#cognitive biases

[courtingwonder]

Chart of 20 Cognitive Biases That Affect Decision-Making

[gofancyninjaworld]

OPM Manga Update 234 Review: King, Evaluated

Summary

I'm not going to really bother with a summary for this chapter. It's a really simple story -- Atomic Samurai challenges King to show him his strength, overthinks it, and lets King off the hook. And goodness knows people have told and retold it to a nonsensical degree. So let's move onto the meta, shall we?

Meta: Cognitive Biases Ahoy!

I hope that no one is sitting here thinking of Atomic Samurai as stupid. Tempting as it is, ONE is showing here a set of pitfalls that even intelligent people fall into. Heck, some of them are pitfalls that people fall into precisely because they're intelligent. Shall we go through them?

The easiest one is confirmation bias. You see this all the time. Our love of finding out that we're right is so strong that it's been necessary to create a whole discipline in the sciences to prevent us from fooling ourselves -- and we still do that, alas. When faced with a phenomenon, we make up some suppositions of what might be happening… and unless we're very, very careful, we try to prove that it's the case, rather than it's not the case.

Atomic Samurai (and his disciples) have the thought that King is really strong, and while Atomic Samurai correctly notes that he's seen nothing in person to evidence King's strength, his go to is to try to confirm that King is strong, not try to see the opposite. Because of that, when given ambiguous evidence, heck, even negative evidence, of King not being seen to so much as draw the sword, he jumps to the conclusion that King must be at least as strong, if not stronger, than the swordsmen so skilled that they can cut objects such that they rejoin themselves, rather than King did nothing. It's not stupidity. It only looks that way because we've been given the answers and believe ourselves smart -- that's not smart of us.

We love confirmation bias because it does not involve us having to challenge what we think we know, which can be upsetting. We don't like to find out that we're wrong.

Speaking of things we don't like to see, there's a second thing at play, one that the proud really fall prey to. We really hate having to admit ignorance and would rather confabulate than go, 'I don't know.' If admitting ignorance to ourselves is hard, admitting it in front of our peers is even harder. Since Atomic has plenty of pride, and his disciples are not much better, when King started bullshitting about atmospheric conditions and the effect that fighting would have, rather than look ignorant, they pretended that they knew what King was talking about.

Lucky for King, eh?

Well, let's talk a little about King and his luck. If King is bullshitting like his life depends on it, that's because it does. The reason King has managed to survive for so long is that he's never, ever, not even once, fooled himself into believing himself to be in possession of any powers. So far, he has been lucky, that much he knows. He also knows that 'good' isn't the only flavour that luck occurs in. So when he's in front of a threat, he's not pretending to be terrified, he is. And that honest terror makes him look and sound scary.

Just scary enough that people think twice about whether they really want to push their luck and test him, given that there really is a hero out there who annihilates everything at a single blow and they've been told that guy is this 'King' fellow in front of them. If King had the nonsense to believe in his luck, he'd not be as scared -- and the facade would fall apart.

Believe it or not, that's all I really have to say about this conflict.

Just a few more bits to mop up.

First, I really like that there's a framework for the apple not noticing that it's been cut. Given that it's not possible to keep things a surprise given that many readers of the manga have either read the webcomic or know someone who has, I like how ONE has solved the problem. Rather than pretending that a no-longer-a-surprise is nevertheless a surprise, he's given it roots and incorporated it into the story. And the sword not noticing that it'd been drawn? I laughed. Sorry if you cried.

Second, speaking about vulnerability, it's interesting that Amai Mask did not lose face by showing that he too could be scared, could fail, could be vulnerable. We get to see Atomic's view of it and he has found real respect for Amai Mask for being able to admit all those things publicly, and then find a way to pull himself together and keep fighting. It's both neat in itself, because it takes real courage to be publicly vulnerable, and it's neat because it's precisely what neither Atomic nor his disciples could do when faced with King: admit their own doubts and ignorance.

Since I'm writing this with the benefit of more chapters, bet on it that I will be returning to the matters of Sweet Mask and King, but for now, we shall leave things here.

[sophieinwonderland]

Honestly, I never have any idea what you're ever doing, but it always seems to be wrong somehow

That's an interesting observation.

If you'd like to figure out why this may be, may I suggest looking at this page?:

Depending on where you're getting your information from, this may be a result of any number of these.

And this can be a fun conversation to have so let's go.

The Framing Effect

The framing effect is an interesting one where someone's perception of an event or action can be affected by how it's framed.

Compare these two statements:

I share switching and imposition guides.

I teach people to dissociate and hallucinate

Both of these things mean the same thing. You can't have switching guides that don't involve dissociation, and imposition is a tulpamancy skill that generates intentional hallucinations.

These are objectively true statements framed in different ways.

But the latter phrasing feels worse. It's framed in a bad way to invoke an emotional reaction. It made people legitimately angry to hear that I was teaching people to dissociate and hallucinate despite not batting an eye at the information on switching and imposition I had posted for over a year before those statements.

