When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[cladking]

In many fields they are actually sliding backward.

Anthropology, for instance, is farther away from understanding people from before 2000 BC then they were in the 1850's. Much further! And they are getting farther away at an accelerating rate.

Even biology is slowly getting farther away from the causes of change in species. While there are some great philosophers their work is mostly lost among the noise. The status quo has become not only inviolable but the only standard of right and wrong. It also governs all financing for scientific investigation. It is the measure of the opinion of Peers who now vote on the nature of reality and call it "theory" even when there exists no experimental underpinning. Things can't change any longer without an act of congress who are beholden to industry and finance who govern the status quo.

Like most modern processes this is untenable and unsustainable. The status quo is rife with not only waste on a biblical scale but with errors of fact.

 

[cladking]

There are essentially two ways to deviate from the majority: the first way is to be a genius, to think outside of the box or to make a discovery, while the second way is to be downright stupid and to misunderstand the whole situation to the point one assumes being part of the first group.

There are many more people in the second group.

I don't even believe in "intelligence" and even back when I still did I had as many attributes of an idiot as a genius.

It never required a "genius" to connect the dots. Even an idiot's brain is wired to see patterns. It requires the right assumptions and beliefs to connect the dots correctly. None of the right assumptions have ever been only the province of Peers. Indeed, Peers are always at a disadvantage because they are stuck with the beliefs that got us exactly where we are! And they are stuck with protecting their reputations and incomes. They are forced to see what they already believe and to kowtow to those higher up in the pecking order.

Progress isn't dependent on the status quo but is dependent on ignoring the status quo and each of its assumptions. This goes many times over when science has been in a rut for 100 years. It goes even more times over for those branches of "science" with no experimental or empirical basis that hasn't changed since 1807.

If everybody is essentially wrong it really doesn't matter if you're a Peer or an idiot. I'd rather be wrong alone.

 

[Native]

I believe that to fix existing errors and find a way forward we must rethink how we took everything apart in the first place and what this means to experimental results and human knowledge. Perhaps we can even learn to study reality without taking it apart to get through the current impasse.

Agreed - When dealing with any theories, scientists have to look for all inconsistencies and contradictions mostly in order to make a long time working theory.

Yes. "taking things apart" don´t lead to an overall understanding unless "all small parts" connects to everything and to every other scientific branches.

 

[Native]

You seem to be conflating rational bias with irrational bias.

And if you can´t see your own group thinking irrational biases, you take it all to be rational biases in your scientific branch. This is a quilte natural human methodology when ones scientific branch is disconnected from all other related branches.

No vaccine modifies your RNA any more than a COVID infection. A COVID infection will eventually lead to the production of the same mRNA. In each case, the body acquires the mRNA necessary to produce the specific antibodies against a COVID virus antigen, such as the surface spike protein that allows the virus to attach to the host cell and through which it's own RNA is injected into your cells to begin producing more viruses using your cells.

This is a HUGE medical/virological MISCONCEPTION. A significant weakened immune system cannot produce anything at all.

This is the basic question with all deceases and why people get ill at the first hand. Your immune system has to be optimized by natural means (food, motion and social connections, etc.) and NOT by artificial injections.

The vast majority of people in the covid ICU today, and who end up in coffins, are unvaccinated people.
+95% of them, while a LOT more then just 5% of the populace is vaccinated.

So clearly, not only is your statement bonkers - in fact the exact opposite is true.
Clearly the vaccines are helping a GREAT MANY people and by now have saved countless lives.

This is how group thinking biased statistics works. Most fatalities took place in the beginning long time before even thinking of any covid-vaccines. As the initial fatal numbers temporarily decreased as the vira mutated, vaccines were invented and now ALL casualties are ascribed to "the fantastic covid vaccines" statistic - long long time before even having long time empirical data for this.

It´s all nothing but group thinking assumptions and biases. And it all lack natural and overall health thinking. Some scientist become sort of "nature-stupid" when having just ONE group thinking approach to global and universal problems.

 

[Native]

We landed a man on the moon without knowing " . . ." how gravity is related to the other basic forces.

Exactly so. In my humble opinion, Newton conflated simple aerodynamical pressures forces on the Earth because of it´s orbital velocity resistance around the Sun and took this to be an attractive force from the Earth instead of a general pressure.

This is a school example of a 300 year old biased consensus group thinking which hasn't been delt with - and of course normal thinking scientific persons cannot get "gravity" to work with other natural and fundamental forces as this "attractive assumption concept" is the opposite of what was assumed in the first hand by Newton.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is how group thinking biased statistics works.

No, that's just how statistics work.
When the majority of the general public is vaccinated, while the vast majority of those in the hospital are unvaccinated, that tells you that vaccination helps in not ending up at the hospital.

