• 1 Post
  • 418 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • The brain generates a characteristic signal (from a sub-region of Broca’s area) when it detects grammatical errors—but it generates an identical signal when you’re listening to a grammatical sentence and need to re-parse it partway through. I think this latter case is actually the real purpose of the signal: every time it triggers, your brain is warning you that you need to stop and check the sentence again even if the meaning seems unambiguous. So the “pretending they can’t understand you” reaction could just be a reflexive response to that signal (i.e., the brain is telling them it’s confused even if there’s no logical reason it should be).






  • If you think they’d be open to it, try Bayes’ theorem. Ask them to give percent likelihoods for the following:

    A. The odds that the government (or whoever) is trying to kill everyone, before taking the evidence of excess deaths into account
    B. The odds of seeing excess deaths for any possible reason, not just their conspiracy hypothesis
    C. The odds of seeing excess deaths if the conspiracy hypothesis were true.

    Then logically, the odds of the conspiracy being real given the excess deaths should be A*C/B. If you disagree with them on the outcome, you must disagree on one or more of the assumptions (probably A—if it’s B, you can find the objective odds by checking historical data).

    If you still disagree on the prior assumption (A), you can set aside the excess deaths argument and ask what other evidence led them to form that prior assumption. Then you can repeat the process until you either reach agreement or they’re left with an assumption they have no evidence for.