While that one was intentional by me to see what type of reaction I would get, it goes to a lot of other claims about me by others as well, with relatively ordinary things or things they would excuse in allies being framed extremely negative lights.

Once you've fallen victim to The Framing Effect, then you risk...

Confirmation Bias

Something generally neutral or positive has been framed in a bad way. Say, for instance, that your first exposure to me is hearing that I teach people to dissociate and hallucinate.

It's extremely troubling and then lots of other people keep telling you other bad things I've supposedly done. Because your opinion is already formed, you're more likely to be receptive to negatives than positives.

Anything you hear about me that's bad, true or not, gets neatly tucked away in your "Sophie Bad" file. Evidence to the contrary gets thrown out. Oops. 🤷‍♀️

Once your mind is set, getting through that bias is difficult. Especially when you also may be experiencing a form of...

Selection Bias and the Frequency Illusion

You mention not knowing what I'm doing most of the time. So I assume that every time you do hear about me, it's from people who are attacking me.

Basically, every data point you are aware of about me are from people actively spreading the worst things I said, framed in the worst way possible. Not to mention outright lies and misinformation that you may accept due to the previously mentioned confirmation bias.

If your only exposure to my posts are bad things or things taken out of context to look bad, then it would give the illusion that 100% of the things I say are bad.

But I'm sure that you're a rational and intelligent individual who would never fall for these sorts of cognitive biases. Unless...

Well...

What if you have a...

Bias Blindspot

This is a tendency to lack awareness of our own biases. And it's an especially nasty one that reinforces all the biases outlined here while making them practically invisible to our own eyes.

You could have all these biases but be further biased by this blindspot to not seem them.

I'm not sure how best to look past all of these biases, but education about biases and self-reflection can often be a good place to start.

[omegaphilosophia]

Unraveling Confirmation Bias: How Our Beliefs Shape Our Perspectives

Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that leads people to interpret, remember, or search for information in ways that confirm their preconceptions or hypotheses. Here are some common things people use as confirmation bias:

Selective Exposure: People tend to expose themselves to information sources and media that align with their existing beliefs.

Selective Perception: They interpret ambiguous information in a way that supports their beliefs.

Selective Retention: People remember information that confirms their existing beliefs better than information that contradicts them.

Cherry-Picking Data: They selectively choose data or examples that support their viewpoint while ignoring or dismissing data that contradicts it.

Seeking Like-Minded Individuals: People often engage with communities or social groups that share their beliefs, reinforcing their existing views.

Misinterpreting Statistics: Individuals may misinterpret statistical data to support their preconceived notions.

Overvaluing Personal Experience: Personal anecdotes and experiences are given more weight than they should be in forming opinions.

Ignoring Expert Opinion: Dismissing expert opinions or scientific consensus when it contradicts one's beliefs.

Confirmation in Social Media Echo Chambers: Social media algorithms often expose users to content that aligns with their views, creating echo chambers where confirmation bias thrives.

Biased Information Search: When researching a topic, people may conduct biased searches, seeking out sources that confirm their beliefs.

Emotional Attachment: Emotional attachment to one's beliefs can make it difficult to consider alternative viewpoints objectively.

Attribution Error: People often attribute their successes to their abilities and their failures to external factors or situations, confirming their self-beliefs.

Groupthink: In group settings, individuals may conform to the group's beliefs to avoid conflict or maintain group cohesion.

Being aware of these tendencies is the first step in mitigating confirmation bias and promoting more open-minded and critical thinking.

[sunbeamstress]

is there actually an epidemic of declining computer-knowhow in each successive generation? are gen z and gen alpha actually hitting schools and the workforce with vanishingly little knowledge of how their PCs and phones work under the hood?

because i don't know a lot of millennials that know how this shit works, either

is it actually a problem that a randomly-chosen member of the 15-25 demographic has no concept of what a .pdf file is, or did you forget that you surrounded yourself with nerdy, knowledgeable geeks and that actually most people have not only never known how this stuff works, but that they also have no interest in learning?

you'll never hear me handwaving the harmful effects of the walled garden app ecosystem or suggesting we have too much open software, but like, it seems a little silly to blame these things on some outbreak of tech illiteracy when the opportunity and means to learn about tech is still very much right there

[anogrishtart]

nobody is calculating the odds of a thing existing, they're adjusting to the internal narratives they have made up to make the world make sense to them.

a "fairy" exists in the category of "people," it's a more or less human shaped object that would behave in a more or less human manner (knocking on doors, drinking milk, kidnapping children at the behest of Queen Mab, recoiling at the touch of cold iron).

a people-object knocking at a door is going to be less surprising than a not-person object knocking at the door, because it is behaving within a set of expected narratives.

