Checking in... Anxiety about current events

[Scarlett]

6 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

OMG...I really did completely miss that. I was never on that train, but erroneously believed that the train had a point of destination. Mind blown, 12 years late is better than never! Thanks! 

Me too!

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 hours ago, Little Green Leaves said:

For what it's worth, that's not completely true. If you're born abroad to US citizens, your parents need to have been resident in the United States for a certain period of time (I think it is one year but it also varies depending on whether both parents were citizens) in order to be able to pass on their US citizenship to you.

I know that's not at all the point you're making and I'm sorry to sidetrack. I recently learned this and I found it kind of unsettling, so I'm sharing! But yes, in Obama's case it wouldn't matter at all where he was born because his mother was a citizen AND had lived in the US.

Yes.  This was an issue in our family. . In fact I had nieces and nephews who needed the help of Congressmen/women to become US citizens because my siblings didn't pass the  time test for passing on US citizenship.  I believe it is five years that you have to be in the US before passing on  your citizenship but the rules have changed over the years. 

I was always told that I could not become president because I was born abroad but I see that the definition of "natural born citizen" has been up for debate for years.  (Again - not even applicable to President Obama). 

[regentrude]

To get back to the original topic: best thing I did for anxiety was spending four hours at a friend's farm today, helping with garden work. Forks and wheelbarrows were involved. Outdoors, + physical exertion,  bonus was intelligent conversations at a safe distance. Beats therapy by a wide margin. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I also take some supplements - mainly magnesium  - to help me deal with stress and anxiety.

 

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

To get back to the original topic: best thing I did for anxiety was spending four hours at a friend's farm today, helping with garden work. Forks and wheelbarrows were involved. Outdoors, + physical exertion,  bonus was intelligent conversations at a safe distance. Beats therapy by a wide margin. 

Yep. That’s where it’s at.

I watched the new pbs All Creatures Great and Small and then spent about an hour outdoors with my young house cow. Felt much better after all that.

then I sorted through my seeds and considered my gardening plans and now I’m looking at a seed catalog.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

What's the difference between the free version and the non-free? I think I have a subscription, so I do whatever's on that. 

I have a subscription to the paper, but not the add on of the games or recipes or whatever else. You can play up to a certain and point and then it says something like “You are very good at this, click here to subscribe”. You can however do the full mini crossword with just a basic subscription.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Frances

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Yep. That’s where it’s at.

I watched the new pbs All Creatures Great and Small and then spent about an hour outdoors with my young house cow. Felt much better after all that.

then I sorted through my seeds and considered my gardening plans and now I’m looking at a seed catalog.

I’ve been watching one episode at night before bed. I’m really enjoying it, as it has been a very long time since I read the books.

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've started doing the NY Times Spelling Bee... anyone else do it? 

We used to go for drives but I think we'll stop since we got pulled over last time 😞 . 

I keep wanting to but can’t justify the subscription to the games just for play.  I do the free mini daily.  One day I’ll subscribe to pay for all the freebies I’ve used and read

[Ausmumof3]

I like duolingo for keeping my mind busy but I have to be honest not much works when too much is happening.  We seem to have a lot of socialising going on right now in the pandemic breaks so there’s that.  Also read a couple of Georgette Heyers.

[VickiMNE]

16 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've started doing the NY Times Spelling Bee... anyone else do it? 

 

I do this!  It is one of my favorites (along with the regular crossword puzzles and the special Crypto, Acrostic, and Anagram puzzles).  

Since you asked, the mini Xword is available to all and the other "speciality" games like Tiles, Spelling Bee are sometimes free for non-subscribers for a short while.  The goal, of course, is to get people to play them and feel they add enough pleasure to their day to be worth a subscription.

With a NYTXGames subscription, you get all those puzzles PLUS all previous ones (in the archives).  It can be pretty fun to go back to a NYTXword puzzle from a decade or two ago--a bit like time traveling! 🙂

 

[Sherry in OH]

 

56 minutes ago, VickiMNE said:

I do this!  It is one of my favorites (along with the regular crossword puzzles and the special Crypto, Acrostic, and Anagram puzzles).  

