If learning all that stuff is too hard for you, follow this advice from Dilbert: https://dilbert.com/strip/2010-05-16
:-)
:-)
I didn't mind the Trump stuff. I think Scott Adam's insights were valuable even if his comments were extremely frustrating and contradictory.
But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/109968558214017024...
I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides.
For a (possibly bad and certainly trite) metaphor, it's somewhat like saying "Gravity is settled science" to a gravity denialist. You could instead provide some facts and experiments they could try such as holding their hands above their head to fight the force[0] of gravity. They could decide they don't think your facts are correct and perhaps theorize other reasons why they cannot hold their hands above their head indefinitely.
That's science, where even gravity is "just" a theory[1].
[0] Apparently in the Theory of Relatively, gravity is not actually a force, but a consequence of the curvature of space-time and uneven distribution of mass
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_the...
Apparently this is not allowed in polite company.
But I'm saying this as a long time super fan... that isn't what it feels like to follow him anymore. I think he is less passionate about entertaining people or enlightening people, and more interested in bolstering his conservative credibility.
I don't know why his career arched in that direction, and its his right to do whatever he likes. But for me I have had to jump off the train because doesn't seem to be tied to what I liked about his humor.
I'm the conservative version of an Al Franken fan. We came for the comedy, but at some point it isn't about that anymore.
We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)
If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection.
For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.
To avoid an echo bubble, don't unfollow people for such reasons. In fact find more people with opposite views to follow.
I say, we should allow huge diversions from our worldview.
In fact, even if its nonsense, if its influencial we should study it and understand it (that is, we don't have to suffer any random nonsense, but if something is both nonsense and big, the real active citizen should study it at least, even if just to try to grasp why their fellow people fell for it and what consequences it might have).
Of course if they start with "they fell for it because they're bad/stupid/crazy/lazy etc" that's just something to make themselves feel better, and doesn't really explain everything.
First of all, this or that people can be bad/stupid/crazy/lazy: those are characteristics of the individual. Millions of people can't be said to be that, there are other forces at play when masses make decisions or adopt things, not personal pathologies.
E.g. it's surely it's not because all the "stupid/crazy" people are in the fly-over states that Trump was popular there. And vice versa, it would be improbable that most of the smart/sane people are in the coasts. (You could reverse this with how MAGA supporters view Hillary supports, and it would be the same argument).
Perhaps its a cultural thing that made this people vote this way and the others that. Or a historical thing. Or an economic shift that's felt in one area and not in another. People should strive to understand those things then, instead of assuming the others are into "nonsense".
Of course people conveniently call their fellow people good/sane/etc when they agree with them (e.g. a vote goes how they liked) and then explain the opposite result at some later point (e.g. people voting something they don't like) as "people being bad/crazy/duped/etc"). They're not bothered to see the contradiction in calling the same masses both things at different times.
This is not about people with another opinion being bad/stupid/crazy/lazy. Maybe they are right and I am wrong. It is about repetition, and myself focusing on stuff I don't know yet.
You don't need (and I didn't ask) to learn "something from everyone who has a different worldview".
But you (or, at least, an active citizen) needs to learn why tons of people share the same different worldview.
E.g. why is there a dissent on "climate change" being real. And the circular non-answers to those questions, like "because they follow stereotypes" or "because they're dumb" are not insightful.
However, reading the 1000th climate change proponent or opponent won't help in this goal, "because they follow stereotypes".
And I never claimed to explain the different world views with "because they follow stereotypes", I explained my own behavior with this statement.
Finally, "because they're dumb" is not insightful. But "because they were lured by simplifying propaganda, and this is because they haven't learned to analyze complex situations" can be a valid explanation.
It's not necessary to completely cover yourself in crap, but you should have an exposure to it once in a while.