It helps to remember that consciousness is not an algorithmic process inasmuch as it is a bunch of cognitive biases and lizard brain instincts kluged together by evolution in a more or less functional way.

the relative surprise i (or any hypothetical human) experience upon opening my door has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with my poorly functioning brain. the question posed is not "what is objectively more likely to knock on my door," the question is "what would you be more surprised by".

a smallish person-shaped person (assuming we're talking Victorian-style fairies and not the basically human sized variety) doing person-things is simply more in line with the human tendency towards pareidolia than a 1-ton animal doing person-things.

[thejackofalltrades42069]

Improve your social media and life experience.

I’ll share a few insights from podcast Modern Wisdom, a talk with Gurwinder Bhogal named “Psychology lessons to understand people better” and add my personal twist.

Mostly that podcast is about social media and how people in social media tend to act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Your social media feed can be hell.

Most posts in social media come from people being impulsive, usually people aren’t thinking about what they post, we just think of something or take a picture and upload it right away. This makes most people’s social media feed awful (we’re mostly seeing people arguing, complaining, people wishing for possessions or vacations, for money, senseless memes, and so on).

Because we tend to behave like others, and to do things that people around us are doing, in social media we can easily be seen as idiots, and we can consider that most people we follow are idiots because of what they post (especially when we don’t know the people we’re following), this happens because most posts are just unplanned impulsive posts. We’re creating ourselves an awful daily bias when we keep seeing random news feed on our cellphones and computers.

Social media can lead to an awful mindset and overall unsatisfaction.

How to avoid this?

We can easily filter all social media choosing whose posts we want to see and whose posts we don’t want to see (you can keep people as friends even after muting them, your best friend’s posts might be awful even if you like them). The algorithm was created to show things we want to see, but if we can identify things as completely useless, and as damaging for our mental health, it’s always a good idea to start filtering out many people’s posts.

Try to have a vision of the bigger picture, though.

This can however lead us to just seeing the same information always and creating a negative thing, a constant confirmation bias, it can be countered by changing the algorithm on purpose, check sources you’d never check, there are some ways to do this; searching for people, videos, books, or podcasts that we believe we’re going to dislike, and checking them out, seeing those videos, listening to those podcasts, or reading news from completely new places, there are apps that give you random news daily. Other way I think of this is asking acquaintances (mostly the ones we tend to disagree with) to suggest a video or someone they follow on social media and checking out new different information we believe we’re going to disagree with, it’s likely we’ll find useful and new stuff out there (different perspectives to bias ourselves from different sources), this could even be done with movies, watch a movie you think you’ll dislike from time to time, you’ll be surprised.

This could be applied outside of social media, hanging out and talking with people we don't talk to often, or ever.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. If you have a talk or debate, agree on the definitions first.

Ever had a talk or argument about something where it seems you’re talking about something completely different from the other person? It’s vital to learn the definitions and to agree on them in order to have a useful talk with someone else, if this is not done, you and the other person can be thinking about completely different things and having a strange conversation that leads nowhere.

When you want to have a meaningful talk, it’s useful to do this too, agree first about definitions, say what you think something means, hear the other person, understand each other, then move forward with the conversation.

Additionally to this, it’s always good to really try to understand definitions, we sometimes are not very sure what we ourselves are talking about, and it’s hard to express our ideas unto others.

Try to always understand and agree on definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Happiness.

Triple check that your happiness doesn’t depend on things you buy or things you will buy, possessions will only make people happy temporarily, believing that possessions and things like traveling will make you happy will only make you be more unsatisfied and less happy overtime.

We have the tendency to always want more, but perhaps it’s much better to find happiness in the little things and trying to enjoy the present more, without always trying to think how happy you’ll be in the future because of “x” or “y” thing is going to happen, or because you’re buying this or that thing. The present is what matters the most (for sure, plan for a better future too, make sacrifices to achieve things).

It’s great to have small goals that we can achieve overtime, like learning a language, or why not, saving money to buy a new car (because of its usefulness, not only because it’s a new car).

Extra note here, we shouldn’t spend too much time dwelling in the past, or thinking how things could’ve been. When we spend too much time in social media we tend to bias ourselves into thinking about this, and about the future, because that bias makes us want to have things that other people are sharing (because we’re constantly being reminded about it from other people’s posts).

To avoid this we can try to get busy with work/ studies and doing hobbies or things we enjoy. Using less social media must always be an objective too (IMO).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The solutions we’re used to might not be the best.

Ever had pain in the wrist from using the keyboard and mouse too much? Well, the usual mouse and the usual keyboard most people use aren’t ergonomic at all; there are some good options out there people don’t even know exist like using a pen tablet instead of a mouse, or a vertical or trackball mouse.

I personally use a pen tablet as a mouse 50% of the time, it's much more ergonomic for the wrist.

This idea can thought about or be applied in infinite ways.