Since you asked, the mini Xword is available to all and the other "speciality" games like Tiles, Spelling Bee are sometimes free for non-subscribers for a short while.  The goal, of course, is to get people to play them and feel they add enough pleasure to their day to be worth a subscription.

With a NYTXGames subscription, you get all those puzzles PLUS all previous ones (in the archives).  It can be pretty fun to go back to a NYTXword puzzle from a decade or two ago--a bit like time traveling! 🙂

 

I rarely do the crypto, acrostic, or anagram puzzles but have been having a lot of fun with the old daily and mini crosswords.  

If you sign up for the free morning briefing, you will get the Mini and the grids for the Monday-Friday for Spelling Bee.   Periodically, you will be offered a reduced price subscription to the News part of NYT (not puzzles or recipes) for $4 per month for the first year.  You can also subscribe to just the puzzles for $4 per month (slightly less if you also do the news subscription).  The entertainment and escapism offered by the daily puzzles are worth $4 a month.  

In addition to the puzzles others have mentioned you get 3 Sudoku puzzles each day, Vertex (a numberless dot-to-dot), and Letter Boxed (another word game).  Vertex is my favorite.

 

[Lecka]

Guys — the natural born debate came up with McCain bc iirc he was born on a military base not in the United States.  And then the answer was “it counts.”  Though that is not just the same.  One of my kids was born in a German hospital and has no claim whatsoever to German citizenship.  That is how it works for American military stationed in Germany with no German parent.  We have a Consular Birth Certificate for my son.  He got a German birth certificate that was needed to get the Consular Birth Certificate (iirc).  Fun facts 🙂

I am stressed bc I’m trying to help my aunt and uncle get a slot for a vaccination, and I have blown it for this week.  I will try again next week.  It’s just something where — they are doing a LOT of shots, but there are still a lot of people to go through.  We hope demand will die down at some point — I wish I had some idea when that might be.  I’m saying “a month” right now but it’s a guess.  

[regentrude]

23 minutes ago, Lecka said:

 One of my kids was born in a German hospital and has no claim whatsoever to German citizenship.  That is how it works for American military stationed in Germany with no German parent.

jus soli vs jus sanguinis

Apples and oranges

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

Periodically, you will be offered a reduced price subscription to the News part of NYT (not puzzles or recipes) for $4 per month for the first year.  You can also subscribe to just the puzzles for $4 per month (slightly less if you also do the news subscription).  The entertainment and escapism offered by the daily puzzles are worth $4 a month.

 

And after the first year when it's time for your rate to go up they will reduce it significantly--although perhaps not all the way to $4 per month--if you call and tell them you want to cancel. I get tired of playing that yearly game, but it's about time for me to do it again. (Sigh)

[pitterpatter]

The love the Mini! It's my treat before facing the day. I also play Tiles and Spelling Bee (until I hit the point where I've scored too many points and I might be interested in a subscription...lol), on occasion. My goal is always under a minute on the Mini...30 seconds when the first couple go well. A couple of days ago, I saw a Jeopardy contestant say he and his friends race. The winner is usually around 10 seconds. I don't think I could even get my fingers to type in the answers that quickly even if I knew them beforehand.

3 hours ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

I rarely do the crypto, acrostic, or anagram puzzles but have been having a lot of fun with the old daily and mini crosswords.  

If you sign up for the free morning briefing, you will get the Mini and the grids for the Monday-Friday for Spelling Bee.   Periodically, you will be offered a reduced price subscription to the News part of NYT (not puzzles or recipes) for $4 per month for the first year.  You can also subscribe to just the puzzles for $4 per month (slightly less if you also do the news subscription).  The entertainment and escapism offered by the daily puzzles are worth $4 a month.  

In addition to the puzzles others have mentioned you get 3 Sudoku puzzles each day, Vertex (a numberless dot-to-dot), and Letter Boxed (another word game).  Vertex is my favorite.

 

[pitterpatter]

I just get the free morning briefing in my e-mail. The Mini is linked for free in it.

