233
People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia (theconversation.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 5 months ago (7 children)

I'm inclined to respond. Not because I'm cynically and spitefully driven to fight you or prove you wrong.

But because I'm skeptical that you are this naive and unempathetic to how other people can function differently from you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    But because I’m skeptical that you are this naive and unempathetic to how other people can function differently from you.

    I've been aware I'm statistically insignificant for decades, maybe longer than youve been alive...

    I'm never surprised or unaware some people think differently, because everyone thinks on a fundamental different level than me.

    For fucks sake, that's why I was asking questions, I was asking why people were failing to notice, and you legit came back with "I don't think you know people are different"...

    Why would I be asking if I didn't understand people can't think like I do?

    So yeah, I vent online. You have no fucking idea what it's like to be Not Sure in real life. And you've lost what might be your only chance on the fedicerse to ask someone....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    If you accept that other people function differently, then why do you exclaim absolute points about how no one does research out of curiostity and everyone does it out of cynicism and/or spite? This thread is not the one where you asked questions which I agree with that comment. This is the thread about why people do science and question others science

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    ...

    I said:

    No, skepticism isn’t enough.

    It’s the cynicism and frustration from knowing someone is clearly and obviously wrong and putting in the effort to prove it that drives science.

    You took that as "the reason everyone does any type of research"...

    They're two completely and totally different things

    I'm talking about what causes large leaps and breakthroughs, the shit that if that person is insanely luckily they'll see the scientific community finally come around before they die. Like Roger Penrose predicting conciouness had a vital quantum component like 30 years ago and everyone else in the scientific community dismissing his theory as crazy until it was proven possible maybe 3 years ago? Einstein wasn't as lucky, he died before Penrose finished Einstein's ideas and moved on to his own.

    The people who come after, may research out of curiosity.

    But that's because they're curious if the shit they've already heard is real, that doesn't drive science, it literally can't be the driving factor.... What drives something is what's at the forefront, bleeding edge stuff.

    I'm talking about the lone guy that walks in a random direction in the woods because he knows that's a better way and is tired no one takes his word, you're talking about the people who turn a walking path into a freeway, both have a purpose, but they're drastically different in almost every respect.

    I just don't know how to explain that in a way the average person can understand apparently.

    The crux is you think all science is equal, and that is a wild and fundamental misunderstanding of the entire process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why do you think all these people were driven by cynicism? Why do you hold yourself to be so above "the average person" that you can't even communicate with them? Why do you consider cynicism such a strong driving force and curiosity so weak? Also your example of a person walking in a random direction in a forest is peak curisity behaviour. Curiosity is walking where no one has been to see where it leads. Why would that not be what drives new discoveries?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Why do you think all these people were driven by cynicism?

    Because if you look at any technological or scientific breakthrough...

    The person who broke through, did so because they were got frustrated everyone else is wrong...

    Look at string theory right now, one person finally got pissed off enough that they spoke up and said it was all nonsense...

    Everyone stayed quite for a bit, then the entire physics community admitted it was wrong and we've wasted decades.

    The bulk of the community knew it didn't add up, but because they werent driven by spite or frustration, they never spoke up. They were driven by curiosity, so the fuetherest they were ever going to get is "maybe it works if we do this".

    It takes someone who doesn't give a fuck what others think, to go against the grain hard enough and say what they know will catch a lot of flak, be cause that's what right.

    Them making all that noise attracts the attention of "the curious"

    If you still don't understand this, or ever have questions about anyone else. Ask someone who was "curious" enough to check if I'm right. I won't see any more questions from you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •