Today I Learned

[Borg]

Back to our regularly scheduled channel (I hope).

TIL about Inoculation Theory, which posits that by exposing people to a weakened dose of a persuasive argument or technique and pre-emptively refuting it, they develop psychological resistance against future manipulative persuasion attempts.

Cambridge University, the University of Bristol, and Google have put out a series of videos to help people recognize when they're being manipulated.

 

[jack action]

Back to our regularly scheduled channel (I hope).

TIL about Inoculation Theory, which posits that by exposing people to a weakened dose of a persuasive argument or technique and pre-emptively refuting it, they develop psychological resistance against future manipulative persuasion attempts.

Cambridge University, the University of Bristol, and Google have put out a series of videos to help people recognize when they're being manipulated.

So Inoculation Theory is about how to manipulate people before they are manipulated by others. Example:

Inoculation theory is especially useful with an audience who already has an opinion on a brand. It is the perfect way to convince already faithful customers that they are making the right choice in trusting your company and to keep the customer coming back in the future, and particularly to protect commercial brands against the influence of comparative adverts from a competitor. An excellent example is Apple Computers and their "Get A Mac" campaign. This campaign expertly followed inoculation theory in targeting those who already preferred Mac computers. The series of ads put out in the duration of the campaign had a similar theme; they directly compared Macs and PCs. Inoculation theory applies here as these commercials are likely aimed at Apple users. These ads are effective because Apple users already prefer Mac computers, and they are unlikely to change their minds. This comparison creates refutational preemption, showing Macs may not be the only viable options on the market. The TV ads throw in a few of the positive advantages that PCs have over Macs, but by the end of every commercial they reiterate the fact that Macs are ultimately the superior consumer product. This reassures viewers that their opinion is still right and that Macs are in fact better than PCs. The inoculation theory in these ads keep Mac users coming back for Apple products, and may even have them coming back sooner for the new bigger and better products that Apple releases - especially important as technology is continually changing, and something new is always being pushed onto the shelves.

I still believe teaching pure logic (without applying it to any particular subject) and how to present arguments in a debate from an early age is the way to go.

But that may lead to people thinking by themselves instead of following the leaders.

 

[Borg]

Yes, it's a tricky balance and I agree with teaching logic. I also think that the videos are helpful examples of what to watch for and make an effort to not use manipulative tactics.

I had not seen the wiki article which describes using what I did read in the worst way possible.

 

[pinball1970]

TIL Gorbachev passed. In a complicated situation a lot of people including Thatcher said he was someone they could work with.
Not the easiest person to Impress.
I feel comfortable posting RIP.

 

[Hornbein]

TIL of a gigahertz nonlinear oscillator.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/s115

 

[BWV]

Mt Rainier is not erupting

 

[BillTre]

Mt Rainier is not erupting

Again?

 

[jack action]

TIL the chainsaw's first use originate in surgery for cutting bones:

The origin of chain saws in surgery is debated. A "flexible saw", consisting of a fine serrated link chain held between two wooden handles, was pioneered in the late 18th century (c. 1783–1785) [...] It was illustrated in the second edition of [Scottish doctor John] Aitken's Principles of Midwifery, or Puerperal Medicine (1785) in the context of a pelviotomy [The pubic symphysis is divided to widen the pelvis allowing childbirth when there is a mechanical problem].

A precursor of the chainsaw familiar today in the timber industry was another medical instrument developed around 1830, by German orthopaedist Bernhard Heine. This instrument, the osteotome, had links of a chain carrying small cutting teeth with the edges set at an angle; the chain was moved around a guiding blade by turning the handle of a sprocket wheel. As the name implies, this was used to cut bone. [Shown below]

Yes, the first chainsaw was used to ease childbirth!

 

[BWV]

QE II died and far too many people on the Internet think others are interested in their amateur historical musings

 

[BWV]

Statistically, using a frequentist approach, there is a 50% probability that the British monarchy is abolished when the King’s name is Charles

 

[fresh_42]

TIL that Catherine the Great founded Odesa in Ukraine. By Russian logic, and because Catherine II. was a German, Odessa belongs to Germany. Maybe we should hold a referendum on whether Odesa prefers to be part of Germany instead of Russia ...