17 hours ago, Frances said:

I have a subscription to the paper, but not the add on of the games or recipes or whatever else. You can play up to a certain and point and then it says something like “You are very good at this, click here to subscribe”. You can however do the full mini crossword with just a basic subscription.

 

[Ausmumof3]

Thinking about the too busy thing which is way off topic and was my initial response.  Many of these people seem to have time to watch those hour long videos on YouTube and dig deep into Qanon so I’m back to thinking it’s not lack of time for those ones.  It’s just lack of ability to see when something doesn’t add up and do some research.  I don’t actually know how you teach it though.  And it’s not always iq correlated because smart people fall for it sometimes.  

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 It’s just lack of ability to see when something doesn’t add up and do some research.  I don’t actually know how you teach it though.

I have lots of opinions about this, lol. Mostly from the perspective of math education. 

See, I think math is a lovely opportunity to teach at least some of those skills. It's not perfect, but it does have right answers, and it gives you the ability to check your own reasoning by seeing if you're right or not. 

When I teach online, I spend a lot of time coaching kids to spot check themselves. Some of the most effective things I do is introduce "checking steps" into their calculations, where the "check" may be something like "Does this make sense using my mental model?" or "Can I verify this using other things I understand better?" 

But we don't really teach anything to kids like this. We teach things in a predigested way. And kids come to expect knowledge to come predigested. 

Is it any wonder that kids who haven't had to figure things out for themselves have a sort of "learned helplessness" where they expect others to figure things out for them? That they don't have "checkpoint steps" where they make sure that their reasoning isn't coming up with nonsense? 

(I don't think math is the only way to teach these skills. I spend lots of time working on those skills in other areas, too. I just think math can be a good way to linearize a child's reasoning.) 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Ausmumof3]

So NYT mini people.  What’s your fastest solve time?  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

So NYT mini people.  What’s your fastest solve time?  

I never do that one 😞 . Only the big crossword and the spelling bee. 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I have lots of opinions about this, lol. Mostly from the perspective of math education. 

See, I think math is a lovely opportunity to teach at least some of those skills. It's not perfect, but it does have right answers, and it gives you the ability to check your own reasoning by seeing if you're right or not. 

When I teach online, I spend a lot of time coaching kids to spot check themselves. Some of the most effective things I do is introduce "checking steps" into their calculations, where the "check" may be something like "Does this make sense using my mental model?" or "Can I verify this using other things I understand better?" 

But we don't really teach anything to kids like this. We teach things in a predigested way. And kids come to expect knowledge to come predigested. 

Is it any wonder that kids who haven't had to figure things out for themselves have a sort of "learned helplessness" where they expect others to figure things out for them? That they don't have "checkpoint steps" where they make sure that their reasoning isn't coming up with nonsense? 

(I don't think math is the only way to teach these skills. I spend lots of time working on those skills in other areas, too. I just think math can be a good way to linearize a child's reasoning.) 

Btw I finally got “how not to be wrong” from the library.  I haven’t got far but it’s really good.

and yes.  Probably teaching rote skills over comprehension is a problem.  I feel like with certain of my kids no amount of “teaching how to think” is kicking in at this point.  And with my youngest it’s intuitive.  And for me I think it’s kind of intuitive some time in the sense of knowing somethings off without being able to verbalise why.  I’m hoping that doing the logic training with the kids will reach me some.  But I feel like maybe formal logic still has its limits?

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I never do that one 😞 . Only the big crossword and the spelling bee. 

lol well if I had access to the big one I probably wouldn’t either.  Maybe one day...

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 I’m hoping that doing the logic training with the kids will reach me some.  But I feel like maybe formal logic still has its limits?

I don't know if it's really "formal logic" that I like in mathematical training. Just the ability to check whether one is wrong, and the ability to add in steps to make sure what you're doing makes sense. The more we teach kids things to do without understanding, the more they absorb that this is a fine thing to do. 

I like my math fairly discursive and lively, anyway. I think math (like other things) needs to be something you can talk about in real words and pictures and experiences. And I think for a lot of kids, math winds up consigned to their arithmetic pages. 

