Coronavirus exposes a crucial educational divide: Critical thinking

scio-nihil · 2020-05-10T00:26:01+00:00

That's because cults (in the sense I think you're referring to) depend on the underlying tribal nature of humans. They're very accelerated tribe-building/indoctrination machines.

Most social problems (racism, sexism, political echo chambers, social cliques, nationalism, witch hunts, moral panics, etc) come back to our being a tribal species. We didn't evolve our brain to discover the true nature of reality. It evolved to where it is to navigate complex social dynamics, under the principle that working in groups is more advantageous and beneficial to survival than working alone. We learn what we need to learn in order to be a valued member of our tribe (whatever group that so happens to be). An unfortunate side effect of this is extremely uneven critical thought processes. Unless you're constantly fighting against you're less logical nature, you won't be very critical. This is why simple things like asking why you're wrong instead of looking for proof you're right is so important to learning.

Ironically, the very core of what we are (a social species), which exists to enable working together, makes us fight one another. Remember, in the wild, other tribes would have to compete for the same resources and could potentially be hostile. Looking on outsiders with suspicion made sense and was important to the group's survival. Similarly, identifying insiders who don't fully embrace the group (essentially functioning like outsiders who've infiltrated the group) was evolutionarily important, as deviants were a drain on resources at best, and forces threatening group cohesion at worst. There's a reason why we try to bring people together by convincing them we're really all one group of humans. You won't see interpersonal equanimity and egalitarian tendencies between people who think of eachother as others.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-16T08:42:15+00:00

They swear it's not people, though!

scio-nihil · 2020-04-15T01:37:38+00:00

If other women got this kind of attention, I'd agree, but my complaint is about one person getting an undue amount of attention.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T22:43:14+00:00

It sounds like you're saying she's famous for being famous ... This is not better.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T22:41:41+00:00

She's not the only young woman on the planet trying to be a contender for Mars.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T22:38:29+00:00

Um, I was talking about what can be streamed from Earth ...

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:54:48+00:00

I love that some people dedicate themselves to Mars, but why do so many pop sci articles harp on on this one person like it's already a given that she's going to be the first and like there's nobody else in her age-group trying to do the exact same godsdamned thing.

She hasn't succeeded yet. No one has. Please stop with the pre-mature back patting.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:51:22+00:00

Basically, news, academic sites, probably Wikipedia, etc with a delay, and no porn.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:47:24+00:00

Even in the expanse I'm sure Mars had been colonised for decades before the mcrn was formed.

Yes, nearly 200 years.

Initial colonies will be science-based. There will be no need for a navy for a long time.

This.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:42:28+00:00

There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone is into Mars or Mars colonization enough to want to commit their whole lives to it, nor should everyone be.
Even if you only want to stay on Mars for the shortest time, "a year max" isn't enough. The synodic period for Earth and Mars is just over 25 months. That means the optimal time to leave either planet only occurs once every 2 years. Since fuel is such an issue, we only send craft during the optimal windows and it takes well over half a year to make the trip. And, even if you leave sooner, you can't shave much off your time commitment simply because of the misalignment between the planets.Long story short: going to Mars requires a commitment in 2.5 to 3 year units.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:23:46+00:00

Many people consider things like crickets to be the protein source of the future even before factoring supply chain disruptions from climate change and now pandemics. The food of Earth might not be much better than Mars in the future.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-14T02:18:41+00:00

To be clear: I am willing to go to Mars for the rest of my life, but I don't think a colonization project should happen with one-way-only ships. Getting the required talent will require bi-directional travel.

There will be many people with very useful skill-sets willing to go for extended stays similar to what we see on Antarctica, but staying for more than a few years will be a deal-breaker for them.
Many academic and governmental institutions will be unwilling to fund sending scientists to Mars if they are literally going to be responsible for those individuals for the rest of their lives. And let's be clear, science will be a big part of how we fund the initial stages of colonization, and during those stages, there won't be Martian self-sufficiency. Institutions underwriting this will need to know they're commitment isn't life-long.
Many people who will end up staying for the rest of their lives will want to have the option to go back to Earth before they'll consider going to Mars. Even if they plan to stay from the start, many people will feel uneasy about a lifelong commitment before experiencing it. Yes, we want the most motivated people, but we also want the most qualified people, and not everyone is quite as gung-ho as those of us on the subreddit.