 

[kyphysics]

Carl Sagan might have died a Christian - per Dr. Dave Rogstad, a Christian physicist:
https://reasons.org/team/dave-rogstad

During Sagan's final two years of life, he had a very interesting email exchange with Rogstad on God/religion/Christianity, was open to Christianity being true, and agreed to have a team of Christians praying for him (set up by Rogstad).

It's unknown whether he converted or not, but it's very possible he did. Rogstad's colleague and Christian astrophysicist, Dr. Hugh Ross (a former student of Sagan), has talked about this:

 

[mfb]

If that's true then certainly Sagan would have talked about it? Are we just supposed to trust their words? I think I have seen that approach before.

 

[kyphysics]

If that's true then certainly Sagan would have talked about it? Are we just supposed to trust their words? I think I have seen that approach before.

a.) ". . .talked about" what?
b.) If you mean talk about an exploration into religion, then he DID talk about that. At minimum, Sagan talked to Dave Rogstad about faith. But, if you mean publicly talk about his thoughts on religion, then I'm not sure. . .Keep in mind also these were during the final two years of his life, when he had terminal illness, so he would not have been in great health to be going around doing like big public lectures/talks as earlier in life.
c.) I could see Sagan not mentioning his interest in religion if he had not made any personal decisions yet. He was a public ardent atheist most of his life. In his failing health and later stages of life, when he was beginning to open up to Christianity, it's certainly possible he would not have been quick to reverse decades of belief so publicly w/o making up his mind yet.
d.) Ultimately, "arguments from silence" are not only fallacious in their reasoning, but are also often what are contemporarily known as "epic fails."

Here is an example given by historian, Mike Licona. Ulysses S. Grant wrote a two volume memoir of his life and the Civil War. You think he'd mention the most historically significant event in 200 years of U.S. history - the Emancipation Proclamation - at least once. Nope. Grant never once mentioned it! Does that mean the Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen and other independent sources are lying/wrong? Of course not. But, that's why arguments from silence fail in philosophy of logic.

 

[fresh_42]

Short reminder: Please avoid religion as a subject of discussion!

Whether Sagan converted to Christianity or not was his private decision and completely irrelevant to anybody else. I met many mathematicians who were religious, and many who were not. I did not care and neither should you.

 

[kyphysics]

Short reminder: Please avoid religion as a subject of discussion!

Whether Sagan converted to Christianity or not was his private decision and completely irrelevant to anybody else. I met many mathematicians who were religious, and many who were not. I did not care and neither should you.

Hmmm. No problem.

Just to clarify, though, is the forum rules to never talk about religion in ANY form or just not to discuss/debate the merits of it?

I feel like there's a difference. For example, suppose the Pope passed away. Or, suppose Billy Graham (deceased) became an atheist right before his death. To me, those would be huge news items. Not necessarily entirely for their "religious content"/implications, but just for their historical significance. I could imagine people wanting to discuss the latest news w/o faith implications. Granted there is an easy overlap between the two and people could cross the line in subtle ways. So, you'd have to be careful.

So, is it no religious-related talk whatsoever - not even neutral news/talk? Or, is it more like we cannot discuss it in terms of debating its merits/truth? Thanks.

 

[DrGreg]

Just to clarify, though, is the forum rules to never talk about religion in ANY form or just not to discuss/debate the merits of it?

There are guidelines within https://www.physicsforums.com/help/terms-of-service/

 

[julian]

Statistically, using a frequentist approach, there is a 50% probability that the British monarchy is abolished when the King’s name is Charles

50% chance of beheading?

 

[julian]

QE II died and far too many people on the Internet think others are interested in their amateur historical musings

To add to this. In a physicsforums relation:

https://qeprize.org/news/queen-elizabeth

 

[BWV]

50% chance of beheading?

Yes, statistics don’t lie

 

[julian]

Yes, statistics don’t lie

Which approach would you go for, axe or the more modern approach of a chainsaw?

 

[fresh_42]

Which approach would you go for, axe or the more modern approach of a chainsaw?