I know some kids have a much easier time with this than others 🙂 . Honestly, anything can be used to teach this... I've been playing Minesweeper with my homeschool class kids, and it's been interesting to see how much kids can struggle with explaining WHY something is safe and something is a mine. Those are all the same skills 🙂 . Can you justify something? Can you convince me that your argument is airtight? If you click on a mine despite your best reasoning, what went wrong? 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[bookbard]

I read some research suggesting it isn't education levels but cognitive styles which influences people to believe in conspiracy theories. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

I suspect that the closed, suspicious, fearful type of personality/cognitive style is a result of trauma. And so societies with more trauma, due to poverty, lack of a social safety net, gun violence etc are more likely to have children growing up believing in conspiracy theories. 

[Ausmumof3]

42 minutes ago, bookbard said:

I read some research suggesting it isn't education levels but cognitive styles which influences people to believe in conspiracy theories. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

I suspect that the closed, suspicious, fearful type of personality/cognitive style is a result of trauma. And so societies with more trauma, due to poverty, lack of a social safety net, gun violence etc are more likely to have children growing up believing in conspiracy theories. 

Makes sense.  Also I mean it’s not entirely crazy to believe conspiracies.  There have been some pretty big conspiracies in history.  And that one in a hundred times that it’s how things are I guess just reinforces that way of thinking.

[Moonhawk]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Makes sense.  Also I mean it’s not entirely crazy to believe conspiracies.  There have been some pretty big conspiracies in history.  And that one in a hundred times that it’s how things are I guess just reinforces that way of thinking.

I mean....

 

[VickiMNE]

16 hours ago, Sherry in OH said:

In addition to the puzzles others have mentioned you get 3 Sudoku puzzles each day, Vertex (a numberless dot-to-dot), and Letter Boxed (another word game).  Vertex is my favorite.

 

It is always so surprising to see what the favorites are. Vertex is my least favorite 😉 but I'm really, truly glad to know it is not "wasted space".  🙂

I love all the Word games:  Mini, Regular, Letter Box, Spelling Bee, the monthly Themed Crossword and of course the specialty ones like Anagrams&Puns, and Cryptograms.  Before Vertex, there was the logic game KenKen which was another fave of mine.  I miss it, but not enough to go to other sites to play....

I had the game subscription for a couple of years but not last year.  I've discovered that it makes a great gift suggestion (my birthday and Xmas coincide).  I'm SO happy to be back at it in 2021!

[SKL]

12 hours ago, bookbard said:

I read some research suggesting it isn't education levels but cognitive styles which influences people to believe in conspiracy theories. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

I suspect that the closed, suspicious, fearful type of personality/cognitive style is a result of trauma. And so societies with more trauma, due to poverty, lack of a social safety net, gun violence etc are more likely to have children growing up believing in conspiracy theories. 

I think it would make a great study if the researchers could be unbiased ... which is unlikely, unfortunately.

I think we need to start out by acknowledging that the extremes of all sides / movements include these elements. 

And next, we should acknowledge that for whatever reason, the less fringey but still biased players (all sides/movements) are willing to ignore the fringey fringe because they are on the right "side" despite being near the edge of the cliff.  In doing this, the biased but still somewhat credible sources actually support the extreme beliefs despite knowing they are [probably/certainly] false.

At the same time, the biased but still somewhat credible sources ignore facts, that they know/should know to be [probably/certainly] true, because reporting such facts would weigh against their bias.  Whatever "side" they are on, however "true" their reporting, they are not really contributing to the public's ability to weed out the truth.

By not reporting facts that tend to weigh against one's bias, I believe that MOST news sources increase the likelihood of news consumers to disbelieve facts that they don't like hearing.  That would include the fact that Group Fringey Fringe is lying to them.  And since I believe many FringeyFringe groups are in it for $$, while others are backed by unfriendly foreign powers, I think the failure of mainstream news to call out the lies told by groups biased in either direction helps those fringes to prosper.

