You don’t even understand what it means. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe.To you, I wouldn’t doubt it. You think everyone who disagrees with you has normalcy bias.
You don’t even understand what it means. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe.To you, I wouldn’t doubt it. You think everyone who disagrees with you has normalcy bias.
That’s true, normalcy bias exists regardless of what you believe. But, you tend to explain away people’s disagreements by accusing them of having normalcy bias. Kinda like if all you have is a hammer, every disagreement looks like a nail.You don’t even understand what it means. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe.
When the defense of one’s point is that it has never happened or cant happen that person has a normalacy bias. There are a lot of people that cannot mentally deal with what is happening in our world, country, and state.That’s true, normalcy bias exists regardless of what you believe. But, you tend to explain away people’s disagreements by accusing them of having normalcy bias. Kinda like if all you have is a hammer, every disagreement looks like a nail.
Who in this thread is defending their point saying that it has never happened, or that it can't happen?When the defense of one’s point is that it has never happened or cant happen that person has a normalacy bias. There are a lot of people that cannot mentally deal with what is happening in our world, country, and state.
No disagreement there.Heck, even in their local schools. It was a good school when they went there twenty years ago, their kids teachers are so nice. They can talk about the awful things going on in far away schools but they cannot see it in their kids schools.
Look at you, I have called you stuck in normalacy bias because you cannot even admit that the means and opportunity existed for the powers that be to change election results from afar and that three respected generals were whistleblowers on it. To me the inability to recognize it as plausible is normalacy bias…
In this thread I simply said that the conventional wisdom seemed an awful lot like normalacy bias. In other threads I have often heard that something never happened or that it cannot happen…Who in this thread is defending their point saying that it has never happened, or that it can't happen?
TrueI have no problem with the concept that TPTB have the means and opportunity to change election results. Did they? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That it could happen is not evidence that it did happen.
Distortion of my position, I find, by preponderance of the evidence, a 51% standard that it likely occurred.Your egerness to believe it happened has destroyed your sense of skepticism of new information.
For more times than I can count, it was multiple generals, not one.Remember that thing about what I said make people gullible? The cover story that some general beyond reproach who never tells lies ever, may have passed your built in ******** meter, but did not pass mine.
I don’t know what happened I can only look at the, opportunity, evidence, and results and render a personal verdict. You cannot even remember the number of generals, their names, or what they said.But you want to call that my fault, claiming normalcy bias. I can believe a lot of wild ass things can happen, but to believe they did, bring the receipts.
And let's talk about "we don't know." Remember that? When you were losing another argument, you threw that out there. But it can't apply here because you have a belief to defend.
Well, as I said, if conventional wisdom were normalcy bias people wouldn’t readily change their beliefs. Normalcy bias is one of the reasons people might cling to beliefs even when strong evidence is presented to the contrary. The fact that the people changed their position is evidence that it’s not normalcy bias. They changed their position when knowlege changed.In this thread I simply said that the conventional wisdom seemed an awful lot like normalacy bias. In other threads I have often heard that something never happened or that it cannot happen…
I didn’t say normalacy bias was conventional wisdom but rather, in this case looked like it.Well, as I said, if conventional wisdom were normalcy bias people wouldn’t readily change their beliefs. Normalcy bias is one of the reasons people might cling to beliefs even when strong evidence is presented to the contrary. The fact that the people changed their position is evidence that it’s not normalcy bias. They changed their position when knowlege changed.
Normalacy bias is a bias where it is easier to call the evidence “wild ass claims”, than to acknowledge how bad the situation actually is…Now, when you present wild ass claims, and someone says, prove it or it didn’t happen, that’s not normalcy bias. That’s ******** detection. And let me be clear what the ******** is. It’s more than just the claim. It’s possible the thing could have happened. The ******** detected is the poor quality of reporting and believing it happened with no curiosity or skepticism on your part to vet the information, other than it being something you’re eager to believe with no scrutiny, reported by someone on your side.
The 2024 election is between a dangerous madman and Donald Trump.
A poll says most of the electorate is “unhappy” with their choice of candidates and wishes it wasn’t a Trump-Biden rematch.
Get over it and get on board. You don’t have any other option.
Well, that's fine. I'm saying that this shouldn't look too much like conventional wisdom because obviously people changed their minds when they updated what they know.I didn’t say normalacy bias was conventional wisdom but rather, in this case looked like it.
Sometimes wild ass claims turn out to be true. Sometimes they're just wild ass claims. The badness of the situation isn't a positive indicator that any given claim of badness is true. The badness of a claim doesn't mean I have to accept every claim of badness with no scrutiny.Normalacy bias is a bias where it is easier to call the evidence “wild ass claims”, than to acknowledge how bad the situation actually is…
I mean, maybe not ALL are Democrats. I'd bet Liz Cheney worked on some of the strategy.Judge Orders Trump To Stop Noticing That The People Trying To Put Him In Jail Are Democrats
NEW YORK, NY — In a devastating blow for the defense, State Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to immediately cease noticing that the only people trying to put him in jail are Democrats.babylonbee.com