For problem solving, it’s good to do some research about solutions to problems we have or to things we do daily that we didn’t know even existed. For example, buying something easy to use like an air fryer for cooking, or cooking more using the microwave or a toaster oven (a toaster oven can be used to cook meat with no effort).

As far as new gadgets go, personally I believe that the invention of electronic ink readers is completely amazing, instead of having 50 books that you don’t even know where to store anymore, you can just have a tiny device like a Kindle with thousands of books in it.

An example some people never thought about, if they don’t want to be distracted by their phone at work, then can use “do not disturb” mode so it only rings with phone calls, tell their friends and family to only call them in case of emergencies, and put the phone in a drawer away from them, or even better, in a different room, or have a colleague at work keep it away from them.

Last example, for people like me who often want to take notes on the go, there are apps where we can dictate whatever and have the voice convert into text, this might seem like a silly simple thing, but it’s amazing, and it saves time and effort.

Better solutions can be found all the time, and for anything, sometimes we just need to invest some time into researching and having better time and resources management.

Learning new things and from different sources makes us more creative and better at problem-solving.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion (summary).

Stop having a hellish awful bias from your social media, improve it or just stop using them and do something better with that time and energy.

Agree on definitions, know what you’re talking about, make sure others do too.

Don’t rely on possessions and money to be happy.

Take the time to improve different aspects of your life, one by one.

[metidax]

Catastrophizing

I've just find out about the cognitive bias called catastrophizing. To catastrophize mean to exaggerate the significance of a negative event or its prospects; to perceive any hardship as a tragedy.

Catastrophizing is most often imposed on us by our parents, as children adopt patterns of behavior through observation of family members.

For example, if a child falls but is not hurt and the parents panic, the child will repeat after them. Over time, these excessive reactions take root in the child, and any trouble causes severe stress. The world begins to seem hostile.

Catastrophizing negatively affects not only mental health but even physical one: perceiving illness as severe or pain as immense (when it is not) can lead to aggravation of symptoms.

Catastrophizing can be directed toward the present or the future. In that case, a person imagine the worst outcome of a situation. So a problem that doesn't exist and and most likely will never happen, causes pain in the present.

There are techniques to help you deal with catastrophizing. (NB if you experience anxiety it is better to consult a therapist).

The quickest one is breath control. When you are anxious, the sympathetic nervous system activates and triggers the fight-or-flight response. To activate the opposite parasympathetic system, all you need to do is to stay focused on your breathe. For example, the 4-7-8 second breathing technique (inhale-hold breathe-exhale) helps to overcome panic.

In addition, you can imagine that your friend is in the situation that causes catastrophizing reaction. You would probably support the friend and give them advice. Analyzing the situation from an observer's perspective will help rationalize anxious thoughts.

In conclusion, take care of your mental and physical health💫

[void-thegod]

Communication is key. It's fundamental. It's necessary.

Before you assume things. Before you get mad. Before you get in your feelings. Think.

Do you know this person? Do they know you?

Have you even talked?

No?

Hm.

Fascinating.

It's one thing if you talk. If you really try to get to know someone. Especially if you're good at dealing with your biases. If you're open minded and willing to learn.

But I'm learning.. a lot of people do none of those things. A lot of people lack self awareness AND consideration for others (and I don't mean empathy)

People don't try to understand or get to know one another. They want to continue with whatever ideas they had in their head. People don't change. Because they're not changing.

This is an insidious sort of Bad Faith. I'm not sure what to call it. It goes hand in hand with a lack of nuance or ability to comprehend nuance.

I get a sense of it when I explain things to people about ME being trans. I can see how they're NOT THINKING. They think what I'm saying applies to most trans men. Or maybe I'm lying bc their biases say so.

They're confused by me just bc my existence doesn't make sense to them. Even if they would normally understand.

And this is what I mean by communication being fundamental.

Because these people don't communicate with themselves, either. Which is why they don't get the nuance.

They only get it when it applies to them.

[fuwaprince]

Racial bias prevention/intervention training should be a thing not in the sense that we insist to a bunch of racists that the people they've already dehumanized in their minds are actually nonthreatening human beings but like... We disarm them and conduct exposure therapy for psychological and behavioral correction. Like volunteer hosts put these racists on "house arrest" of some kind and if they're good then they might get parole and be able to enter the community again after some minimum time of being forced to reside with the races they have a bias towards. Idk. They say it takes 3 weeks to break a habit or form a new one but idk how true that is for people with race-based stress/anxiety. My prof said it's either we get rid of black and brown people or we change the cognitive biases through exposure therapy. Yeah we shouldn't endanger people by putting them around somebody who wants to kill them and their children but at the same time we could take away their guns or whatever means of violence and invite them for a safe party and hope all goes well. Like they wouldn't be a guest, only an observer. It's just their job to listen and receive exposure, not contribute to conversation. No contributing to interaction since they're still in the rehabilitation process but like.. they're going to be eating different foods and listening to new stories, spending time with new hosts/families and a new culture. I know indigenous people tried doing this before and thanksgiving is what it turned into but like... No they seriously had a point!!!! Exposure therapy is GOOD for changing the cognitive bias and we should keep trying to do it to preserve and build peace. We can't just segregate ourselves and stick to our own communities and expect racism to end because it's morally wrong. Somewhere out there is a cop who feels threatened by black and brown people because they believe in the false idea that they're more dangerous and disorderly. This isn't true and the only way to change their bias would be by putting them in a safe environment that helps to decrease avoidance and phobias. Gardeners say that you should change the environment, not the flower

[livingwellnessblog]

WHY are you wired to react to circumstance, and why you are wrong | A Sequel to the "Meaning Making Series"

Overcoming the knee-jerk reactions of our survival instinct takes practice. Similar to how a Navy SEAL must practice to overcome their fight-or-flight response to be an effective warrior, we too need to exert effort to overcome our inherent biases. Practi

Don’t react to 3d? It is not just a catch phrase from LOA, and here is why: As human beings, we tend to react negatively to unknown circumstances due to our built-in survival instinct, which is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. Throughout our evolution, our ancestors faced numerous threats and challenges in their environment, and those who were more cautious and skeptical of the…

[courtingwonder]

How to challenge cognitive distortions

[spiralhouseshop]

New in the shop! Critical Thinking Card Deck!

For fun? For education? For attempting to win an argument? To be roasted by using them as a divination deck?

Whatever way you use them, these cards it will be enlightening!

This deck of Critical Thinking Cards will help you spot manipulation, dodgy logic, propaganda and persuasion techniques from advertisers, politicians, the media, and your own brain.

Includes:

24 Logical Fallacies

24 Cognitive Biases

3 Game Cards

3 Call-out Cards

find them in the Spiral House Shop here.

(I was totally roasted by this deck as the first draw was the placebo effect. Okay, fine but open label placebo magic is a thing!)

[mrpac]

Però mangiare carne rossa e processata e bere vino non è la stessa cosa

Due comportamenti entrambi a rischio di cancro ma ben diversi fra di loro: accostarli potrebbe essere una falsa analogia.

26 Giugno 2023 • Mr Pac

Intro 

Oggi, anche e soprattutto per chi in genere si occupa di droghe e dipendenze, è la giornata del 26 giugno. Non ne sono sicurissimo ma suppongo che oggi la sentirete chiamare in vari modi “Giornata contro la droga!”, “Giornata contro le droghe”, “Giornata contro il traffico/lo spaccio e l'uso di droga/droghe!!1!!!” e secondo me varie e altre simili interpretazioni. La giornata di oggi 26 giugno si chiama ufficialmente, e direttamente dal sito delle Nazioni Unite [UN], International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking che tradotto dovrebbe essere qualcosa tipo Giornata Internazionale contro l'Abuso di Droga e il Traffico Illecito. Che non è esattamente la stessa cosa. Prima di passare al protagonista di questa storia, il signor Soggy, credo di potervi dire che vi siate appena imbattuti nell'Argomento Fantoccio: è una logica fallace fra le più usate, l'interpretazione distorta di un fatto a vantaggio di una nostra posizione personale: e poi vai a capire se in buona o cattiva fede. Se continuate a leggere, vi avviso che ne incontrerete altre di logiche fallaci. E ora passiamo a Soggy.

Soggy

Il nome di Noah S. Sweat Jr., "Soggy" per gli amici, forse non dirà molto a qualcuno. Non diceva niente neanche a me prima in imbattermi in suo celebre discorso del 1952. Era un giudice e un professore di legge americano, nonché un rappresentante dello stato del Mississippi. E celebre lo deve essere davvero se, come si racconta, ci ha impiegato oltre 2 mesi per scriverlo. 

E non è un discorso particolarmente lungo: stando alle fonti che ho rintracciato, non dura neanche 2 minuti e mezzo. Due mesi e mezzo per scriverlo e 2 minuti e mezzo per dirlo: così tanto tempo per scrivere quelle che a me non paiono più di 20 righe in croce. E forse a meravigliarmi sono solo io.  Però se qualcuno concorda su questa osservazione, magari si chiederà com'è possibile una cosa del genere. Secondo me, è possibile se forse devo stare molto attento a quello che dico: se forse devo dire tutto senza dire niente, se devo affermare senza farlo, negare senza negare, suggerire ma al contempo non farlo. Un bell'esercizio di retorica, non c'è che dire. E non scordiamoci che il nostro amico Soggy era pure un giudice e soprattutto un professore di legge: con questo non voglio dire che fosse avvezzo a quelle presunte tattiche in cui in genere e che a me risulti gli avvocati son maestri (e, nel caso, non sarebbe né colpa né difetto e nemmeno errore: secondo me potrebbe essere parte integrante della loro professione e un bravo avvocato è bravo anche quando e come parla), anche vero e resta comunque il fatto che, se corrisponde a verità, 2 mesi e mezzo per 20 righe fa un quarto di riga al giorno. Deve esserselo riletto parecchie volte.

