Wikipedia defines common sense as “knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument”
Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they’re a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.
The immune system is strong and defends your body against germs.
The immune system works 100% of 50% of the time. Immunology is the best way to convince someone that it’s a miracle that they’re still alive. Anyways, get vaccinated. Don’t rely on your immune system to figure things out
This is actually good common sense. It works much more than 50% of the time. You’re responding to the very specific instance of anti-vaxxers, whose claims of relying on the immune system instead of vaccines are not considered common sense by most people.
No, I’m responding to regular people. Your immune system is way less effective than you think, hence the wrong common sense part.
Don’t rely on your immune system to figure things out
… in time to keep you alive. I mean, given enough time, the body will figure things out. Vaccines are cheat-sheets to cut that time so it’s accomplished before the host dies.
Or overreact, and kill you that way. Viral fevers, allergies and septic shock are all examples.
Evolution is not a human designer. It’s an endless pile of kludges that ends up working well enough. Although, in some ways that’s even more impressive.
The immune system is strong and defends your body against germs.
Which is why you should get vaccinated.
Vaccination primes your immune system so it can mount a coordinated response the first time it actually encounters the pathogen.
Yup, vaccination isn’t reinforcements, it’s training. It’s having the other team’s playbook before they even step foot on the field.
Umm, it’s your immune system that detects the vaccine and responds to it by developing antibodies specific to the vaccine (and by extension to the actual disease). Just as it would when challenged in real life by the pathogen.
Vaccination basically gives your immune system a several day head start on producing antibodies.
No.
Getting sick without already being immune leaves your body trying to speed-run anti-body development, while ALSO fighting the disease using more basic physiological responses.
And even with anti-bodies, you’re not actually impervious. You can still get sick with diseases you’re “immune” to, as even deployment of disease-specific anti-bodies is a complex biological process that can go wrong, come too late, or not be enough.
Given time, a person can develop “immunity” against a lot of stuff, but that still doesn’t mean every cell in your body is then changed in a way where that pathogen just bounces off.
You see this most recently with Covid, as people who are vaccinated still get infections, but unlike with unvaccinated people, the body fights it off in a couple days, rather than a few weeks.
But it does still takes those couple days for the latent immunity to kick in, and for the body to deploy that defense.
Another person already commented on how different components of the immune system respond differently, and might even be what kills you faster than the disease.
Not entirely true. Vaccines induce the adaptive immune system, which is slow but precise. Getting sick for real induces the innate immune system, which is god awful and you should not be relying on it. S. pneumoniae causes pneumonia because the innate immune system goes overdrive and kills you before it kills the bacteria. COVID-19 induces cell-innate inflammasome activation and leads to a cytokine storm, which then leads to even more damage to the lungs as the immune cells come in. Both diseases have effective vaccines that do not do anything close to this.
Deadly diseases tend to be deadly not because of the microbe itself, but because the innate immune system overreacts and kills you in the process of fighting off the disease.
Getting vaccinated diminishes the role that the innate immune system plays when you get sick, since the B cells responsible for producing antibodies for the disease are already mature. Having available antibodies also allows the immune system to rely on the complement system, which allows it to detect and kill invading microbes way earlier than otherwise.
For real.
Looking up how almost any potentially deadly disease attacks a human body just makes you go “how tf do you beat that”.
The answer is usually just “your immune systems kills it faster than it kills you” and that ain’t some sure-fire defense. It’s a straight up microbiological war happening inside you.
And your body is the “collateral damage” in that war.
Another variation of that is claiming how getting sick repeatedly is somehow beneficial for getting a strong immune system. That ignores research, as children who have a lot of common infections early in life have higher risk of moderate to severe infections and antibiotic use throughout childhood. That also ignores viruses for which a durable immunity isn’t currently possible, such as COVID.
EDIT: Basically the immunity system doesn’t work like a muscle.
I think the immune system can be likened to a muscle if someone really wants to go with that metaphor, but only if you consider vaccines to be the gym and getting sick is uncontrollable and dangerous physical exertion. So, wanting to develop natural immunity is like wanting to get into street fights to build arm strength. It might kinda work, but you’ll also be in a lot of unnecessary danger.
Folk idioms that contradict each other are my favourite. For example, “the cream rises to the top” vs. “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.
Good call, I’ll start looking out for these!
I like to try and combine these to see what kind of reactions I get.
The cream rises to who you know.
The squeaky wheel gets hammered down.
He who laughs last, comes around.
Great minds killed the cat!deleted by creator
I like saying “we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it”.
Most people don’t catch it.
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease”
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
That means you ahould take the immesiate payoff or be happy with what you have instead of spensing a bunch of time trying to get more.
Hehe ok I’ll wear those down votes. I didn’t understand the reference as I heard it first on The Two Ronnies as ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the shepherd’s bush’ which I think think might be a carry-on reference.
I didn’t see why l would want a bird in my hand in the first place.
PS - what happened to your D key?
I switched keyboards on android, new one doesn’t have autocorrect or swipe, but it doesn’t connect to the internet. I don’t always proofread posts.
it also means don’t risk everything you have for a somewhat opaque promise of something better
Pressing the crosswalk button over and over will make the light change faster.
Well it finally changed the 8th time I pressed it, so checkmate.
Apparently some are wholly disconnected, but not all, leading to some pedestrians just standing there through multiple traffic cycles because they read a cracked article in 2010 that said the buttom doesn’t do anything. Pressing a second time definitely doesn’t do anything but provide stress relief though.
Related is elevator close-door buttons. I hold them down for a long time which seems to work well, but for some elevators it doesn’t.
