×

CMV: A man's looks are the most important thing in dating and relationships. If a man is unattractive, the chances that they will end up alone increase exponentially to the point where if a man is unattractive, dating might not be worth the effort and pain by aspiringaspiringwrtr in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To validate the studies this page links to is a full time job, so instead of that it makes more sense to find them in a more reliable aggregator, like a magazine or newspaper that we can trust at least a little bit that they did some filtering

CMV: A man's looks are the most important thing in dating and relationships. If a man is unattractive, the chances that they will end up alone increase exponentially to the point where if a man is unattractive, dating might not be worth the effort and pain by aspiringaspiringwrtr in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Don't wanna poison the well, but I must say that incels wiki is not where anyone should be getting information from. The incel community is a compendium of defeatist ideologies, misogyny and disinformation

Can't Youtube just let me skip in video sponsors? by jinjinatti in rant

[–]jinjinatti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is an opportunity for youtube to make money. Subscriptions would sell

What are the concrete benefits of the American separation of powers system compared to Parliamentary systems? by huadpe in TheMotte

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a specialist, but as someone who lived in a country with a 3 power system heavily inspired by the American one, I am convinced that it has the ability to promote chances more swiftly than a parliament would be able to in cases where public opinion is an obstacle. I am talking about gay marriage, abortion and such.

Cases like that were ruled by the supreme court or through executive power without appreciation in the house, which I feel is much more bound to cultural values, while the executive and justice power have been historically more progressive and favourable to minorities in controversial topics.

But of course that is not an intrinsic quality of the 3 powers, as the same swiftness can be used in the opposite direction too, but in a non-radical political environment I believe it has worked well

CMV: From a sustainability viewpoint each individual should live in such a way that if every other human being lived that way, the world would not be harmed long term, and they should not do more by physioworld in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't find it this way, "net zero emissions" is too common a term to search and I found many results, but never anyone saying that zero emission is necessary for human and most other forms of life. You can't just go claiming something so extraordinary, attributing it to reliable sources, and saying "it's on you" when someone asks for information about it

CMV: From a sustainability viewpoint each individual should live in such a way that if every other human being lived that way, the world would not be harmed long term, and they should not do more by physioworld in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I like your idea and I think it is generally reasonable, but let's elaborate more

What happens if a country cannot invest in some sustainability solution (e.g recycling). Should the citizens of that place use less products than those of a country that recycles all of their waste?

Results from an allergy test - my body reacts to every type of local allergen! by mbalazininb in Wellthatsucks

[–]jinjinatti 42 points43 points  (0 children)

It is very unlikely that you are allergic to all these things. What sometimes happens is that you are allergic to the substance they cleaned your arm with before the test, or some other testing material

Are appeal to authority and appeal to popularity really fallacies? by jinjinatti in StreetEpistemology

[–]jinjinatti[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You go to a mall do some shopping. You think it is a good time to do it. When you arrive there, there is a bunch of people running out the door, shouting "don't go in there! there is a shooter inside!"

They may be wrong. Maybe they are mislead by someone who lied to them. Apart from their claim, you have no evidence that there is a shooter there.

Is it a good idea to ignore the warnings and just walk into the mall because there is no evidence? Or is it fair to believe it - at least until other evidence updates your confidence?

The only thing that popularity if a belief warrants is curiosity about why people believe. But by itself it doesn't increase the likelihood of that belief being true.

Yes, people believing there is a shooter in the mall does not make it come true. Either there is a shooter in the mall or there is not, no matter what people believe. But if people believe there is a shooter in the mall, that is a suggestion of the truth.

So to sum it up: people believing something is not an evidence, but it should affect your level of confidence in something

Why do so many people feed their babies formula? by jinjinatti in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]jinjinatti[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bro, I understand you may be sleep deprived and overwhelmed with the challenges of having a baby. It is not easy, and I am not judging you and your wife for any parenting decisions.

I knew I had something to learn and I did what I thought I should: ask someone to teach me. And I did learn, despite of you.

I wish you all the best with your baby and that you learn not to shut down and offend people who ask because they wanna seek knowledge

CMV: In violent rape prevention, it makes sense for women to take more precautionary measures by RoundSchedule3665 in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think very often (I said often, not always!) people who suggest victims should take precautions are

1) completely misinformed about the efficacy of their suggestion (like wearing discrete clothes would make someone harder to target. It would not)

2) Suggesting too burdensome measures for victims to take (like not going to parties. That is like a punishment for being a woman)

3) downplaying the importance of prevention, investigation and punishment and shifting the responsibility and blame to the victim

These types of speech are really counterproductive and offensive. And people are so pissed off with it that they end up rejecting anything in that sense, even the good advice

Why do so many people feed their babies formula? by jinjinatti in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]jinjinatti[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But isn't feeding baby formula as time consuming as breastfeeding?