Il titolo di questo pezzo parla di carne rossa e processata e bere vino, più genericamente potremmo dire di carne e alcol, eppure mi sto dilungando sul discorso del nostro amico Soggy. E almeno per me una ragione c'è: se non vado errato, Soggy era pure un politico e quel discorso lo tenne in occasione d'una discussione sulla legalità del whisky nello stato del Mississippi. In quel discorso, Soggy ne disse peste e corna: le peggiori considerazioni su una bevanda alcolica che era, più o meno questo il tono delle sue parole, il liquido del diavolo, il flagello tossico, il sanguinoso mostro che contamina l'innocenza, la ragione dei perdenti, distrugge il focolare domestico, crea miseria e povertà e cava il pane dalla bocca dei bambini, bevanda malvagia che corrompe l'uomo e la donna cristiani in cima ai giusti, uomini di buona volontà che vivono nel baratro senza fondo del degrado, del dolore, della vergogna, dell'impotenza e della disperazione. E se stava parlando di questo allora Noah S. Sweat Jr. si diceva contrario. 

Per poi aggiungere subito dopo che, e più o meno il tono era sempre questo, però se per whisky intendevi l'olio della conversazione, il filosofico nettare, il liquido che si consuma quando i bravi ragazzi si riuniscono, che suggerisce canzoni nei cuori e risate sulle labbra, il caldo bagliore della felicità, e, perché no, se intendi anche l'allegria natalizia, la bevanda stimolante che mette la primavera nel passo del vecchio gentiluomo in una mattina gelida e pungente; se intendi la bevanda che permette all'uomo di magnificare la sua gioia e la sua felicità e di dimenticare, anche se solo per un po', le grandi tragedie della vita, i dolori e le sofferenze dello spirito; se intendi anche quel prodotto la cui vendita riversa nelle nostre tesorerie incalcolabili milioni di dollari, dollari utilizzati per fornire dolci cure ai nostri piccoli bambini storpi, ai nostri ciechi, ai nostri sordi, ai nostri muti, ai nostri miserabili anziani e infermi, per costruire autostrade, ospedali e scuole, allora Noah S. Sweat Jr si diceva certamente favorevole. 

Capite perché è diventato, come si dice, un discorso così celebre? [1] Nel caso di Soggy, prima distrugge un comportamento e poi subito dopo, e come a me pare, aggiunge un bel Però dove afferma esattamente l'opposto e, per quanto ne sappia, pure mettendolo come argomento secondo e ultimo (“È un dongiovanni ma è un bravo ragazzo!”), metterebbe in evidenza l'aspetto finale ora accettabile di quel comportamento a dispetto di tutti i suoi aspetti negativi. E se ricordo bene il nostro amico aveva pure premesso all'inizio che non voleva evitare controversie: pensate un po' se voleva farlo.

Però eravamo nel 1952, le conoscenze scientifiche riguardo l'alcol non erano quelle di oggi e oggi ne sappiamo un po' di più. Oggi sappiamo che è una sostanza tossica, cancerogena e teratogena a ogni dose e quindi non c'è una dose minima sicura. Quindi anche poco è rischioso. Oggi la carne rossa è classificata come probabile cancerogena e cancerogena se processata, bianca lo è solo se processata. Quindi la carne nel complesso e in linea generale è cancerogena. Come l'alcol. Al momento, quindi e per esempio, la dose sicura di carne processata e alcol è sempre 0. Questo accostamento con l'alcol, ch'io sappia permetterebbe a qualcuno, ultimamente e spesso, di dire che il controllo del rischio di cancro per noi umani potrebbe essere più o meno lo stesso per i due comportamenti. Il che potrebbe essere anche vero. E alcuni, per quanto ne sappia, si spingono oltre e arrivano anche a dire che son 2 comportamenti che forse potrebbero a loro volta essere assimilati, per esempio e in qualche modo, anche al respirare (ch'io sappia, può capitare di respirare aria inquinata e volendo cancerogena) e pure, ebbene sì, stare al sole: anche le radiazioni solari appartengono al Gruppo 1 della Classificazione IARC come cancerogene per gli esseri umani. Per poi, e sempre ch'io sappia e volendo, raggiungere vette altissime magari affermando anche che in effetti molte delle attività umane presentano rischi e sarebbe pure vero anche questo.