We can argue that it's each American's responsibility to read all sides and make better judgments, but that ignores the fact of where the money in media is and how that impacts the average American's information.  One could go on all week about this, but it's obvious why the majority of people (if they care at all) turn on either CNN or Fox.  Even our iphones push specific mainstream news sources with tons of bias.  The radio stations all get their info from the same biased sources.  And facebook (and maybe other platforms, I don't know) is programmed to greatly reduce one's chances of seeing information that doesn't line up with what fb wants you to believe.

I would rather hear 20 "alternate facts" from all over the board than hear one "concensus" from anywhere.  If you tell me Pres X was born with 2 heads and someone else says he was born with no head, I can apply my God-given intelligence to figure out how to use that info.  I may not always end up right, but at least I know there's a question out there.  99% of the time, if it's something that would impact my personal action, vote, or words, I will make a note to look for more info from more sources.

All that said, I tend to agree that there are some people who tend toward conspiracy theories more than others.  And no, these do not tend to be low-IQ people, and they are equally distributed across the political spectrum.  I suspect it's in some people's wiring.  I know one person pretty well who has always had conspiracy theories about everything.  It's a running joke, but she's serious about it.  She has voted for both parties over the years.  I can see one of my kids developing conspiracy theories.  I hope she's just joking, because living like that would be scary and exhausting.

Edited January 15, 2021 by SKL

[SKL]

12 hours ago, bookbard said:

I read some research suggesting it isn't education levels but cognitive styles which influences people to believe in conspiracy theories. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

I suspect that the closed, suspicious, fearful type of personality/cognitive style is a result of trauma. And so societies with more trauma, due to poverty, lack of a social safety net, gun violence etc are more likely to have children growing up believing in conspiracy theories. 

I will also say that some of the most fearful people of the new administration, in my observation, are people who are refugees or children of refugees from Cuba.  They are terrified that some of the younger people on the left in Congress will have a lot of influence.  That would probably go along with your comment about trauma etc.  I mean, a lot of people right of center are concerned about what may change in the next 2-4 years, but most are not terrified.

[Not_a_Number]

13 hours ago, bookbard said:

I read some research suggesting it isn't education levels but cognitive styles which influences people to believe in conspiracy theories. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

I suspect that the closed, suspicious, fearful type of personality/cognitive style is a result of trauma. And so societies with more trauma, due to poverty, lack of a social safety net, gun violence etc are more likely to have children growing up believing in conspiracy theories. 

Eh, this is not great evidence. Here's a quote from the article: 

 

They were also asked whether they agreed with generic conspiratorial statements, such as: "The power held by heads of state is second to that of small unknown groups who really control world politics," and "Groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public."

 

You all know me and I'm not at all conspiracy-minded... and I have no idea how to even answer those questions. For example, does Mark Zuckerberg have more or less power than a head of state? No clue. He definitely has more than I'm comfortable with an unelected official having. That's true for a lot of companies. 

As for fabricating or manipulating evidence... of course some groups of scientists do it! We're all people. Some scientists are unscrupulous and fabricate evidence (remember the nonsensical HCQ evidence? That was manufactured. The non-manufactured studies didn't find evidence of positive effect either, but that's different.) 

ETA: I understand what they were trying to get at, but my point is that those statements are SO broad that they really must only measure levels of generic trust in humanity. So I'm not surprised that these questions measure only personality -- that's how they are phrased. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

12 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Makes sense.  Also I mean it’s not entirely crazy to believe conspiracies.  There have been some pretty big conspiracies in history.  And that one in a hundred times that it’s how things are I guess just reinforces that way of thinking.

Right. It's not entirely crazy to believe conspiracies supported by evidence. The point is that you need actual evidence and you need to be able to update your opinion based on data. Sometimes that actually means that you don't agree with anyone else, by the way! That's how discoveries get made -- someone finds data that other people don't have, and they are more flexible in their thinking. 

The point is that you need to learn to provide checkpoints for yourself. You need to learn to check what you believe against the facts. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

Sorry but I just have to say....some of y’all need to give serious consideration to the thread purpose and what is anxiety reducing versus anxiety inducing. Many who were benefitting from this thread have probably had to tune out by now. 

