What COVID death rate are you willing to accept for normal life?

https://www.waygook.org/index.php?topic=105109.60

Yes, since 2017 I have tried not to do that. Thank you for pointing out that I learned something and stopped it.

I was wondering why Martino had latched onto this "'So' tell for cognitive dissonance" thing, which now gets rolled out in about 1/3 of the threads in which he participates. I figured he must have picked up from a YouTuber or podcaster or something, particularly because it really has nothing to do with actual cognitive dissonance ("Cognitive dissonance, coined by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, describes the discomfort people feel when two cognitions, or a cognition and a behavior, contradict each other. I smoke is dissonant with the knowledge that 'Smoking can kill me.' To reduce that dissonance, the smoker must either quit—or justify smoking ['It keeps me thin, and being overweight is a health risk too, you know']. At its core, Festinger’s theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful."*)

Turns out Martino has cribbed it from Scott Adams (no real surprise there). Google "So tell for cognitive dissonance" and you'll see. Also unsurprising is that Adams made up his own definition of cognitive dissonance. Less surprising still is Adam's complete obliviousness to the fact that he is a poster child for cognitive dissonance in the traditional sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW_TwM7cNJ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAVMbuETnX0&t=9s

These interviews are masterclasses in deflection, blaming abstract entities ("the media, "elites", etc), diversion, strawmanning, moving goalposts, etc. All wrapped up in a more-logical-than-thou posture.


*https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/

Yes I was inspired by Adams, whom I agree with on dome things but not on others. No doubt as you do with Harris and Pakman as you are linking to their shows.

1) What does that have to do with the people on thus board using "So" and then immediately following it up with a misrepresentation of someone's post?
2) Notice you don't actually disagree that it is an example of cognitive dissonance or at the least, bad thinking. You just make the point that I got it from Adams and Adams is bad for some reasons, therefore this "so" thing must not be true.
3) It actually would be cognitive dissonance. The person has two contradictory things in their brain- The point the person said+their unwillingness or inability to agree/admit the truth or their lack of answer. Thus, why they respond with "so."

Do you actually have a point to make on those "so" statements or is your point just about how I got something from Adams and you don't care for him for various reasons?

I'd just like to point out that you don't need to start a dumb question with "so" when you want to misrepresent the other person's argument in order to troll.

You can see this clearly here. Or in just about any Martin post.

You mean that there should be things like mask mandates and lockdowns until the death rate is ZERO?

"I'm not so sure that lying is the word I'd use here. I mean, the media has already conditioned everyone to believe that Trump is a liar, so the whole concept of truth has been twisted to fit this very narrow definition, and Trump is basically pronounced guilty before he even has a chance to explain himself. But the more important question, and the one that I don't hear anyone asking, is why people who don't consider themselves Christian insist on using the Gregorian calendar. I mean you've got all these self-declared atheists, agnostics, and so on, proudly broadcasting their indifference to Christianity, and yet when it comes to Donald Trump, they're going to insist that only the Christian calendar can be used to define a day, or month, or year. Like, it's okay for you to reject Christianity, but not okay for Trump to dispense with this one archaic element? And then the whole thing with the city clerk... You've got all these media people and Nancy Pelosi saying that it's forgery. Well, have you considered the etymology of that word? To forge means to make, and what all these hysterical pundits and self-serving politicians don't understand is that in Trump's mind, he made himself born later. We all craft realities for ourselves - anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Blah blah blah blah blah blah..."

It's like DeMartino is in the room.

I've never listened to a Joe Rogan podcast nor sought the advice of professional psychiatrist but I've heard of Ekbom's Syndrome so it must have been from an episode of Scooby Doo!

I'd just like to point out that you don't need to start a dumb question with "so" when you want to misrepresent the other person's argument in order to troll.

You can see this clearly here. Or in just about any Martin post.

Actually I was asking them to clarify their position. They literally said this-

The COVID death rate I am willing to accept for normal life is 0.

Thus I am not misstating their position when I ask-

You mean that there should be things like mask mandates and lockdowns until the death rate is ZERO?

How am I misstating or mistepresenting their position? I am asking them to clarify it because their position seems rather extreme.

Is it not possible that someone's "So" statement could actually be an accurate take on another person's point?