Solo che, e sempre e solo per esempio e per restar nel titolo, la carne bianca o rossa e pure quella processata qualche beneficio per l'organismo umano ce l'avrebbe pure: nutre, almeno quello. Serve a qualcosa. È utile. L'alcol invece no, non ha finalità funzionali o metaboliche specifiche e, checché se ne dica, non è manco un nutriente: le sue sono, che a me risulti, calorie cosiddette “vuote”, cioè non servono a nulla e fanno solo ingrassare. E l'aria che respiriamo? Di quella poi non se ne può fare a meno: respirare viene spontaneo, senz'aria per noi esseri umani probabilmente è dura. Per non parlare del sole. Senza di quello mi sa proprio che sia davvero dura. Dell'alcol, volendo, se ne potrebbe tranquillamente fare a meno: atto volontario e soprattutto rischio evitabile, non necessario agli atti quotidiani della vita, non ha mai nel complesso benefici per l'organismo umano e non è mai utile alla nostra salute: anzi. E qui di solito viene sempre la parte più difficile da buttar giù e che è la seguente: l'alcol è solo una droga ludica [2], assunta cioè senza nessuna necessità né prescrizione medica e infatti nessun medico in scienza e coscienza oggi consiglierebbe mai di assumerlo anche in piccole quantità, esattamente come assumere qualsiasi altra droga a scopo ludico, cioè solo per un molto presunto piacere. Sia chiaro: almeno per me, non c'è niente di male a farlo però, come si dice, basta sapere cosa si sta facendo. 

Basta riconoscere che per esempio di farsi le canne se ne può fare tranquillamente a meno, di sniffare coca pure, di iniettarsi eroina anche e quindi si può fare a meno pure di bere alcol, birra, vino, aperitivi o superalcolici che siano. E in genere non c'è nessuna differenza scientifica, per esempio, fra chi beve un bicchier di vino e chi si fa una canna. E se avete mandato giù pure queste ultime righe, forse ora vi potrebbe esser più chiaro quello che può essere il richiamo alle parole del discorso di Noah S. Sweat Jr.: celebre anche perché, ch'io sappia, è conosciuto proprio come, ma tu guarda a volte il caso!, l'altrettanto celebre Fallacia del Whisky [3] e in quel caso probabilmente usata soprattutto per non prendere (apparentemente!) una posizione ben precisa, per evitare proprio controversie (ma va'?), per non esprimersi puntualmente nel merito. Volendo, siamo anche e forse di fronte ai famosi e sempre usatissimi “Sì, ma...” “Eh, però...”. E non è finita: la Fallacia del Whisky potrebbe secondo me e a sua volta ricordare in qualche modo un'altra fallacia non meno interessante, quella dell'Appello alla Moderazione e anche lì di solito infatti partirebbe la sequela dei “Sì, ma...” “Eh, però...”. Vero, fa male, cancerogeno, tossico e teratogeno a ogni dose, però in fondo, forse, su, probabilmente, non dico questo ma, ci sarebbe da rifletter su, però è come respirare, prendere il sole e mangiare la carne, però, dai, tutte le attività umane potrebbero essere a rischio... Ma almeno io scommetto che nessuno di noi a questa lista aggiungerebbe fumare sigarette o farsi le canne, sniffare coca e iniettarsi eroina. E un motivo ci sarebbe pure e secondo me anche condivisibile.

Almeno io non posso sapere se dietro le parole di Soggy ci fosse la buona o la cattiva fede. E neanche voglio sapere se quando qualcuno oggi, nel 2023, in linea generale accosta comportamenti e atti scientificamente utili e a volte pure necessari ad altri che non lo sono neanche un po', e che anzi si rivelano inutilmente rischiosi [4], sia in buona fede o no. Mi par invece di capire che non si possa e sempre scientificamente, e per chiuderla con il titolo di questo pezzo, accostare l'atto di drogarsi ludicamente (alcol, thc ludico, cocaina, eroina etc.) a quello di nutrirsi, attività necessaria e di cui non si può fare a meno. E se qualcuno riesce a farlo almeno per me è il benvenuto: amo il vino e lo bevo volentieri, soprattutto quello rosso. 

Outro

Il tutto, come dicevamo, e come sempre ch'io sappia capita in casi come questi, quindi sta a riconoscere e soprattutto ad accettare il fatto che l'alcol è solo una droga ludica come tutte le altre droghe ludiche e non esiste un'altra ragione per assumerlo che non sia quella di un molto presunto piacere, e fra l'altro nemmeno per tutti. E senza dimenticare purtroppo che l'Appello alla Moderazione di solito e in genere potrebbe di riflesso indurre fra l'altro ad affermare, e solo per esempio, curiose frasi sul tipo “Bevo solo 2 bicchieri di vino al giorno però il mio scopo non è lo sballo come invece fanno quelli che si drogano!!!” forse in una sorta di auto indulgenza illusoria basata su una fallacia perché ci piacerebbe tanto che fosse così. E, in finale, ricordiamoci per favore che il fatto che l'alcol sia in Italia fortunatamente legale, nonostante i suoi notevoli rischi [5], è comunque pure un bene per tutti noi, assuntori o meno, e su questo forse sarebbe d'accordo pure il nostro amico Soggy [6].

