical mandate history post who argued lay legal arguments between their lay education's interpretation of today, with legal precedent and legal history. Without being a legal professional, they are just arguing their hopes and dreams with a conceptual construct which can give the illusion of being informed, but not being a professional.

The distinction is that non professional research doesn't confer professional status, nor does it confer knowledge equal to a professional. At best, it will give one confidence to better understand a professional, make a choice between two professional's for your primary source. . . that's why i argue even with my professional background in finance, to go see a CPA for tax advice, as my ability to fill out and understand taxes is better than a lay person, but its not a professional tax advice.

None of these google conferd professionals would succeed in a professional setting. I was a profession oil tanker ship captain and ship pilot in my 20s, and on a national championship sailing team in college. When i was introduced to boat owners who called themselves captains with my background, generally they stopped talking and changed topics. They realized that they were not professional, but were only trying to impress others with their stories. . .

I am sure doctor golfing raptor would most likely agree. . there is a huge difference between a professional and an amateur, you should try going one on one with any professional with experience without hiding behind anonymittee and most non narcissists will look and feel foolish. . . the narcissists, not so much. . . . I have tried in athletics, always get my ass whipped thoroughly and I surely respect the difference between my being an amateur and their being a professional. Huge gap of years of education and experience and abilities. . .

Not quite sure what you are trying to imply by that diatribe
Are you suggesting that folks without expertise should not be posting their opinions on this community forum? Or, are you saying that if you are not learned in a subject you should not contribute to the conversation? Almost means the same. I think that I know what you mean by "anonymittee" though. That was a test, right? "anonymity" the right answer?