Yes, that's why it's a tell and not a rule. A tell is when something and something else are linked. For example if someone is blinking a lot when you're talking to them about sensitive stuff, that is often a tell for lying. However it can also be a case that a spec of dust just flew in their eye or they simply have had that tic since birth. It's why poker "tells" exist and some are more common than others. They're not firm rules, but they are often true.

What, in particular, is an example of cognitive dissonance? Using the word "So"? As I said above, there are many cases in which it might not be cognitive dissonance.

Not the use of the word so. The use of the word "So" to start a sentence in a debate, subsequently attached to someone's position. Often as part of a phrase such as "So what you're saying is..." or "So what you really want/mean is..." It is simply called the "So" tell as a way of saying succinctly, not that every case of the word "so" is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

"The 'so' tell for cognitive dissonance"
"So what you're saying is everytime someone uses the word so, they're experiencing cognitive dissonance?"
 

If I were 34 years old and went around telling people that I'm actually 29, everyone would say that I lie about my age, including Scott Adams. If Donald Trump were found out to be 5 years older than what he claims, and someone found proof that he'd paid a city clerk to alter his birth certificate, Scott Adams would come out with something like:

"I'm not so sure that lying is the word I'd use here. I mean, the media has already conditioned everyone to believe that Trump is a liar, so the whole concept of truth has been twisted to fit this very narrow definition, and Trump is basically pronounced guilty before he even has a chance to explain himself. But the more important question, and the one that I don't hear anyone asking, is why people who don't consider themselves Christian insist on using the Gregorian calendar. I mean you've got all these self-declared atheists, agnostics, and so on, proudly broadcasting their indifference to Christianity, and yet when it comes to Donald Trump, they're going to insist that only the Christian calendar can be used to define a day, or month, or year. Like, it's okay for you to reject Christianity, but not okay for Trump to dispense with this one archaic element? And then the whole thing with the city clerk... You've got all these media people and Nancy Pelosi saying that it's forgery. Well, have you considered the etymology of that word? To forge means to make, and what all these hysterical pundits and self-serving politicians don't understand is that in Trump's mind, he made himself born later. We all craft realities for ourselves - anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Blah blah blah blah blah blah..."

Then a bunch of fanboys would be like, "Wow! My mind is blown! Scott Adams EVISCERATES hysterical TDS media with LOGIC and REASON."

Could you go after him without using a made-up hypothetical and instead go after him based on his record? There's plenty there. The man is wrong about a fair number of things.

But he's absolutely right about the "so" tell. If you can't recognize that it is a tell, then I don't know what to say. Just because you don't like Adams, doesn't mean it isn't a tell.

. The use of the word "So" to start a sentence in a debate, subsequently attached to someone's position. Often as part of a phrase such as "So what you're saying is..." or "So what you really want/mean is..."

*insert JP/cathy newman interview here*

Adams responds with something like, "Well, you have to think about intention... If your intention is to accurately report a precise number, that's one thing, but if you're trying to focus your supporters' attention on the border, then it's a kind of truth. There is a greater truth - a problem at the border - which makes these details irrelevant." (Add another two minutes of desperate rambling.)

Well to add more context he has also credited various politicians on either side of the spectrum for employing this technique. I know he did it for AOC and her border theatrics and claims, so he is at least consistent. His point on this on it as a technique for persuasion, not as rigorous truth and that is why it is used.

The technique is this- Person X makes an exaggerated claim, this causes a media shitstorm. This produces several results
1) People will look into the topic themselves, usually with shared stuff on social media that will show things that are bad. The actual number isn't important so much as a bombardment of pictures or posts they see.
2) The other side will debunk the person's claim by providing the correct data. However, when they do so, they almost always will reflexively disagree and claim that it isn't a problem at all.
3) This in turn reinforces the belief that Person X's claim is "pretty much true" as thanks to reflexive disagreement, the other side now looks ridiculous for denying that there is a problem at all.

===========================================================================
This was used both by Trump and was picked up on and used by his critics against him.

Trump: "Look at the terror in Sweden caused by immigrants"
Critics go nuts. People go on twitter and facebook and see two things: Trump is wrong. They also see various mishmashes of incidents in Sweden.
Trump's critics/MSM: "Trump is lying. Immigration in Sweden isn't a problem at all."
Some people: "Uhh...wtf there clearly is a problem"
This may or may not work for Trump. Some people may be turned off by his lie. Others may be persuaded by things and see it his way.