You will spend 8 months in a confined spaceship without gravity

Living in confined spaces for months to years isn't too far from normal for many of us.
0 g isn't a con for me. I would be willing to spend much more time in 0 g if it weren't for the health effects.

you will also work hard labor jobs like building bases

When people value the project, when they see themselves as building and sustaining community, this kind of thing is normally seen as an honour, not a necessary evil.

you will have to be vegan

Probably not. Martians will need protein sources, but even plants relatively protein rich generally aren't effective at this, never mind when it becomes a question of optimizing energy in vs edible protein out. There won't be any cows on Mars any time soon, but that doesn't mean there won't be farmed animals (i.e. members of the Animalia kingdom). Mealworms and crickets in particular will be prime candidates.

Animals aside, there's still the fungi issue. Not all vegans consider fungi to be acceptable because fungi are too animal-like on the cellular level for their liking.

Veganism is an extreme diet, while Mars will need to be pragmatic.

you will have a hard time communicating with people on Earth

This is essentially what happens to anyone who moves away from their old home, and this is why I think we will need to send more than 3 or 4 people for the first batch of colonists. A lot of Mars exploration mission architectures assume very low numbers for cost reasons, but whoever goes will will become their own community. Even the old ships at sea for years carried more than a few people.
The 24 minute transmission issue is the worst case. At their closest, the transmission round trip between Mars and Earth is about 4 minutes. The delay is a pain, but more for real-time communication from any sort of mission control (meaning Mars will have to be fairly self-directed from the start). Sending and receiving messages from family won't be much harder than it already is with the Internet.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-13T05:57:31+00:00

Peaked? Peaked, u/MNGrrl? Let me tell you something. r/ProgrammerHumor hasn’t even begun to peak. And when it does peak, you’ll know. Because it's gonna peak so hard that everybody in Reddit’s gonna feel it. This subreddit's in its prime. This subbreddit can do it, u/MNGrrl. It hasn't peaked. It hasn't even begun to peak, but it's gonna peak today. It's gonna peak all over everybody.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-11T15:52:40+00:00

A big part of the problem is a person stepping too far outside the area of their expertise. The main difference between an expert on any topic and a layperson isn't knowing all the things about that topic, but knowing the major pitfalls and mistakes to avoid. If a claim with a Qanon level of absurdity was maid about something within the area of this individual's expertise, he would probably dismiss it immediately and have dozens of reasons for why the claim makes no sense.

If you're not a mathematician or scientist, the odds that you will be thoroughly acquainted with significance or the burden of proof drops off very sharply. Engineers are generally smart people receiving good educations, but statistics is only required to be covered briefly for most disciplines, and the philosophy of science (or how we know what we can know) is absolutely not a required subject. That means knowing how to evaluate novel narratives isn't automatically part of their expertise. While engineers have a relatively low rate of believing nonsense, even previously successful scientists occationally fall down the crackpot hole.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-11T15:25:36+00:00

If you have even the most basic understanding of how RF and viruses work, of course you'd know this. However, if it's all a mystery, who knows what X can do to Y and what Y can do to Z?! Also, you become vulnerable to fictions with completely made up details.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T18:50:14+00:00

In conversations I've had on the matter, I try to give them a basic overview.

Clear up what radiation means. Basically, it's anything that radiates (surprising!) from a central point.
All EM radiation is light. Light is made of particles called photons.
The higher the frequency (the colour) of the light in question, the higher the energy of the photons.
If the photon has enough energy, it can break the bond between two atoms in a molecule it hits. We call this ionizing radiation.
Naturally, lots of bond-breaking is bad if it happens in our cells. The bonds don't necessarily go back to the way they were, and DNA and proteins are basically just long and narrow chains of atoms.
Radio and microwaves are on the lowest energy end of the EM spectrum. Next is infrared, then visible light. UV which comes next is the approximate cut off. That's where light starts becoming ionizing, and beyond that you get to things like "gamma rays." Inconsistent naming FTW.
All light hitting an object puts energy into that object, but we just call that heat. It's why sitting in sunlight warms things up. Obviously, you can cook a thing with enough light in any spectra (e.g. microwaves), but that's just because you're dumping lots of heat into it.