 

[BWV]

Which approach would you go for, axe or the more modern approach of a chainsaw?

Maybe one of those deli meat slicers ?

 

[jbriggs444]

Maybe one of those deli meat slicers ?

The penitent man kneels before his god.

 

[julian]

Maybe one of those deli meat slicers ?

We are not allowed to talk about religion, but we are allowed to talk about how to remove the reigning monarch head?!

 

[fresh_42]

We are not allowed to talk about religion, but we are allowed to talk about how to remove the reigning monarch head?!

Yes. A serious discussion of the former will ultimately lead to an argument, joking about the latter probably not.

 

[julian]

The penitent man kneels before his god.

Sounds religious to me @fresh_42! It also discriminates against monarchs with arthritis.

 

[pinball1970]

Hmmm. No problem.

Just to clarify, though, is the forum rules to never talk about religion in ANY form or just not to discuss/debate the merits of it?

I feel like there's a difference. For example, suppose the Pope passed away. Or, suppose Billy Graham (deceased) became an atheist right before his death. To me, those would be huge news items. Not necessarily entirely for their "religious content"/implications, but just for their historical significance. I could imagine people wanting to discuss the latest news w/o faith implications. Granted there is an easy overlap between the two and people could cross the line in subtle ways. So, you'd have to be careful.

So, is it no religious-related talk whatsoever - not even neutral news/talk? Or, is it more like we cannot discuss it in terms of debating its merits/truth? Thanks.

It's a bit like politics, you are only ever a couple of posts away from getting into hot water. Annoying someone or getting annoyed.

 

[BWV]

Only eat at Chinese Restaurants with 3.5 stars in Yelp

 

[MikeGomez]

I still believe teaching pure logic (without applying it to any particular subject) and how to present arguments in a debate from an early age is the way to go.

Yes, it would be nice if logic and critical thinking were taught from an early age. Unfortunately, that is in general not how people are taught from an early age. In today's world people are much more likely to be indoctrinated into superstitious belief systems at an early age. David Hume said that passions rather than reason govern human behavior. Attempting to present arguments using logic often fails because people are conditioned to steadfastly defend their presuppositions.

A relatively new methodology that I have recently discovered is called street epistemology. In brief the method involves more of question type approach instead of blunt forced logic (which should work but often doesn't). The idea is to get people to come to a realization and analysis of their own cognitive dissonance.

 

[MikeGomez]

Short reminder: Please avoid religion as a subject of discussion!

Whether Sagan converted to Christianity or not was his private decision and completely irrelevant to anybody else. I met many mathematicians who were religious, and many who were not. I did not care and neither should you.

Discussing religion is not allowed on these forums. You could have ended the post with that, yet you smuggled in a positive position on the subject which I take offense to. You are telling the public that they should not care.

How about we change the subject from religion to beliefs in general. Beliefs inform decisions. People vote based on their beliefs. They decide what gets taught to our children in school based on their beliefs. They make laws, and make decisions in all aspects of society based on their beliefs. You want to tell people that they should not care?

 

[fresh_42]

Discussing religion is not allowed on these forums. You could have ended the post with that, yet you smuggled in a positive position on the subject which I take offense to. You are telling the public that they should not care.

How about we change the subject from religion to beliefs in general. Beliefs inform decisions. People vote based on their beliefs. They decide what gets taught to our children in school based on their beliefs. They make laws, and make decisions in all aspects of society based on their beliefs. You want to tell people that they should not care?

The statement was, that nobody should care about another person's private beliefs.

That is the definition of private.

 

[DaveE]

yet you smuggled in a positive position on the subject

Seemed pretty neutral to me. "Don't care" is only an attack on your beliefs if you think people have to agree with you. Granted, saying "you shouldn't care" is a bit of a stretch. I think he meant "you shouldn't care in your posts on a physics forum".

which I take offense to

Duly noted, thanks for letting us know.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are telling the public that they should not care.

Note that not caring should also apply to such things as gender, age, political stance, colour, creed or orientation.

Not caring is not a judgement; it is the opposite: it is the Great Equalizer.

 

[Swamp Thing]

View attachment 314131

Indeed.