The original thread was just "Is anyone else anxious?", to be clear. It wasn't "anxiety-busters" to begin with, it just went that way. 

Half the people on this thread are talking about other stuff; I think if you want a thread where it's only restricted to anxiety remedies, you'll probably need another thread, because there are a lot of people participating in spin-off conversations. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

Sorry but I just have to say....some of y’all need to give serious consideration to the thread purpose and what is anxiety reducing versus anxiety inducing. Many who were benefitting from this thread have probably had to tune out by now. 

I’ve gone back to reading bodice-ripping regency romance novels. Hello! They never fail to change my mood. Too bad DH is still deployed. Escaping for 3-4 hours into a mindless book is very calming.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Seasider too said:

Well thanks but no thanks, because that’s just another avenue for thread derailment. 

If you make it clear what the thread is about on the first page and in the title, it's a lot easier to keep people from wandering away. As is, half the posts on the first page are bemoaning various aspects of humanity, so lots of people are talking about that. 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

There were repeated requests upthread not to derail this one. It gets...tiring. 

I think Katy specifically said she didn't mind people correcting disinformation. But either way, no one is debating anymore? Just talking about conspiracies, which again, is consistent with the first page of the thread. 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

There were repeated requests upthread not to derail this one. It gets...tiring. 

I just re-read the OP.  It asks if anyone else is anxious about current events.  It does not say let's discuss ways to reduce anxiety.

Anxiety about current events ties in pretty well with a discussion about extremist views - there is anxiety on both sides related to those views.  The people I'm seeing who are most anxious are NOT trying to find distractions; they are unfortunately digging deeper, irrationally IMO.  [Not on this thread, but elsewhere.]  The follow-ups to January 6, e.g. censorship etc., are getting these people even more upset.  This seems to be an appropriate place to discuss it.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I think it would make a great study if the researchers could be unbiased ... which is unlikely, unfortunately.

I think we need to start out by acknowledging that the extremes of all sides / movements include these elements. 

And next, we should acknowledge that for whatever reason, the less fringey but still biased players (all sides/movements) are willing to ignore the fringey fringe because they are on the right "side" despite being near the edge of the cliff.  In doing this, the biased but still somewhat credible sources actually support the extreme beliefs despite knowing they are [probably/certainly] false.

At the same time, the biased but still somewhat credible sources ignore facts, that they know/should know to be [probably/certainly] true, because reporting such facts would weigh against their bias.  Whatever "side" they are on, however "true" their reporting, they are not really contributing to the public's ability to weed out the truth.

By not reporting facts that tend to weigh against one's bias, I believe that MOST news sources increase the likelihood of news consumers to disbelieve facts that they don't like hearing.  That would include the fact that Group Fringey Fringe is lying to them.  And since I believe many FringeyFringe groups are in it for $$, while others are backed by unfriendly foreign powers, I think the failure of mainstream news to call out the lies told by groups biased in either direction helps those fringes to prosper.

We can argue that it's each American's responsibility to read all sides and make better judgments, but that ignores the fact of where the money in media is and how that impacts the average American's information.  One could go on all week about this, but it's obvious why the majority of people (if they care at all) turn on either CNN or Fox.  Even our iphones push specific mainstream news sources with tons of bias.  The radio stations all get their info from the same biased sources.  And facebook (and maybe other platforms, I don't know) is programmed to greatly reduce one's chances of seeing information that doesn't line up with what fb wants you to believe.

I would rather hear 20 "alternate facts" from all over the board than hear one "concensus" from anywhere.  If you tell me Pres X was born with 2 heads and someone else says he was born with no head, I can apply my God-given intelligence to figure out how to use that info.  I may not always end up right, but at least I know there's a question out there.  99% of the time, if it's something that would impact my personal action, vote, or words, I will make a note to look for more info from more sources.

All that said, I tend to agree that there are some people who tend toward conspiracy theories more than others.  And no, these do not tend to be low-IQ people, and they are equally distributed across the political spectrum.  I suspect it's in some people's wiring.  I know one person pretty well who has always had conspiracy theories about everything.  It's a running joke, but she's serious about it.  She has voted for both parties over the years.  I can see one of my kids developing conspiracy theories.  I hope she's just joking, because living like that would be scary and exhausting.

God love ya. I believe you to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Most of what you wrote I could probably agree with in principle but the bolded renders everything else suspect in the extreme. Whether someone has two heads, or elephants are the largest land animals on earth isn’t information that any of us should have to figure out how to use. We are at the point where a sizable number of Americans are willing to die to fight off congressional child traffickers and election crooks on the word of an unknown individual known only as Q. Normalizing and indulging these fantasies as alternative facts rather than LIES is part of the problem.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

22 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

God love ya. I believe you to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Most of what you wrote I could probably agree with in principle but the bolded renders everything else suspect in the extreme. Whether someone has two heads, or elephants are the largest land animals on earth isn’t information that any of us should have to figure out how to use. We are at the point where a sizable number of Americans are willing to die to fight off congressional child traffickers and election crooks on the word of an unknown individual known only as Q. Normalizing and indulging these fantasies as alternative facts rather than LIES is part of the problem.

Wow, I thought it was obvious that was just an impossible example to make my point as un-controversial / non-political as possible.

Goodness gracious.

[Not_a_Number]

23 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

God love ya. I believe you to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Most of what you wrote I could probably agree with in principle but the bolded renders everything else suspect in the extreme. Whether someone has two heads, or elephants are the largest land animals on earth isn’t information that any of us should have to figure out how to use. We are at the point where a sizable number of Americans are willing to die to fight off congressional child traffickers and election crooks on the word of an unknown individual known only as Q. Normalizing and indulging these fantasies as alternative facts rather than LIES is part of the problem.

The idea that we don't want consensus is a really strange one to me. Yes, if you enforce too high a degree of uniformity, you risk losing dissenting opinions. But at the end of the day, there are things that are true and there things that aren't, and listening to EVERYONE leaves you in a no-man's land of knowing nothing. 

If I spend all day thinking about whether the Earth is flat, then that's time I don't spend thinking about things that are actually debatable. And that would be a waste of my energy and would be a pity. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Wow, I thought it was obvious that was just an impossible example to make my point as un-controversial / non-political as possible.

Goodness gracious.

There are lots of things that people espouse that aren't far off from that. That was Sneezy's point. 

[SKL]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

The idea that we don't want consensus is a really strange one to me. Yes, if you enforce too high a degree of uniformity, you risk losing dissenting opinions. But at the end of the day, there are things that are true and there things that aren't, and listening to EVERYONE leaves you in a no-man's land of knowing nothing. 

If I spend all day thinking about whether the Earth is flat, then that's time I don't spend thinking about things that are actually debatable. And that would be a waste of my energy and would be a pity. 

Given a choice, I would rather know that there were dissenters as well as a "consensus."  Nowadays, all too often people want to be able to shut down discussion by citing "consensus."  The problem with that is obvious.

Arriving at consensus while acknowledging that there are other views is fine.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There are lots of things that people espouse that aren't far off from that. That was Sneezy's point. 

Well I target my comments to "well-trained minds" here.  I would speak differently to certain other groups.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, SKL said:

Wow, I thought it was obvious that was just an impossible example to make my point as un-controversial / non-political as possible.

Goodness gracious.

Given EVERYTHING that’s gone on and the insane views currently espoused as fact, no, it wasn’t obvious. I’m no longer willing to presume that these sorts of comments are offered in jest. Have you looked around lately? People will believe ANYTHING and we’re all supposed to nod along b/c they’re earnest in their belief. There are active members of this forum that hold these views.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The idea that we don't want consensus is a really strange one to me. Yes, if you enforce too high a degree of uniformity, you risk losing dissenting opinions. But at the end of the day, there are things that are true and there things that aren't, and listening to EVERYONE leaves you in a no-man's land of knowing nothing. 