Most fatalities took place in the beginning long time before even thinking of any covid-vaccines.

Which is irrelevant since there were no vaccines then. What matters is the numbers today.

As the initial fatal numbers temporarily decreased as the vira mutated, vaccines were invented and now ALL casualties are ascribed to "the fantastic covid vaccines" statistic - long long time before even having long time empirical data for this.

You make zero sense.
What I gave you are real-time numbers.

+95% of the people being hospitalized and/or dying TODAY, are unvaccinated.
Meaning that the unvaccinated are a lot more at risk then the vaccinated.

How are you not understanding this? It's not rocket science.

It´s all nothing but group thinking assumptions and biases. And it all lack natural and overall health thinking. Some scientist become sort of "nature-stupid" when having just ONE group thinking approach to global and universal problems.

I don't even know how to respond to this word salad.

 

[Native]

When the majority of the general public is vaccinated, while the vast majority of those in the hospital are unvaccinated, that tells you that vaccination helps in not ending up at the hospital.

I´ll recommend you to ponder over how some individuals never have any affects of the "pandemic covid" vira at all.

This should make you able to look through all the biased group thinking in medicine and virology, including the biased statistics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I´ll recommend you to ponder over how some individuals never have any affects of the "pandemic covid" vira at all.

You think this is news to me?
Or anyone, for that matter?

This should make you able to look through all the biased group thinking in medicine and virology, including the biased statistics.

Objective numbers aren't mere opinions.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the point at hand.

When the majority of the public is vaccinated and the vast majority of those that end up in the hospital or worse are unvaccinated... then what does that tell you about being vaccinated?

Are you capable of basic reasoning?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I´ll recommend you to ponder over how some individuals never have any affects of the "pandemic covid" vira at all.

You think this is news to me?Or anyone, for that matter?

As the biased group thinking virologists and politicians recommend even the healthy ones to be vaccinated, one really should think so, yes,

For about 100 years, the virologic "experts" have tried to fight vira - and they still have this fantasy of making everyone immune over vira which consistently mutates.

When the majority of the public is vaccinated and the vast majority of those that end up in the hospital or worse are unvaccinated... then what does that tell you about being vaccinated?

This doesn´t say anything as even vaccinated individuals are being re-infected. What does that say about your vaccines? You can only conclude such by being hugely biased.

Are you capable of basic reasoning?

You would be too if you skipped your biased group thinking attitudes to your specialties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As the biased group thinking virologists and politicians recommend even the healthy ones to be vaccinated, one really should think so, yes,

Do you also know why?
It sounds like don't.

Because these people are so-called super spreaders. They are unaffected by the virus, yet the viral infection rages in their bodies, reproducing like crazy and subsequently spreading as crazy as well. Meanwhile, the carrier thinks everything is fine because he is unaffected and doesn't see any reason to get tested. So he thinks he's clear.

People like this infect dozens, if not hundreds, of people, depending where they go and what they do.
Imagine such a person being on a crowded subway while misapplying his mask (or worse: not at all) like so many people do. Viral particles will also remain in there long after he already got off. So commuters who get on several stops after he got off, also likely get infected.

If that person however was vaccinated, the immune system wouldn't let it get that far. The infection would be dealt with a LOT faster and there'ld be a lot less viral particles. And thus a much lower risk of spreading.


It's almost like you know and understand close to nothing about how a virus spreads.

You also seem to be one of those who believes that vaccination is something you do only to protect yourself. This is off course nonsense. The reason why hospitals for examples demand their nurses to be vaccinated... is not (or not only anyway) for their own safety. It is done primarily for the protection of other people at the hospital. Staff, patients, visitors,...

For about 100 years, the virologic "experts" have tried to fight vira - and they still have this fantasy of making everyone immune over vira which consistently mutates.

They seem to be pretty good at it as well.
Just look at the current pandemic. 95% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.

This doesn´t say anything as even vaccinated individuals are being re-infected. What does that say about your vaccines?

Nothing that wasn't already known.

You can only conclude such by being hugely biased.

Says the person why has just made an argument based on nitpicking on a minority of cases, pretending them to be the standard because that sounds the argument being made, while completely ignoring the actual big statistical picture which points to the exact opposite of what is being claimed.

HILARIOUS.

The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of those that end up in the hospital and / or dead, are UNVACCINATED people. Which demonstrates objectively that getting vaccinated very severely lowers the risk of needing hospitalization or a funeral.


The irony of you complaining about "bias", nitpicking on a pixel while ignoring the bigger picture, is absolutely mindblowing.

You would be too if you skipped your biased group thinking attitudes to your specialties.

