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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 Comments
YabbaDabbaDipshit@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 49d
My own.
It's cliché but listening to my gut typically works out
Steve@communick.news · 23 pts · 49d
On what?
Different people have different bodies of knowledge and experience. Their expertise on one question doesn't transfer to another.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 48d
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.
slazer2au@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 49d
That OP always has an agenda. Doesn't matter which OP but there is always one.
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 13 pts · 49d
My spouse's.
djdarren@piefed.social · 20 pts · 49d
I also trust @Nemo@slrpnk.net's spouse's opinion.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 49d
I don't think I'll ever get tired of this reference.
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 49d
The way I knew what this comment said before I read it lmao
lokalhorst@feddit.org · -1 pts · 49d
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
tangible@piefed.social · 1 pts · 49d
snooggums@piefed.world · 8 pts · 49d
lemmy ass judgement
djdarren@piefed.social · 7 pts · 49d
sorry
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 49d
Yes that's indeed where the refrence comes from, thanks for the insight big dawg.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 48d
I thought it came from Slashdot, or possibly Usenet...
remon@ani.social · 10 pts · 49d
David Attenborough's.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 49d
You agree Africans should starve for some Malthusian nonsense?
c64z86@piefed.world · 8 pts · 49d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 49d
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.
c64z86@piefed.world · 3 pts · 49d
We will always have leaders in some capacity. We are too wired to lead and to follow.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 48d
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.
c64z86@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 48d
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.
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 48d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 49d
Why? This is statement with no reasoning given.
c64z86@piefed.world · 2 pts · 49d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 48d
Except it runs counter to all evidence but whatever use your biased "personal observations".
c64z86@piefed.world · 2 pts · 48d
I will do, thank you!
Ageroth@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 48d
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?
TheRealKuni@piefed.social · 8 pts · 49d
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.
gigastasio@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 49d
No one’s. Not even mine. Everyone is an idiot. Especially me.
bunkyprewster@startrek.website · 6 pts · 49d
Greta Thunberg
Mantzy81@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 49d
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
mesamunefire@piefed.social · 3 pts · 48d
My wife mostly. Followed by myself.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 48d
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.
BreadOven@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 48d
Mine. Unless my partner or best friend heavily disagree, then I know it's probably not right.
Lay@piefed.social · 3 pts · 49d
I trust no one.
DrunkAnRoot@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 47d
Yours
Crackhappy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 46d
Yep. Yours.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 47d
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.
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 47d
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.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 47d
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.
Crackhappy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 46d
Boy do I have good news for you.
https://youtu.be/dWBgM0gctXA
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 47d
Joe's
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 49d
c64z86@piefed.social · 1 pts · 49d
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 47d
Family
midimalist@lemdro.id · 1 pts · 49d
Carl Sagan
protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 49d
not my mom's
isyasad@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 49d
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:
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 48d
My wife
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 49d
I don't trust opinions, just facts.
Steve@communick.news · 5 pts · 49d
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."
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 48d
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.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 49d
But have you considered these alternative "facts"?
Steve@communick.news · 2 pts · 49d
There are no alternative facts. Only additional facts.
Alternatively there are lies.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 49d
That's not really how facts or opinions work. I hate anti answers, why even participate in the thread?
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 49d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 49d
How do you decide what is a fact and what isn't?
LordFireCrotch@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 49d
I trust truth over facts
Steve@communick.news · 1 pts · 49d
Facts, by definition, are true
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 49d
And what separates truth from fact in your mind?
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 48d
Alan Watts
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 49d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 49d
Ehh he supports the Gaza genocide, supports some uses of torture and is an open islamaphobe.
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 49d
Was that a question?
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 48d
If it was how can you trust someone with those opinions at all never mind "the most"?
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 48d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 48d
Look into any of his statements about israel palestine you are factually wrong no point talking to you.
Iconoclast@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 48d
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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 48d
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.
akunohana@piefed.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 49d
Edit: in that order.
palordrolap@fedia.io · 2 pts · 48d
The question asks "whose", which implies a sapient, or at least sentient, individual or group. LLMs are neither sapient nor sentient.