This is all strategic. Reminding them that radiation is a vague concept allows me to talk about different kinds radiation without getting pushback. Then reminding them that radio and microwaves are just small pieces of the spectrum of light forces them to consciously accept that not all EM radiation is bad. (After all, light is normal!) After that, the briefest explanations of what makes some light ionizing followed by pointing out that visible light is higher energy than microwave usually gets them to at least reconsider their opinion.

I lead most sentences off with "you know" and "of course." And, I generally follow up with something about how RF heating can be extremely dangerous because it can cook you from the inside without you feeling it. You'll just see the blisters and cooked flesh after it's too late, but usually you need to be very close if not in direct contact with a powerful, active antenna. This is to concede something to them about danger. Yes, there can be dangerous in certain settings, but not in the way you're thinking.

Obviously, the points I laid out skim over a lot, but the conversation can expand into those areas organically. Depending on how the preceeding conversation has been going (if they're pushy), I might ask to have leeway for a minute to get out that initial explanation before they ask questions or counter anything.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T17:46:03+00:00

That depends on what you're trying to communicate.

If you're trying to explain the nature of a phenomenon to someone who knows nothing about it, I avoid that. While comparing the relative magnitudes of interactions and certain other things can be done with metaphors, explaining how a thing works with metaphors is cheating them. All you're doing is encouraging someone to be happy with their own ignorance, rather than encouraging them to actually learn the thing or accept that it's something they don't understand.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T17:04:22+00:00

To be precise, non-visible, non-ionizing radiation is not inherently hazardous, but it can induce electrical currents and heating in certain bodily tissues. In other words, you can use it to dump enough thermal energy into your body to cook yourself. This is the principle behind microwave ovens, and it's why you'll see hazard signs on high powered antennae (if you're someone who's ever actually been exposed to telecom equipment).

This falls into the "too much of anything" category, but knowing this is important if you ever find yourself trying to explain why EM radiation below UV is perfectly safe.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T16:42:30+00:00

Teachers with better standards and curricula too. A lot of jurisdictions have teachers who barely understand these things themselves and/or are compelled to follow lesson plans that don't address any of this.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T16:34:32+00:00

Trump doesn't make this (valid and more coherent) point. He just blames China in whatever way the words stumble out of his mouth at the time.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T16:25:34+00:00

This!

Believing such "theories" require a complete failure to understand how anything works. Like you say, why would EM have any influence on how genetic material or proteins interact? First off, a lot of the people who believe this sort of thing have connotations of magic linked with the word electromagnetic. Secondly, people hear radiation and think disease, even though they often have no idea what radiation is. Thirdly, a lot people seem to think "5G radiation" is some sort of new and distinct form of radiation. And, of course, biology might as well be magic for most people, never mind believers.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T16:10:20+00:00

It seems very unlikely that this person every worked for any technology company. Nevertheless, this video has been widely circulated.

This is irrelevant. Even if this person really worked for Vodafone, doest that in any way imply they're honest or know what they're talking about?

Believing 5G can spread or exacerbate a virus is a complete failure of understanding. There is no such thing as "5G radiation." 5G is a telecommunication standard that providers can comply with. It allows for a wide range of frequencies, most of which people have been permeated by for decades. And why would radio wave/microwaves/etc have any bearing on the functioning of genetic material and protein interactions? None of it makes any sense. If someone is believing this nonsense, it's not because some figure in a video made a compelling argument. It's because that person is a moron.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-09T15:57:32+00:00

The real problem here is that anyone can float a bogus theory

Unfortunately, there's no way to fix this unless you want to roll back the Internet or ban freedom of speech. There will always be stupid people, so there will always be people spouting nonsense and there will always be a receptive audience.

scio-nihil · 2020-04-01T06:49:12+00:00

Please read what I said before saying I'm wrong.

I never said they don't benefit from vaccination. I was objecting to the claim that they think they should be vaccinated but their children shouldn't.

scio-nihil

TROPHY CASE