Now is a good time to stop projecting your own flaws on the rest of us.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
As the biased group thinking virologists and politicians recommend even the healthy ones to be vaccinated, one really should think so, yes,

Do you also know why?
It sounds like don't.

Third and more vaccinations are needed as the vaccines don´t work as claimed by the producers and the viriologists and politicians only demand even healthier younger childs to be vaccinated because this statistically and mathematically looks much better and it fits better in their biased "understanding".

Because these people are so-called super spreaders. They are unaffected by the virus, yet the viral infection rages in their bodies, reproducing like crazy and subsequently spreading as crazy as well. Meanwhile, the carrier thinks everything is fine because he is unaffected and doesn't see any reason to get tested. So he thinks he's clear.

People like this infect dozens, if not hundreds, of people, depending where they go and what they do.
Imagine such a person being on a crowded subway while misapplying his mask (or worse: not at all) like so many people do. Viral particles will also remain in there long after he already got off. So commuters who get on several stops after he got off, also likely get infected.

If that person however was vaccinated, the immune system wouldn't let it get that far. The infection would be dealt with a LOT faster and there'ld be a lot less viral particles. And thus a much lower risk of spreading.

This is nothing but biased virologic group thinking parroting.

If someone are unaffected by the virus, there logically is no need to vaccinate at all - and everybody else just have to optimize their immune system by natural means.

The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of those that end up in the hospital and / or dead, are UNVACCINATED people. Which demonstrates objectively that getting vaccinated very severely lowers the risk of needing hospitalization or a funeral.

The unnatural and disconnected virologists don´t even recognize the normal pattern of how a new vira works: Strong at the beginning and slowly fading out by time - no matter of all vaccines injected. This natural process are then statistically ascribed to "the positive effect of vaccines".

Now is a good time to stop projecting your own flaws on the rest of us.

I could say the same of the standing biased virologic group thinking parroting which is disconnected from all natural thoughts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Third and more vaccinations are needed as the vaccines don´t work as claimed by the producers and the viriologists and politicians only demand even healthier younger childs to be vaccinated because this statistically and mathematically looks much better and it fits better in their biased "understanding".

This is nothing but biased virologic group thinking parroting.

If someone are unaffected by the virus, there logically is no need to vaccinate at all - and everybody else just have to optimize their immune system by natural means.

Way to stick your head in the sand in denial of the objective fact that unvaccinated asymptotic people walk around carrying and spreading loads of viral particles.

It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

You are clearly in extreme denial.

The unnatural and disconnected virologists don´t even recognize the normal pattern of how a new vira works: Strong at the beginning and slowly fading out by time - no matter of all vaccines injected. This natural process are then statistically ascribed to "the positive effect of vaccines".

Not sure at this point if you are again exposing your ignorance, or in fact just plain lying.

I could say the same of the standing biased virologic group thinking parroting which is disconnected from all natural thoughts.

Objective facts are objective facts.
You can label them "biased thinking" if you want, but you'll only be missing the fact that you're wrong.

In context of this pandemic, sadly, being wrong in that way has cost the lives of many.

 

[tas8831]

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

Good luck getting the believers in "religionism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

 

[tas8831]

"Why the majority is always wrong" by Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht

Paul is ...an award-winning professional speaker, international author, and a trusted boardroom advisor, he has helped thousands of business executives, managers, and professionals get everything they can out of everything they have... His most popular topics cover the secrets of consistent execution, easy innovation, powerful leadership, business growth, career acceleration, and seamless teamwork.

Originally trained as a chemical engineer.. experience in the practical business applications of behavioral psychology, neuroscience and, especially, common sense.​

Not interested. I've seen enough of this sort of guru come and go to not want to waste my time.

 

[tas8831]

Native said: ↑
As the biased group thinking virologists and politicians recommend even the healthy ones to be vaccinated

So.... the sick ones should be vaccinated...?

Third and more vaccinations are needed as the vaccines don´t work as claimed by the producers

What had they claimed, exactly?

and the viriologists and politicians only demand even healthier younger childs to be vaccinated because this statistically and mathematically looks much better and it fits better in their biased "understanding".

By all means, let us in on your totally UNbiased "understanding" of these things. I am amazed at how you seem to have unparalleled expertise in nearly every subject...

This is nothing but biased virologic group thinking parroting.

Ah, so the totally UNbiased anti-vaxxers have it all figured out by virtue of their lack of relevant knowledge and their reliance upon "common sense" and Google.

If someone are unaffected by the virus, there logically is no need to vaccinate at all - and everybody else just have to optimize their immune system by natural means.

There is that UNbiased, NONgroupthink expertise - "optimize" their immune system how, exactly?

The unnatural and disconnected virologists don´t even recognize the normal pattern of how a new vira works: Strong at the beginning and slowly fading out by time - no matter of all vaccines injected. This natural process are then statistically ascribed to "the positive effect of vaccines".