Trump Critic: "Trump called Neo Nazis fine people
Trump supporters go nuts. People go on twitter and facebook and see two things: Claims that Trump didn't see that. They also see a bunch of clips of stuff or in this case, a deceitfully edited clip of Trump saying that.
Trump Supporters/FOX: "Trump is the least racist person on Earth!"
Some people: "Uhhh wtf there clearly is some racism there!"

This may or may not work for Trump's opponents (in this case it was wildly successful, despite no such thing having taken place, millions of people still believe this, EVEN AFTER SEEING VIDEO THAT DISPROVES IT- furthermore even if they agree that he literally didn't say it, they will either A) Claim that somehow through various loops and connections meant to or B) Will never correct someone who makes the claim)

Now, some final thoughts on this
1) Trump employed this technique far too often and it wore out its welcome and effectiveness. It worked great at the start and on the campaign. It decreased significantly once in office.
2) Trump brought the opposition use of it on himself. You change the rules on your end, the opposition will change the rules on theirs
3) The ultimate point of what Adams is talking about with these is communicating to people this concept and how to identify it and also that this concept can be AND is employed by people and institutions across the political spectrum. Trump was just a great example of it.

=============================================================================================================
If you think only one side falls for this or employs it, that is when things are most dangerous. With many of these things, i.e. "so" tells and the like the three levels of understanding are
1) That the other side/your enemies do it
2) The realization that others on your side do it too
3) The admission that you yourself do it as well.

Once you get there, you can start to try and work against it. It's never perfect because we're human and simply aren't designed to be impartial and objective and completely rational, but at least we can try. But in order to do so we have to recognize that it is within ourselves as well.

Look at some posters on this site, on both sides of the spectrum, some just clearly are constitutionally incapable of anything beyond step 1. They won't even grasp the concept. They'll just read this and conclude "Yup, Marty lies. He always lies. He's on the other side so he lies. I don't do anything he does." and they can never get past that.

what im getting from this is that adams is either maga madman or big brain supergenius, which is where i figured the chips would fall anyways, but its still interesting to see them fall nonetheless

what im getting from this is that adams is either maga madman or big brain supergenius, which is where i figured the chips would fall anyways, but its still interesting to see them fall nonetheless

I think Adams can be very right at times.....and spectacularly wrong at others. He of course, does fall into some of the same traps that he identifies and can just spew some complete nonsense with other stuff. However some of his stuff is pretty insightful and it was nice that someone actually looked at Trump through the lens of his technique rather than virtually everyone else who yelled about why Trump was right or wrong.

Adams' view of Trump was VERY amoral, which is why it appealed to me and likely appalled others. I generally like analysis that doesn't get too wrapped up in morality but instead goes more into motivation. But that's what happens when you look at how and why someone does something, not whether what they did is good or bad.

So, I see Marty is employing another misdirect on "cognitive dissonance" by trying to bring everyone around to where he wants the argument to go in his mind which is to his land of make-believe, logical fallacies and strawmen.

So predictable!

So, I see Marty is employing another misdirect on "cognitive dissonance" by trying to bring everyone around to where he wants the argument to go in his mind which is to his land of make-believe, logical fallacies and strawmen.

So predictable!

Genuine question- What do you think your arguments involve? Intellectual rigor, logical consistency, and a complete absence of fallacy?

This is accurate and certainly one reason why I dislike him.

I think this goes down to one's philosophy of government. Some people think government exists to promote some sort of common morality or to serve as some sort of moral beacon or arbiter. My view is that government ensures to allow people the freedom to explore morality and their own beliefs without interference from others. The government is not there to be my church and the President is not my Pope.

More than that it goes into what you think the nature of government is. In short, is it more 'West Wing' or more 'Yes, Minister'?

No shit. The arrogance of thinking you have to explain this to people... There's no inherent contradiction in recognizing some simple facts about the man while criticizing his behavior. "You don't understand..."

Well, some people sadly don't get it. Heck, one look at Scott's conservative audience and when he tries to explain such concepts to them when it's the other way around and they just don't get it shows this. Probably 50% of the people on both sides just don't get these things.

But it's just a misrepresentation - no need to dress it up as anything else.

Disagree. When you look at the most famous example- the Peterson-Newman interview, she was clearly reaching a point of cognitive dissonance, where what he was saying made sense, but she couldn't accept it or agree with it due to certain dogmatic beliefs in her brain (or more cynically, a need to appeal to certain audiences with certain leanings)

Harris: "Trump wants X."