If I spend all day thinking about whether the Earth is flat, then that's time I don't spend thinking about things that are actually debatable. And that would be a waste of my energy and would be a pity. 

Another thing about "the earth is not flat" - when first introduced to people with low knowledge (in our case, probably as little children), we don't just say it, we give enough evidence so the listener can see that it makes sense.  Then when they learn there are folks who believe in a flat earth, they don't consider it a possibility / challenge their understanding.  This is a lot more powerful than "well most people agree that ___."  Most people have historically agreed on lots of things we now consider untrue.

(I don't consider "the earth is not flat" to be a consensus btw.  I believe, among other things, that astronauts actually did travel to the moon and photograph a spherical earth from there.  It isn't exactly up for debate among sane people with any reasonable level of education.)

[Sneezyone]

Going back to my bodice rippers. Much more soothing.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Given EVERYTHING that’s gone on and the insane views currently espoused as fact, no, it wasn’t obvious. I’m no longer willing to presume that these sorts of comments are offered in jest. Have you looked around lately? People will believe ANYTHING and we’re all supposed to nod along b/c they’re earnest in their belief. There are active members of this forum that hold these views.

OK then, maybe you should snooze me since my examples, or something else about me, upsets you so much.

If you're saying the US needs to stop allowing people to ever be wrong, let's agree to disagree and move on.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK then, maybe you should snooze me since my examples, or something else about me, upsets you so much.

If you're saying the US needs to stop allowing people to ever be wrong, let's agree to disagree and move on.

That is decidedly NOT what I am saying as none of us is the *U.S.* I am saying, however, that I believe INDIVIDUALS who continue to indulge kooky ideas contribute to a level of fact-free discourse that is both unproductive WRT policy-making and dangerous/deadly.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sherry in OH]

6 hours ago, VickiMNE said:

It is always so surprising to see what the favorites are. Vertex is my least favorite 😉 but I'm really, truly glad to know it is not "wasted space".  🙂

I love all the Word games:  Mini, Regular, Letter Box, Spelling Bee, the monthly Themed Crossword and of course the specialty ones like Anagrams&Puns, and Cryptograms.  Before Vertex, there was the logic game KenKen which was another fave of mine.  I miss it, but not enough to go to other sites to play....

I had the game subscription for a couple of years but not last year.  I've discovered that it makes a great gift suggestion (my birthday and Xmas coincide).  I'm SO happy to be back at it in 2021!

Sometimes it is nice not to have to think too hard.   Tiles is also good for tired brains, but there isn't much variety.    

I do go to other sites

• Logic puzzles (Puzzle Baron's grid style puzzles - there are also printables) 
• Sudoku
• Crosswords - easier than NYT

 

 

 

[OH_Homeschooler]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I will also say that some of the most fearful people of the new administration, in my observation, are people who are refugees or children of refugees from Cuba.  They are terrified that some of the younger people on the left in Congress will have a lot of influence.  That would probably go along with your comment about trauma etc.  I mean, a lot of people right of center are concerned about what may change in the next 2-4 years, but most are not terrified.

This is sort of out of left field for me. Why would this be the case?

 

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Eh, this is not great evidence. Here's a quote from the article: 

They were also asked whether they agreed with generic conspiratorial statements, such as: "The power held by heads of state is second to that of small unknown groups who really control world politics," and "Groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public."

ETA: I understand what they were trying to get at, but my point is that those statements are SO broad that they really must only measure levels of generic trust in humanity. So I'm not surprised that these questions measure only personality -- that's how they are phrased. 

 

Just to add my 2 cents...someone posted on Twitter about how STEM has overtaken education as an explanation for recent events. That made a lot of sense to me, that when you start to de-value liberal arts, critical thinking skills fall to the wayside. So you can end up with highly educated people, PhDs even, who believe in conspiracy theories. It's just that education in a "hard science" will tend to focus on formulas and plugging in numbers.   

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

This is sort of out of left field for me. Why would this be the case?

Trying not to violate the politics rules but ... they are terrified of a regime that leans toward communism, because that is what destroyed their families' lives in Cuba.