Wikipedia defines common sense as “knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument”

Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they’re a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    Cold Air will make you sick.

    There are plenty of studies debunking it, and yet I still hear about it all the time.

  • kaamkiya@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    If “common sense is not very common”, why is it called common sense?

    Slightly off topic, sorry.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      When people say that, they mean they’re so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.

      Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    “There’s a first time for everything.”

    No, not if I don’t do that thing. I will not have a first time for murder. Getting murdered might be out of my control, but I won’t commit one.

  • ace_garp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    To tilt your head back if you have a blood nose.

    This is no longer recommended advice, because you end up drinking the blood which causes vomiting.

    • Probably initially said by someone concerned about their carpet.

    Way to stop them is put ice over the back of neck, plug nose with tissue and clear clots each 2 mins.

  • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    A lot of outdoor survival “common sense” can get you killed:

    Moss doesn’t exclusively grow on the north side of trees. Local conditions are too chaotic and affect what side is most conducive to moss. Don’t use moss for navigation.

    Don’t drink alcohol to warm yourself up. It feels warm but actually does the opposite: alcohol opens up your capillaries and allows more heat to escape through your skin, which means you lose body heat a lot faster.

    Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.

    Don’t assume a berry is safe to eat just because you see birds eating them. You’re not a bird. Your digestive system is very different from a bird’s digestive system.

    If you’ve been starving for a long time, don’t gorge yourself at the first opportunity when you get back to civilization. You can get refeeding syndrome which can kill you. It’s best to go to the hospital where you can be monitored and have nutrients slowly reintroduced in a way that won’t upset the precarious balance your body has found itself in.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.

      Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.

      Also, do people not know every berry isn’t edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there’s plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.

      • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Ideally you’d use an external heat source to melt the snow so you’re not wasting your body heat on it (it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness). Failing that, I’ve also heard people recommend filling a water bottle with snow and putting it in between the layers of clothing you’re wearing so it’s not directly touching your skin, that way you don’t lose a bunch of heat really quickly.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I guess that’s true, if you eat a whole bunch of snow at once you could get too cold - especially if you do it while not moving. If you have a fire, of course this is all a non-issue; just make sure not to light yourself, your surroundings or your container on fire, especially during sleep.

          it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness

          Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It’s not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can’t imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.

          • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It’s not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can’t imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.

            There’s always a risk of bacteria. Maybe not super high a risk, but getting food poisoning while lost in the woods can really screw you over.

      • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.

        presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Ah, I guess the way it was worded that could be it.

          I do know tucking some under your coat in a container is one thing you can do, if you’re in a desperate situation. At best that slows down the rate of heat loss, though.

    • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Moss doesn’t exclusively grow on the north side of trees.

      My brain was like “why do people so desperately need to find moss that it not being on the north side would mean death?” Before remembering many people don’t know which way they are facing (or left and right) usually. (Also, I’m sure I’d do worse in an unfamiliar area)

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        The best way to actually figure out directions is to learn how the sky works. It’s not complicated, really - stars stay in the same place, the sun and moon slowly move along the ecliptic (a specific big circle), and it all spins around the poles with the time of day.

        Although, I’ve heard you actually can use moss for packing wounds, since it’s pretty absorbent.

  • Semperverus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Common sense isn’t just “not so common,” it is a fundamentally broken concept at its core and a crutch that people use to hoist themselves above others they feel they are better than.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think it’s just missing a bit of specificity.

      Building more bike lanes will reduce traffic. Building more bus lanes will reduce traffic. Building more tram lines will reduce traffic. Building more car lanes will reduce induce traffic.

      Not perfect, but solid logic within reason (Building 100 more bus lanes will reduce traffic).

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      They enlarged rt 3 near rt 95 in MA many years ago. It was getting backed up due to all of the people moving further out from Boston. I said “It will be full again in a few years.” Yup. It was moving well for a few years so everyone piled into that area because the commute was better and within a few years it was a traffic jam again.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Of course! Our society couldn’t have multiple moving parts, could it?

      And honestly, that’s a great example of the shortcomings of “common sense”. What people mean when they say there’s not enough common sense is that the people who aren’t “common” (like them) must all be stupid. In reality, pretty much everyone in every position is doing exactly what anyone would, if only they knew the situation.

  • naught101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 days ago

    Less tax is better.

    No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, that’s fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.

        But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.

      I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.

      • comfy@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.

        How so?

        If one doesn’t vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.

        If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.

        The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn’t a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.

        (I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.

          See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it’ll be obvious pretty fast.

          (I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)

          So, you’re assuming we’re all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.

          • comfy@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced

            And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.

            So, you’re assuming we’re all American here.

            Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.

              Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 days ago

    Folk idioms that contradict each other are my favourite. For example, “the cream rises to the top” vs. “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.

    • Nemoder@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I like to try and combine these to see what kind of reactions I get.
      The cream rises to who you know.
      The squeaky wheel gets hammered down.
      He who laughs last, comes around.
      Great minds killed the cat!

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    2 days ago

    Pretty much anything related to statistics and probability. People have gut feelings because our minds are really good at finding patterns, but we’re also really good at making up patterns that don’t exist.

    The one people probably have most experience with is the gambler’s fallacy. After losing more than expected, people think they’ll now be more likely to win.

    I also like the Monty Hall problem and the birthday problem.

    • Spyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      The gambler’s fallacy is pretty easy to get, as is the Monty Hall problem if you restate the question as having 100 doors instead of 3. But for the life of me I don’t think I’ll ever have an intuitive understanding of the birthday problem. That one just boggles my mind constantly.

      • frank@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Lemme try my favorite way to explain the birthday problem without getting too mathy:

        If you take 23 people, that’s 253 pairs of people to compare (23 people x22 others to pair them with/2 people per pair). That’s a lot of pairs to check and get only unique answers

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Really? The birthday problem is a super simple multiplication, you can do it on paper. The only thing you really need to understand is the inversion of probability (P(A) = 1 - P(not A)).

        The Monty hall problem… I’ve understood it at times, but every time I come back to it I have to figure it out again, usually with help. That shit is unintuitive.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Adding my own explanation, because I think it clicks better for me (especially when I write it down):

          1. Pick a door. You have a 66% chance of picking a wrong door, and a 33% of picking the right door.
          2. Monty excludes a door with 100% certainty
          3. IF you picked a wrong door, then there’s a 100% chance the remaining door is correct (so the contingent probability is p(switch|picked wrong) = 100%), so the total chance of the remaining door being correct is p(switch|picked wrong)* p(picked wrong) = 66%.
          4. IF you picked the right door, then Monty’s reveal gives you no new information, because both the other doors were wrong, so p(switch|picked right) = 50%, which means that p(switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%.
          5. p(don't switch|picked wrong) * p(picked wrong) = 50% * 66% = 33% (because of the remaining doors including the one you picked, you have no more information)
          6. p(don't switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17% (because both of the unpicked doors are wrong, Monty didn’t give you more information)

          So there’s a strong benefit of switching (66% to 33%) if you picked wrong, and even odds of switching if you picked right (17% in both cases).

          Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          My explanation is better:

          There’s three doors, of which one is the winner.

          First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.

          Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.

          Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!

        • Infernal_pizza@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          My favourite explanation of the Monty hall problem is that you probably picked the wrong door as your first choice (because there’s 2/3 chance of it being wrong). Therefore once the third door is removed and you’re given the option to switch you should, because assuming you did pick the wrong door first then the other door has to be the right one

      • odd@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The birthday problem is super easy to understand with puzzles! For example, how does laying out the edges increase the likelihood of a random piece to fit.