Adams: "This is one of my tells for cognitive dissonance. How do you know what he wants?"

Harris: "Well, I'm using his own words. It's something that he's repeated many times."

Adams: "You're experiencing cognitive dissonance."

Well, he's got a point- Just because someone says something, doesn't mean that's what they really want or believe or think. If Trump says something completely off the wall and you are left with two choices A) Trump really means that or B) Trump said something off the wall for whatever other reason and you choose A, while perhaps not cognitive dissonance, it does come to its precipice. At the very least you're overriding something in your head that says this is not what it seems in favor of a more extreme interpretation for whatever reason.

May I ask, why did you focus more on my phrasing of things with "the 'so' tell for cognitive dissonance" as opposed to taking gogators! to task for blatantly misrepresenting my position, Mr. C for blasting me for misrepresenting things while simultaneously equating seatbelts with COVID restrictions and MayorHaggar blatantly getting things wrong with this post-

"I'd just like to point out that you don't need to start a dumb question with "so" when you want to misrepresent the other person's argument in order to troll.

You can see this clearly here. Or in just about any Martin post."

There were three things there, whose errors were much more severe IMO, yet you chose to focus on me. May I ask why? Wouldn't someone who aspires to reason and objectivity seek to apply fair standards?

Genuine question- What do you think your arguments involve? Intellectual rigor, logical consistency, and a complete absence of fallacy?

In comparison to you, I think many commentators on this forum can make a rational point. You know your history of BS-making and deflections.

May I ask, why did you focus more on my phrasing of things with "the 'so' tell for cognitive dissonance" as opposed to taking gogators! to task for blatantly misrepresenting my position, Mr. C for blasting me for misrepresenting things while simultaneously equating seatbelts with COVID restrictions and MayorHaggar blatantly getting things wrong with this post-

"I'd just like to point out that you don't need to start a dumb question with "so" when you want to misrepresent the other person's argument in order to troll.

You can see this clearly here. Or in just about any Martin post."

There were three things there, whose errors were much more severe IMO, yet you chose to focus on me. May I ask why? Wouldn't someone who aspires to reason and objectivity seek to apply fair standards?

There are errors and misstating someone's position in any heated argument and then there's you and building a whole narrative around a clearly erroneous and deflective line of reasoning. Moving the goalposts in any discussion is your modus operandi. You go from discussing soccer to basketball just because both of them apparently use a ball but you can't interchange them in each sport.

What is depressing is the fact that you can initially build a good argument and bring good discussion but at some point along on the discussion something hits and you lose any will to keep the discussion going on what was discussed initially and post by post you bridge across to something completely different. You're the posting equivalent of that Monty Python sketch.

    Back on topic, I think that a mortality rate similar to the influenza mortality rates would be reasonable. People have dealt with seasonal flus for decades without getting too worked up about the 12 to 61 thousand people it kills every year in the US.

   Honestly, what I believe will *probably* happen (hopefully) once things have normalized is that both Covid deaths and Influenza mortalities will end up around 6-30 thousand a year each. The 2 viruses will hopefully compete to infect and kill the same demographic (the very old and immune-compromised) that previously only succumbed to Influenza.


330,000,000/100,000 = 3,300
6,000/3,300 - 30,000/3,300 =  2 - 10 per 100,000

So I guess my answer would be 5-15 per 100,00.
Hopefully that number will result in no net increase in mortality rates as that number will be subtracted from the Influenza mortality rate which, in the USA, is (very) roughly 5-20 per 100,000.

You're the posting equivalent of that Monty Python sketch.

Without, usually, the funny.

May I ask, why did you focus more on my phrasing of things with "the 'so' tell for cognitive dissonance" as opposed to taking gogators! to task for blatantly misrepresenting my position, Mr. C for blasting me for misrepresenting things while simultaneously equating seatbelts with COVID restrictions and MayorHaggar blatantly getting things wrong with this post-

"I'd just like to point out that you don't need to start a dumb question with "so" when you want to misrepresent the other person's argument in order to troll.

You can see this clearly here. Or in just about any Martin post."

There were three things there, whose errors were much more severe IMO, yet you chose to focus on me. May I ask why? Wouldn't someone who aspires to reason and objectivity seek to apply fair standards?

I didn't blatantly misrepresent your position.  That's your SOP, not mine.