[UN] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/drugs/index-new.html

[1] https://mjc.olemiss.edu/about/ "Listen to Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr. speech." 

[2] https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/documentazione/p6_2_5_1.jsp?id=104 "... non è possibile sulla base delle conoscenze attuali identificare quantità di consumo alcolico raccomandabili o “sicure” per la salute. Sarebbe peraltro improprio “raccomandare” l’assunzione di una sostanza tossica (...) o capace di indurre dipendenza, essendo una droga." 

[3] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey "It is named after a famous speech by Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr., a Mississippi lawmaker, who was arguing both for and against the legalization of alcohol." 

[4] https://www.fondazioneveronesi.it/magazine/i-blog-della-fondazione/il-blog-di-emanuele-scafato/vino-e-salute-un-binomio-impossibile-specie-per-i-piu-giovani “Il vino si beve per piacere. (…) Non esistono quantità sicure per la salute di qualunque tipo di bevanda alcolica. Sapere per non rischiare, fa la differenza.”

[5] https://dottoremaeveroche.it/il-vino-fa-buon-sangue/ “Chi opera nel settore sanitario non deve prestare il fianco alla strumentalizzazione da parte dei produttori di alcune nozioni scientifiche che, se tradotte nel linguaggio del marketing, rischiano di creare un incremento della morbilità e della mortalità. L’unico messaggio corretto e responsabile è quello che l’etanolo contenuto nel vino, nella birra o nei superalcolici è una sostanza tossica, cancerogena, teratogena, che può dare dipendenza e, inoltre, che non esiste dal punto di vista scientifico il concetto di ‘bere moderato’, in quanto non esiste una quantità sicura” 

[6] https://twitter.com/scafato/status/1670818408932290567 "Prova a usare il termine: alcol e altre droghe. Se chiedi alle persone di nominare le droghe, molti dimenticheranno che anche l'alcol è una droga. Questo diminuisce il danno che può fare, quando provoca più danni della maggior parte delle altre droghe."

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Ignorance

The philosophy of ignorance, also known as agnoiology, epistemology of ignorance, or agnotology, explores the nature, causes, and implications of ignorance. It delves into questions about the limits of human knowledge, the origins of ignorance, and the role of ignorance in shaping individual and societal beliefs and actions. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of ignorance:

Nature of Ignorance: The philosophy of ignorance investigates the concept of ignorance itself, considering it as a lack of knowledge or understanding about a particular subject or topic. It examines different types of ignorance, such as factual ignorance (lack of specific information) and strategic ignorance (deliberate avoidance of knowledge).

Causes of Ignorance: Agnoiology explores the factors that contribute to ignorance, including cognitive biases, cultural influences, educational systems, social norms, and political agendas. It examines how ignorance can arise from limited access to information, misinformation, or disinformation propagated by various sources.

Epistemological Challenges: The philosophy of ignorance raises epistemological questions about the reliability of human cognition and the extent to which knowledge can be attained. It considers whether ignorance is an inherent aspect of human nature or a result of external factors that inhibit the acquisition of knowledge.

Ignorance and Power: Agnoiology explores the relationship between ignorance and power, recognizing that ignorance can be wielded as a tool of manipulation and control by those in positions of authority. It investigates how systems of oppression and domination perpetuate ignorance to maintain social hierarchies and inequalities.

Social and Cultural Dimensions: The philosophy of ignorance analyzes the role of ignorance in shaping cultural beliefs, collective attitudes, and societal norms. It examines how ignorance can be culturally constructed and maintained through social institutions, ideologies, and practices.

Ignorance and Ethics: Agnoiology raises ethical considerations about the moral responsibilities associated with ignorance. It questions whether individuals have an obligation to seek knowledge and overcome ignorance, especially when it perpetuates harm or injustice.

Epistemic Virtues and Vices: The philosophy of ignorance explores epistemic virtues (such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility) and vices (such as dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and intellectual arrogance) that influence how individuals engage with ignorance and knowledge.

Overcoming Ignorance: Agnoiology considers strategies for overcoming ignorance, including education, critical thinking, empirical inquiry, and the cultivation of epistemic virtues. It emphasizes the importance of fostering a culture of inquiry and skepticism to counteract ignorance and promote intellectual growth.

In summary, the philosophy of ignorance investigates the complex phenomenon of ignorance, addressing its conceptual, epistemological, social, and ethical dimensions. It offers insights into the nature of human cognition, the dynamics of power and knowledge, and the challenges of navigating an uncertain and complex world.

[theleftycanadianradical]

Just World Hypothesis, is another logical fallacy standing in the way of all of us having nicer things.

If you believe people are at fault or somehow deserve their circumstance, you'll be less inclined to want to help. Likewise, might feel cheated that you have to struggle, so why shouldn't they?

The world is not a fair place, but we can build a fairer world.