[MikeB]

If the viewer can't prove what they're seeing for themselves, you shouldn't be "all in" one way or the other...

If there's matching data and a claim that supports it, then it's true. If there's non-matching data but the claim is that it matches, then the credibility is broken or the data is broken/insufficient... Again can't be "all in", or use this as a reason to empirically decide on all matters relating to it without looking at evidence.

It's much easier to decide issue by issue, no empirical evidence (Ie "this person would never say that"), watch for strawman responses (Ie trying to solve a question by using unrelated data, especially in an emotional way).... much more aspects break logic....

Flat Earth has always been a metaphoric statement ("straight logic"), but it's been promoted as a literal statement in order to get people to mock anyone who thinks straight... as it's counter productive to "change" and lgbt campaigns.

[HS]

I fell for the 2012 end of the world thing, around 2008, I was probably 12 myself. Just went down an internet rabbit hole one weekend, I must have printed out a few hundred pages from someone’s conspiracy website, because I though it was that important to show my parents. I think what made it convincing for me was the sheer amount of ''evidence'' which was loosely tied to real things such as the Mayan Calendar, the magnetic reversal of the poles, the asteroid Apophis, maybe even Yellowstone, things along those lines. I extricated myself by learning a bit more about the world by watching the Discovery Channel all summer long, and then learning some rationality by stumbling across YouTube channels like "The Atheist Experience" where people would debate things. The final nail in the coffin, of course, was when I survived 2012 . Regarding other people, a couple family members are/were inclined to believing in homeopathy and superstition, and one of my class mates was very Christian. That's about it.

As for fixing broken ideas, Elon Musk made a good point about how most people tend to think using analogies, because its correct often enough for the basics, and doesn’t use a lot of energy. But the way he tries to examine ideas, and think about things, is by going back in the logic tree, to the most basic knowledge that we are most sure is correct, and then extrapolating from those ground rules to see if his idea is supported by them. Maybe there could be classes to teach this. When he explained it I understood it well enough to repeat it back, but I don’t fully get it. It’s like with a new type of math problem, you need to practice it for a while before you actually understand anything. Maybe some kind of first principles practice problem handbook, as part of an international educational curriculum.

[ivan.moony]

There is also entire cult around Nibiru planet.

[HS]

Wait no, just realized I was deluding myself a little. I am superstitious about a bunch of things; I just don’t usually act on it. All these little sayings like, don’t walk under a ladder, black cats, stepping on cracks, accumulate like barnacles on a ship, I’m still steering the rudder, but… it’s like navigating a website with occasional popups, it does slow you down. For my case of "fixing broken ideas" all it might require is the mental discipline to not engage with irrational concerns until the GTP smoothes itself out.

[ivan.moony]

You're not alone there. What would you say about avoiding number six while programming? Once you start paying attention, it's everywhere, especially at line numbers in editor and file sizes! Unnecessary activity. It doesn't even make me happy.

[HS]

Thanks man. On one hand that can be frustrating, on the other hand its basically a free Zen teacher. If approached correctly the brain can be a very cool self optimizing mechanism.


Edit, with some more things for reference in case you find them helpful:

In Zen stories the masters usually give their students a series of impossible assignments. The modern equivalents of not thinking about a pink elephant for a week. These are meant to trick them into suddenly intuiting the solution, like with the punchline of a joke. Basically, the point is to realize that you can’t consciously will yourself to not think about something.
So, lets take the example of thinking about a pink elephant. The student would meet back up with the master after a week, and the master would ask them “Tell me, did you manage to avoid thinking about pink elephants?” “No, I completely failed. I was constantly worried about thinking about pink elephants.” And the master would say “That’s alright, for next week just try not to worry too much about thinking about pink elephants.” “

All right,” Said the student. “I will try that and report back to you next week.” So, when the student returned a week later the master asked “Did you manage to avoid worrying too much about thinking about pink elephants?” And the student replied “No! It was terrible! I could not stop worrying about the fact that I might worry too much about thinking about pink elephants!” And the Master would go “That’s all fine. Just try for next week not to worry too much about worrying that you might worry too much about thinking about pink elephants”

… And it went on like that, until the student got hopelessly tangled up in the double negatives and so on, and they could no longer hold the distressing concept in their mind. At which point they were allegedly suddenly enlightened. You can find some Zen stories on YouTube if you like. They are quite interesting culturally/historically if nothing else, and Alan Watts does some fun readings of them.

Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna put the same basic principle more eloquently by saying “You must void the void.” …your thoughts neither exist nor do not exist... I think what he was getting at, was that most people initially get the wrong idea about what “nothing” means.

Korrelan’s concept of a Global Thought Pattern can be used to imagine this idea from more of a physics standpoint, specifically regarding the tendency towards paths of least resistance within systems which are not interfered with. When not reinforced by attempts at use or destruction, unnecessary structures can end up in much the same predicament as a non-Newtonian fluid.

[infurl]

I wonder how much of it is superstitious behaviour and how much of it is obsessive compulsive disorder. As computer programmers we are especially prone to OCD and it can take quite an effort to keep it under control. I have to fight the urge to make all my identifiers the same length when I am coding!

Either way, a lot of these behaviours may have arisen from situations in which we found ourselves in the past, or common sense taken too far. There is a very good reason for not wanting to walk under ladders if you can avoid them, although the unconscious compulsion that I feel when I see a ladder does seem a lot stronger than is warranted. The same goes for avoiding stepping on cracks; it makes sense to avoid potentially unstable ground. I'm not so sure about black cats. While it is sensible to avoid cat sized animals in general because they are a tripping hazard, maybe in olden days, black cats were especially dangerous because of dim lighting. As for spilling salt, salt used to be an extremely valuable and hard to obtain substance and could supposedly even be used in lieu of money. It's bad luck to waste money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spilling_salt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superstitions

[HS]

I have to fight the urge to make all my identifiers the same length when I am coding!

There is a very good reason for not wanting to walk under ladders if you can avoid them, although the unconscious compulsion that I feel when I see a ladder does seem a lot stronger than is warranted.

I know, right!?

[Korrelan]

Everyone has OCD it’s a key reflection/ aspect of being human/ learning.

Picking up a spoon in order to place sugar in a cup is exactly the same neural process, but certain patterns/ traits are framed by our society as OCD. If everyone clicked a light switch three times, the person who clicked it once would appear odd; they would have OID... obsessive in-compulsive disorder. (societal framing)

Superstitions and OCD both give insights into the mechanisms of free will and how it manifests/ compounds from the multitude of predefined/ learned facets that comprise a thought/ decision.

We can only make decisions based on our own current knowledge/ insights and this knowledge is constructed from the facets of our subjective experiences.  Every concept/ construct/ thought is built from thousands of sub-constructs that are applied/ compounded automatically, we have no control of this process in the moment, but we can add to the mix, swaying/ influencing the process for future use.

Neurons/ networks have maturation cycles; they become less plastic with age, this is part of how our connectome builds hierarchical knowledge. When we are young our ‘foundational’ base networks are very plastic and impressionable and we tend to place our trust in specific adults (parents/ teachers).  Superstitious belief stems from this early indoctrination, we ‘pick up’ their traits, once it’s embedded at the lowest levels of abstraction it’s practically impossible to remove, it’s just part of who you are.

Our global thought pattern (GTP) is akin to circulating mixing bowl of paint/ pigment. Every colour added changes the overall colour, no matter how small the amount it will have an effect on the outcome. If pink (pink elephants lol) is added there is no way to remove it, it’s an additive process… time dilutes the pink and it eventually fades until next time.

We are the sum of our experiences and learning, a well rounded education is important to prime/ prepare the adolescent brain to both conform and perform in our societies. But not all educational experiences/ brains are equal; we constantly combine/ build upon prior knowledge, if something low level is not understood correctly it will have repercussions right up through the learning stack.

There’s no point trying to convince a true ‘Flat Earther’ the earth is spherical (ish), that construct is built upon flawed or missing knowledge, they can’t help/ control what they are currently thinking… the key is to work back and figure out what miss conceptions are leading to the construct.  Then provide arguments/ knowledge/ empirical proof that causes internal turmoil between their existing accepted beliefs/ knowledge… bringing their core facets into line.

All brains are different, I have a visual imagination… some people have limited or none.  They get through life by compensating, using other skills/ / coping strategies to approximate a visual imagination when the experience requires.  They don’t know they have none, just like I don’t know what mental skills you have that I don’t.  Through experience/ learning and imagination I understand that the closer you get to the surface of a spheroid the flatter it appears… some are just missing the facets/ or unable to build this construct.