It sounds like Trump becoming a martyr is a massive problem. Sorry for my ignorance, but would it be a problem to explain how?

How do you choose what facts matter? How do you choose how to communicate them? Who do you communicate them to? What does news reporting mean to you? What about news reporting makes it worth your precious time alive? What purpose do the people around you have when they amplify, ignore, or quiet your facts? These are all questions that are answered, explicitly or not, by everyone who communicates or relates to facts.

We could play the impossible “no agenda” game. We could lie to ourselves and to others. Or, we could notice that whenever we are dealing with the truth, we have a point of view. We stand here and not there. We can learn to travel around the mountain of truth, so that we mitigate our blindspots. We can be explicit about where in the mountain we are standing (The north base? The vegetated slope? The summit?).

Instead of playing the “god trick”, we can situate our knowledge. That’s the best we can do. Check out this article by Donna Haraway on situated knowledge. It changed my life. https://philpapers.org/archive/harskt.pdf

I’d say feeling admiration for others. People who are kind, patient, insightful, and critical thinkers. People who look at how political goods (including wealth) are distributed and can think critically about it. Nutomic and Dessalines for sure.

These have been around for quite a while, but I recently learned about clipboard managers. I haven’t met someone who uses one, perhaps because it is an inconspicuous tool. Regardless, I love being able to quickly paste text that I use frequently!

I’m still testing them, so I can’t really say “this one’s the best”, but here’s one: https://hluk.github.io/CopyQ/

On mobile atm but there’s the Princeton books on Computer Science

I see your concern for truth in any scenario, and I agree validity should be a constant consideration! However, bias and astroturfing are different. Bias is the lens that we use to look at reality. Astroturfing is forcing lenses onto many others without them knowing. It is a deliberate campaign.

I like the novelty/predictability ratio idea. There is also the idea of “create expectations and satisfy them”, which leads to a sense of stability. Our cultures and genres create expectations. Rhymes tied to a certain metric can become part of these expectations. Of course, you can also create expectations and frustrate them, which leads to a sense of instability. Searching for “fakeout rhyme” videos makes this evident. Pat Pattison, an expert in songwriting, could be a good source on this ☺️

There’s also some thinkers who say that thinking only ever happens through language, so talking could be more of a mapping of “thinking words” onto “communication words”.

Yes! Rhetoric, the study of the available means of persuasion! Lots of professions still do that today: speech writers, advertisement creators, academic rhetoricians, some linguists, some anthropologists or sociologists, some historians…

How does adding dairy to coffee increase sinus congestion?

The best habit perhaps is meditating daily and I developed it following Tiny Habits.

GTD is up there too!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CGQwqWqzkNA

I agree with you: the FSF can seem unwavering in their stance, even in the face of practicality. I’m really sorry for this incredibly nit-picky detail, but I think practicality is ideological too. For better or for worse, we can’t escape ideas or be free from them, so we have to choose which we value. For example, while I tend to choose software freedom over practicality, I also have, at times, chosen practicality over freedom.

It depends on the author! Authors create symbolic universes and they get to choose the rules of those universes. You can read Robert McKee’s work for more on this.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you know how to build habits, habits can be fun and they can be tied to living a meaningful life! Tiny Habits, the book and framework, changed my life for the better.

I do see how the narrative in the headline could be a call to action, but the article doesn’t propose a solution behind which the audience can rally. At most, the article describes how Americans can interpret the inevitable defeat. Of course, this text doesn’t exist in isolation; other texts would have to do the heavy lifting so that Americans rally behind a war effort.

Stiglitz didn’t get the Nobel prize for claiming that neoliberal capitalism contributes to the rise of fascism. He got it for explaining how information asymmetries destroy the fantasy of perfect markets.

I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.

First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.

Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.

Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.

Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.

Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.

Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.

By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.

What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.

Thanks for the response. I guess I do see much of human behavior through a contextual behaviorist lens. Sorry if it seems excessive. I am not Hayes or Hoffman. It is just frustrating to see blanket explanations for human behavior, instead of understanding specific processes. I guess I really want to avoid the fundamental attribution error and reductionism, something contextual behaviorism deliberately aims to avoid.

While I recognize Emotion Focused Therapy is helpful to understand and, if possible, change social behavior (which is why I mentioned it previously), I maybe should have brought up Emption Construction Theory or even Sapolsky’s multi-lens framework, considering different timescales of explanation. Would you have suggested something different? When does contextual behaviorism fail?

Thanks for helping me potentially falling into reductionism. I wouldn’t want to fall in that trap.

Anytime we talk about human behavior, it is a good idea to learn and use the lens of behavioral contextualism. If and only if the contextual behaviorist analysis concludes that human connections is the issue, Sue Johnson’s texts will be great to understand your coworker. Otherwise, the contextual behavioral analysis will let you know what’s going on.

Edit: Removed excess text