Hank Green, and Alec from Technology Connections. Wildly different energy levels, but broadly speaking I trust them to do their homework or to outright say they haven’t.
I trust the opinions of open minded and wise scientists the most. The people that should IMO have been our leaders instead of self serving politicians.
Disagree we should have no leaders and how do you define "open minded and wise" and how do you prevent scientists promoting something like eugenics again.
Based on archeological evidence, humans lived in horizontal egalitarian societies for most of our existence. It's only relatively recently that we have deviated from that norm and began to live under hierarchical, unequal societies.
This seems to prove that we are just as wired for no leaders as we are for leaders, and we can choose which path we want to take. Currently, it appears that the leader path virtually always leads to corruption, control, and capitalist fascism, which is ultimately incompatible with a habitable planet/biosphere, so uh... I think we should take the other path, maybe.
Weren't elders/shamans/gurus looked up to as sort of spiritual and worldly advisor/authority figures back then? Granted, it's not the same as being a chief/leader, but they talked, and their community listened and generally followed their advice.
As you say, a collective of people asking an elder for advice and collectively making a decision on it is quite different from being ordered by a leader and forced to follow it.
Experts in specific fields are still looked to for advice and help in a egalitarian society, there just isn't a rigid hierarchical structure that makes them have more institutional power than anyone else. As an example, in revolutionary Spain, there was still a need for doctors, electricians, train operators, farmers, etc, but they no longer had a boss they had to listen to, they were able to self-organize whatever they thought would meet the needs of their society best, and those not skilled in those areas deferred to their knowledge and experience for situations that fell under it.
Do you have a source for "all evidence" that humans are not actually "wired to lead and to follow" or that human society is functional on a large scale without having leaders in some fashion?
I don't trust anyone's opinion unless it's based on sound evidence and repeatable results and even then, I'll only trust the opinions of those who are willing to change their opinion based on new knowledge. So, given that, I'll trust my young kids opinions on things they have researched and learnt about, or a doctor's opinion if it's on something they're knowledgeable about, and my own in areas where I'm an expert.
How MUCH I trust them is a different thing. If it's something that doesn't really affect me if it's not 100% accurate....meh
In general my brother. He has schooling equivalent to my own and we both have interests and specialties that can converge a bit but also complement each other. Basically I like to discuss things with him because he both can get things im talking about but also may have a perspective or knowledge beyond my own. I think he feels the same but who knows. He seems to call me to talk about things as much as I call him.
Jonathan Pie - spoof news reporter who goes on rants at the cameraman between takes.
All 3 of these people have almost exactly the same opinions on things I already know about and think I understand. I trust them enough to have the right opinion on stuff I dont.
When Penny Arcade used to do the "We're Right" awards, I always looked at them for games that I'd missed during the year, and I was never steered wrong.
Yahtzee is still doing the same thing on a new channel called Second Wind. His new show is called Fully Ramblomatic and it's basically no different from Zero Punctuation.
You don't need to trust facts.
That's what makes them facts.
Additionally, facts don't tell you anything about anything, outside the fact itself. The sun rose yesterday. It rose today. It doesn't automatically follow the sun will rise again tomorrow. That's speculation, based on interpretative pattern recognition. Or to put it another way: "That's just, like, your opinion man."
Whose facts do you trust the most then? After all - there aren't that many of them for which a universal consensus among even credible scientists exists. Most facts aren't the absolute truth anyway but rather just our best current understanding.
If I had to pick an "intellectual hero" of mine, it would be Sam Harris. It's not so much that I trust his opinions but I trust his thinking process. I can't think of anyone else I pay so much attention to while finding so little to disagree with.
I bet that, considering the platform I'm at, if someone recognizes the name they almost definitely don't like the guy. If you want to discuss that then I'm willing to for as long as you can be civil about it.
Because I'm perfectly aware of what he actually thinks about these issues and you're not fairly representing those views. I'm not going to defend views he doesn't hold.
Telling someone they're wrong is much less convincing than demonstrating it by laying out the evidence.
