Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearcat
Definitely... for the most part, I'd say scientists and doctors know they don't know everything (there are obviously the arrogant douchebags, just like in any other career).
Hell, I've been in IT for almost 20 years now and just a few weeks ago dug myself into quite the hole and ended up wasting a couple hours of my time and others' time believing I knew the problem, just for it to be the equivalent of "have you tried rebooting"..... confidence backed by years of experience can bite you in the ass sometimes, but having that confidence in the first place doesn't mean you don't know in the back of your head that you could be wrong... and it doesn't mean you're just an arrogant know-it-all scientist/doctor/IT geek.
The hurricane tracking analogy has been used a lot here... and maybe you study hurricanes for years and that bumps up your knowledge from completely guessing to your educated guess giving you a 10% higher chance of being right. And maybe you have the chance to learn a little from each time you track.
How many pandemics does someone get to learn from in a career in infectious diseases? Of course they're going to be wrong... a lot.
Tell Patrick Mahomes right after college that after all of his practice, college games etc; he can only go out and throw one pass per NFL season, but he needs to learn from that one pass/game, or otherwise he sucks and all that practice meant nothing. And a guy on the internet would think he could do better in the same situation.
|
This going to TOUCH on something that could be called broadly 'political' but is more psychological, and has been bugging me for so long here that
it needs to be said I need to say it, even if people misinterpret it and b& me. And I would add, if this post bothers folks as over the line, I'd ask that they give me an oportunity to rephrase or retract, as I'm not trying to make a partisan point, but an important philosophical and strategic one.
I'm going to try to express it succinctly, so I apologize if it abridges some nuances, . . . but we live in a free society with inalienable rights, so it seems that all this energy devoted to
shaming and belittling people into
conceding their rights are an illusion would be better devoted to
persuading people that their rights should be
momentarily lended to an extraordinary circumstance.
And part of that is being brutally honest about the best and worst case scenarios as well as the reasons why they are still speculative.
Maybe it's just my psychological makeup, but I realize a lot of the merits of various narratives, but I also see the pitfalls and/or uncertainties being downplayed or hidden. But even if one were absolutely convinced of a plan of action, I don't understand why they don't work harder to persuade instead of snark and belittlement [even if they're getting it back].
When seeking behavior from another person, you can either persuade [with reasoning or enticement or flattery, or whatever] or you can force with whatever heft and muscle you can muster.
If the end goal is unified response, it seems far better to say 'this is why it's important, and here's what it might cost, and we're not sure it can work but it's our best effort' than 'this is the way it is, and if you have questions stop being stupid and listen and obey.'