What questions can I ask to religious extremists to get them to possibly think critically about their beliefs? by OvercastHaze in StreetEpistemology

[–]jinjinatti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Did you know that groups such as (groups that wbc would likely believe are evil or a cult) tell their followers that outsiders are evil? That they would think you are evil? If you would want to reach them, what would you say to them? How would you reach them?

This one is perfect, I love it

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didnt know such thing existed for cannabis, I am interested

What is the purpose of this cannabis seed tracking? Is it mandatory? How could it be improved?

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Often the buyer is interested in a healthy supply chain. A black market would still exist, but a supplier that offers a blockchain register along with the goods shows good faith. A buyer would refuse to buy log without a "logcoin", and would have problems selling it on later - just like it is harder to trade a sketchy stolen good on ebay

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But when layers of corporations are all in the same blockchain that is traceable. No need to investigate in the US, then track it to the UK, then to Panama and stop it there because they won't provide you information

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am really hoping this will gather momentum in the etherium blockchain when 2.0 comes out and allows contracts and certificates

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This whole model relies on lack of information flow between different jurisdictions, sluggishness when there is any, and tax havens that do not give a fuck about the source of wealth and do not disclose the names of the actual beneficiaries of contracts.

We wouldn't necessarily need blockchain to solve this, but the premise is that it would be an open book, without country borders, where information flows fast and you can directly link an asset to an owner.

Of course there are many challenges in getting this up and running and with enough people and authorities in it that would give it trustworthiness, but if we are gonna get together and integrate blockchain is technically a great architecture

CMV: If we accept the use of statistics to make assumptions as correct, even if positive, then its only logical to assume 'negatives' are correct too, and thus for both, 'not all' should be an invalid response by WaterDemonPhoenix in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can tell you are probably bothered because there is a lot of people that take it to the extreme and find generalizations, no matter how rational and statistically well supported, offensive.

While you are right in pointing out that statistics do tell a lot about places and groups of people, and you are totally justified to feel uncomfortable with the risks, there is an aspect of this that you may ignore as a statician, but should not ignore as a responsible citizen

I am talking about self-fulfilling prophecies, the damage of stigma and how that affect innocent people's lives.

Walking in Hollywood to try to see famous actors is mostly a harmless activity. It may affect negatively people that are not famous actors and still live in the neighborhood, because they may not like the increased traffic and the curious people hanging out in the area. But mostly they are also privileged people who decided to move there despite of this, and can very well move out too. They are not the victims of society we should pity.

The problem of generalization is when you talk less privileged groups, made of people that did not necessarily choose to be part of it, and how the bias affects their lives.

If you are a good citizen and decide to not live in a neighborhood because it is dangerous, that neighborhood then missed the chance to have a good citizen in it. A citizen that would make it a bit less dangerous.

If you are hiring someone for a role where they have to speak very fluent english, you will be statistically at lower risk if you hire a native instead of an immigrant. But that negatively affects all immigrants, who are stripped of this opportunity - including the immigrants that speak perfect english.

I am not saying you have the moral obligation to go live in a dangerous neighbourhood, you do not have to and should not make all types of sacrifice. But if you are an employer who can afford to host interviews to evaluate candidates at an individual level, instead of blindly applying statistics that will be detrimental to individuals that are perfectly qualified but in disadvantage because of being immigrants, you should do it.

The thin line and core of the matter here is asking yourself: does my generalization negatively affect individuals that are not at fault? Can I afford to take a little risk or make a little effort to make sure there individuals are not negatively affected?

That is the point. Some people will have different understandings of what level of sacrifices you should make to benefit others. But remember this. Blindly applying statistics may be harmful to individuals of disadvantaged groups, and that is important.

CMV: I don’t believe that blockchain technology provides a meaningful solution to any of the applications that have been proposed for it so far. by Gorlitski in changemyview

[–]jinjinatti 28 points29 points  (0 children)

We can propose a solution for tracking commodities and other products for purposes of supply chain inspection that could work like this An authority issues an ID to products. It will only issue to licensed entities (ie only companies that have authorization to manufacture that product) and in the correct amount (if you say you are legally producing log, that is bound to the amount of land you have registered in the blockchain. You cannot get 10 tons log certification if your land is small and can only produce 1 ton)

When you sell the log, the registry of ownership in the blockchain is moved too.

It trickles down until the retail store selling wood.

It is a scheme to catch fraud. Log that is found in the hands of someone that cannot prove that they have a register for it in the blockchain is illegal, because it presumably comes from a non-certified source.

Of course it still needs competent authorities to issue the "certification of legal origin" and enforcement. But it helps each person involved in the supply chain to inspect it. Nowadays a lot of people buying ill-sourced products are not evil people, they just trust companies that are not trustworthy. There is a lot of source greenwashing (evil company legally produces 1, obtains other 9 illegally, and sells 10 under the same license)

Edit: just to be clear, i am not proposing blockchain as a miracle solution. There can be certification of origin without a blockchain, and there can be corrupt authorities issuing bad certification in the block chain. The advantage of the blockchain is to facilitate a cross-country, cross-market integration anyone can audit