It's pretty clear you just don't like the guy based on what you've heard someone say about him and are now just having an emotional reaction to someone bringing it up. If you actually had a point you would've already made it.
This criticism is like the anti-Sam Harris 101 entry level talking points. I've heard it countered hundreds of times before. I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Bell Curve and racism.
Look into any of his statements where he argues Israel has a right to defend itself, that Palestinians are genocidal, that colonialism isn't a thing on and on and yes I also think iq is nonsense.
73 replies
My own.
It's cliché but listening to my gut typically works out
On what?
Different people have different bodies of knowledge and experience. Their expertise on one question doesn't transfer to another.
Honestly, it depends on what we're talking about
I trust my nerd friend's opinions on computers, and I trust my car friend's opinions on cars, but probably not so much the other way around.
No single person knows everything, and trusting any single person completely about everything is foolish.
That OP always has an agenda. Doesn't matter which OP but there is always one.
My spouse's.
I also trust @[email protected]'s spouse's opinion.
I don't think I'll ever get tired of this reference.
The way I knew what this comment said before I read it lmao
This!!1
Looool reddit moment
Please let me give you poor mans gold 🏅
Edit: oh my god already 4 downvotes!!1 can't believe it
lemmy ass judgement
sorry
Yes that's indeed where the refrence comes from, thanks for the insight big dawg.
I thought it came from Slashdot, or possibly Usenet...
David Attenborough's.
You agree Africans should starve for some Malthusian nonsense?
Hank Green, and Alec from Technology Connections. Wildly different energy levels, but broadly speaking I trust them to do their homework or to outright say they haven’t.
I trust the opinions of open minded and wise scientists the most. The people that should IMO have been our leaders instead of self serving politicians.
Disagree we should have no leaders and how do you define "open minded and wise" and how do you prevent scientists promoting something like eugenics again.
We will always have leaders in some capacity. We are too wired to lead and to follow.
Based on archeological evidence, humans lived in horizontal egalitarian societies for most of our existence. It's only relatively recently that we have deviated from that norm and began to live under hierarchical, unequal societies.
More recent history has demonstrated that we can quite easily return to a non-hierarchical society, and quite successfully.
This seems to prove that we are just as wired for no leaders as we are for leaders, and we can choose which path we want to take. Currently, it appears that the leader path virtually always leads to corruption, control, and capitalist fascism, which is ultimately incompatible with a habitable planet/biosphere, so uh... I think we should take the other path, maybe.
Weren't elders/shamans/gurus looked up to as sort of spiritual and worldly advisor/authority figures back then? Granted, it's not the same as being a chief/leader, but they talked, and their community listened and generally followed their advice.
As you say, a collective of people asking an elder for advice and collectively making a decision on it is quite different from being ordered by a leader and forced to follow it.
Experts in specific fields are still looked to for advice and help in a egalitarian society, there just isn't a rigid hierarchical structure that makes them have more institutional power than anyone else. As an example, in revolutionary Spain, there was still a need for doctors, electricians, train operators, farmers, etc, but they no longer had a boss they had to listen to, they were able to self-organize whatever they thought would meet the needs of their society best, and those not skilled in those areas deferred to their knowledge and experience for situations that fell under it.
This was documented quite thoroughly in Sam Dolgoff's book from 1974, The Anarchist Collectives Workers’ Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936–1939, along with Gaston Leval's 1975 Collectives in the Spanish revolution, if you'd like to investigate the specifics.
Why? This is statement with no reasoning given.
Yeah, it's called an opinion. An opinion which is formed from my own observations. You can take it or leave it, but I'm going to keep saying it.
Except it runs counter to all evidence but whatever use your biased "personal observations".
I will do, thank you!
Do you have a source for "all evidence" that humans are not actually "wired to lead and to follow" or that human society is functional on a large scale without having leaders in some fashion?
No one’s. Not even mine. Everyone is an idiot. Especially me.