Ah - the UNbiased groupthink of the ignorant.

By the way - If you are using "vira" as the plural of virus, then you should have used "a".

But - we know that you are the world's leading expert in cosmology and how everyone but you and those of your grouthink cult are wrong, but do tell us all about how you amassed such total knowledge of the immune system and the immune response.
Google? Social media?

I could say the same of the standing biased virologic group thinking parroting which is disconnected from all natural thoughts.

"Natural thoughts" = dopey woo peddled by self-absorbed know-nothings.

 

[tas8831]

It's almost like you know and understand close to nothing about how a virus spreads.

Whoa whoa whoa - you're referring to the UNbiased, NONgroupthinking NATURAL thinking expert on the immune system!!! AND cosmology! AND.... everything! Have some respect!

 

[cladking]

Good luck getting the believers in "religionism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

The simple fact is that neither religion nor science is right, and get this, neither is wrong. No, this isn't to suggest there is necessarily a God Who has created a universe that obeys the laws of nature and is reflected by mathematics He has given us to understand His work. This is merely to say that reality is so complex that science in its current state is virtually meaningless even to understand its formatting and religion is little more than a confused understanding of ancient science that had a most incomplete formatting and less knowledge than our own.

Believers in science are far more dangerous than a radical with a religion and a gun. Scientism is the fastest growing religion and has been for over a century. Most countries are being led by people who know everything and know nothing of what they don't know.

 

[tas8831]

The simple fact is ...

Given:

The claim:​

Cladking 'posted what is virtually overwhelming evidence that each individual grows a broccas area in order to learn modern language'​

EVIDENCE:
noun​

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

FACT:
noun​

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

PROVE:
verb
verb: prove; 3rd person present: proves; past tense: proved; gerund or present participle: proving; past participle: proven​

1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument

Cladking made 54 posts in the thread. Let's see...​

Gibberish about global warming... look and see science...life is sudden... butterflies in china... predictions are dumb...peer review is dumb... Darwin... real science is not science because I say so.. back to changes are sudden (no evidence for any of this so far)... erroneous claim re: 'survival of the fittest'... no such thing as species - WOW this thread was like a warehouse of cladking's nonsense! - ...everything in life is sudden.. HERE is a classic - "Dog, cats, farm animals, and crops." are things that appeared in 2 generations or less!!!!! I must have missed that garbage - .. Ah - post 27.​

I will include the entire paragraph within which Cladking mentions Broca's area (he typically misspells it as 'broccas'). In addition, we had discussed this in another thread previously, but since he claimed to have presented evidence in 'earlier posts' in this thread, I will only deal with this thread for now. I will provide a link to each post in the first few words of each quote.​

We don't really "decide" to grow a broccas area. In a sense we do because "decide" is just one of those words with an infinite number of definitions and individuals do acquire language through intent. In order to acquire language we "grow a brocas area". This varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it. Very few even realize they are doing it of course. When we turn 2 we all start growing billions of connections in the brain. These would all be used to speak metaphysical language but we are force fed modern language and must learn it instead. We grow a Broca's Area which acts as a translator between the digital speech center and the now analog higher brain functions. These higher brain functions used to be digital as well and no translation was required. Babies and ancient people don't think like us but we can no longer teach them metaphysical language so they grow a Broccas area. They grow it because they must. Then they think just like we do; Homo Omnisciencis and we're so proud because we think and therefore exist and we think we're so smart. It's win, win, win and then we hold elections to determine reality and ignore anomalies that are almost invisible anyway since we see only what we believe.​

I suppose you never considered the possibility that if the location of the Brocca's Area varies among individuals then we might not have been born with one.​

And... that is actually it.​

Just those 2 posts... Please, anyone - tell where is the "overwhelming evidence" - for ANYTHING, much less for individuals deciding to grow a Broca's area - is in those passages... Anyone?​

I will look for our previous discussions on this tomorrow maybe. It will not be fruitful in terms of finding evidence, but it will show that Clad either does not understand what evidence is, or is just a major troll.​

... your history - not just here, but on multiple forums - anyone is a fool to take you seriously on any topic.

 

[cladking]

I will look for our previous discussions on this tomorrow maybe.

You neglected to address one single point in my post.

This is all the more humorous since I've invariably addressed every single point in each of your posts; I merely refuse to do it ad infinitum. If you ever addressed what I said instead of what you believe we might have agreed to disagree by now.

I'm going back to the current topic. Why do you believe all groupthink from before 200 years ago was wrong and what are the implications to consensus opinion TODAY?

 

[tas8831]

You neglected to address one single point in my post.

I am merely emulating your antics.

" This [Broca's area] varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it."