Greta Thunberg
I don't trust anyone's opinion unless it's based on sound evidence and repeatable results and even then, I'll only trust the opinions of those who are willing to change their opinion based on new knowledge. So, given that, I'll trust my young kids opinions on things they have researched and learnt about, or a doctor's opinion if it's on something they're knowledgeable about, and my own in areas where I'm an expert.
How MUCH I trust them is a different thing. If it's something that doesn't really affect me if it's not 100% accurate....meh
Mine. Unless my partner or best friend heavily disagree, then I know it's probably not right.
My wife mostly. Followed by myself.
In general my brother. He has schooling equivalent to my own and we both have interests and specialties that can converge a bit but also complement each other. Basically I like to discuss things with him because he both can get things im talking about but also may have a perspective or knowledge beyond my own. I think he feels the same but who knows. He seems to call me to talk about things as much as I call him.
Yours
Yep. Yours.
I trust no one.
Joe's
Only 3 people i dont know whos opinions ive actually trusted.
www.penny-arcade.com guy
Yahtzee but I think hes stopped doing his thing
Jonathan Pie - spoof news reporter who goes on rants at the cameraman between takes.
All 3 of these people have almost exactly the same opinions on things I already know about and think I understand. I trust them enough to have the right opinion on stuff I dont.
When Penny Arcade used to do the "We're Right" awards, I always looked at them for games that I'd missed during the year, and I was never steered wrong.
Yahtzee is still doing the same thing on a new channel called Second Wind. His new show is called Fully Ramblomatic and it's basically no different from Zero Punctuation.
Boy do I have good news for you.
https://youtu.be/dWBgM0gctXA
My wife
Family
not my mom's
I don't trust opinions, just facts.
You don't need to trust facts.
That's what makes them facts.
Additionally, facts don't tell you anything about anything, outside the fact itself. The sun rose yesterday. It rose today. It doesn't automatically follow the sun will rise again tomorrow. That's speculation, based on interpretative pattern recognition. Or to put it another way: "That's just, like, your opinion man."
You're absolutely right, but as long as there are people who DON'T trust facts, it's probably still worth mentioning now and then.
But have you considered these alternative "facts"?
There are no alternative facts. Only additional facts.
Alternatively there are lies.
That's not really how facts or opinions work. I hate anti answers, why even participate in the thread?
Whose facts do you trust the most then? After all - there aren't that many of them for which a universal consensus among even credible scientists exists. Most facts aren't the absolute truth anyway but rather just our best current understanding.
How do you decide what is a fact and what isn't?
I trust truth over facts
And what separates truth from fact in your mind?
Facts, by definition, are true
Obviously I don't agree with anybody on 100% of all things, but if I had to throw out some of who I sarcastically call my personal philosopher kings:
Carl Sagan
If I had to pick an "intellectual hero" of mine, it would be Sam Harris. It's not so much that I trust his opinions but I trust his thinking process. I can't think of anyone else I pay so much attention to while finding so little to disagree with.
I bet that, considering the platform I'm at, if someone recognizes the name they almost definitely don't like the guy. If you want to discuss that then I'm willing to for as long as you can be civil about it.
Ehh he supports the Gaza genocide, supports some uses of torture and is an open islamaphobe.
Was that a question?
If it was how can you trust someone with those opinions at all never mind "the most"?
Because I'm perfectly aware of what he actually thinks about these issues and you're not fairly representing those views. I'm not going to defend views he doesn't hold.
Look into any of his statements about israel palestine you are factually wrong no point talking to you.
Telling someone they're wrong is much less convincing than demonstrating it by laying out the evidence.
It's pretty clear you just don't like the guy based on what you've heard someone say about him and are now just having an emotional reaction to someone bringing it up. If you actually had a point you would've already made it.
This criticism is like the anti-Sam Harris 101 entry level talking points. I've heard it countered hundreds of times before. I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Bell Curve and racism.
Look into any of his statements where he argues Israel has a right to defend itself, that Palestinians are genocidal, that colonialism isn't a thing on and on and yes I also think iq is nonsense.
Alan Watts
Edit: in that order.
The question asks "whose", which implies a sapient, or at least sentient, individual or group. LLMs are neither sapient nor sentient.