The buttons are intended to be placebo except in some places.
I’m in one of those places. In Utah, many crosswalk lights won’t turn on at all unless you press the button, and the button can completely change the light timing and ordering (e.g. a protected left turn light activates at the end of a cycle instead of at the beginning).
Traffic engineers here are sometimes allowed to do some fairly interesting things.
Same goes for most “close door” buttons in elevators btw. 😁
In my experience it’s only automated in the cities and most of the lights are manual everywhere else.
I think we know it doesn’t help, but we do it anyway.
Serious question, why? Stress relief of button-pushing? Thinking it might work and that it can’t be slower than doing nothing?
I just don’t feel any urge to push the button.
There’s no rationality to it. I don’t get out my calculator and graph paper to plot out the best possible course of action. I just push the button a few times. And sometimes I push it a few more times.
Surely there’s some reward or motivation, whether it’s rational or not. Would you feel any different if you didn’t do it?
If I didn’t do it then I’d be thinking about doing it.
I’ll interrogate my inner experience next time I’m standing at the lights, and I’ll report back if I discover anything interesting (unless it’s really damning information).
Sometimes buttons don’t work the first time you press them.
the sky is blue
an unbiased perspectiveMore abstract concepts that generally trouble the intuition of many:
the irrelevance of laminar to turbulent flow
time and gravity are related
magnetism is not magic
entropy precludes perpetual motionThe sky isn’t blue in many cultures. It’s been shown that words for blue only occur in a language after that culture has discovered a blue dye. And that limitation in available words also contains how you see and think about the world.
This is covered in Guy Deutscher’s book The Unfolding of Language, which is an excellent read.
I was going with Rayleigh scattering, but that works too
‘Building more lanes will reduce traffic’ is a classic.
They enlarged rt 3 near rt 95 in MA many years ago. It was getting backed up due to all of the people moving further out from Boston. I said “It will be full again in a few years.” Yup. It was moving well for a few years so everyone piled into that area because the commute was better and within a few years it was a traffic jam again.
Of course! Our society couldn’t have multiple moving parts, could it?
And honestly, that’s a great example of why “common sense” is so frequently wrong. Saying there’s not enough is basically implying that everyone you don’t personally know must be stupid.
I think it’s just missing a bit of specificity.
Building more bike lanes will reduce traffic. Building more bus lanes will reduce traffic. Building more tram lines will reduce traffic. Building more car lanes will
reduceinduce traffic.Not perfect, but solid logic within reason (Building 100 more bus lanes will reduce traffic).
The most vulnerable will be hit the hardest.
- Countries are rich because they have free markets.
- Tariffs are a good thing and competition is for losers.
- Being spied upon by your government or foreign governments whom I worship is okay, because what’s there to hide.
- Anyone that sells goods that can be used this way outside of the above should be barred from all markets forever.
- If you feel threatened by another country, a pre-emptive strike should be allowed.
- You don’t mess with the sovereignty of a nation. It’s sacred and should be left intact.
- Police should always be allowed to use overwhelming force and their actions should be lauded
- You should have the right to protect yourself using firearms against tyranny as governments in general are never to be trusted.
Is the goal to point out contradictions in the pairs you gave?
A lot of outdoor survival “common sense” can get you killed:
Moss doesn’t exclusively grow on the north side of trees. Local conditions are too chaotic and affect what side is most conducive to moss. Don’t use moss for navigation.
Don’t drink alcohol to warm yourself up. It feels warm but actually does the opposite: alcohol opens up your capillaries and allows more heat to escape through your skin, which means you lose body heat a lot faster.
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Moss doesn’t exclusively grow on the north side of trees.
My brain was like “why do people so desperately need to find moss that it not being on the north side would mean death?” Before remembering many people don’t know which way they are facing (or left and right) usually. (Also, I’m sure I’d do worse in an unfamiliar area)
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
Also, do people not know every berry isn’t edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there’s plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.
deleted by creator
Ideally you’d use an external heat source to melt the snow so you’re not wasting your body heat on it (it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness). Failing that, I’ve also heard people recommend filling a water bottle with snow and putting it in between the layers of clothing you’re wearing so it’s not directly touching your skin, that way you don’t lose a bunch of heat really quickly.
I guess that’s true, if you eat a whole bunch of snow at once you could get too cold - especially if you do it while not moving. If you have a fire, of course this is all a non-issue; just make sure not to light yourself, your surroundings or your container on fire, especially during sleep.
it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness
Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It’s not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can’t imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.
Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It’s not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can’t imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.
There’s always a risk of bacteria. Maybe not super high a risk, but getting food poisoning while lost in the woods can really screw you over.
I view it as a thought terminating cliché people use when they’re too lazy ti fully explain themselves. It can be useful for things that are truly obvious, like if you try touching something fresh out of the stove without protection you’ll get burned, it doesn’t really add anything to bother explaining it.
Common sense itself.
Some people put way too much stock in “common sense” as some blanket assumption and insult to lob at anything and everything they don’t like.
They internally define what they believe to be “common” and everything that deviates is outside of that. They use it to fuel their own sense of self satisfaction and smugness, while additionally fueling negativity and hatred for others.
It fuels their toxicity and comes to define their view of everything, which is typically grossly oversimplified for their own needs.
Precisely.
Is common sense just an earlier, naive label for confirmation bias?
A key aspect is that it doesn’t even require confirmation.
“Survival of the fittest”
bitch, explain cows
Cows are the most fit for their environment. Their environment being a useful and sustainable food source for humans to cultivate.
In all of my ecology classes they were super specific about re-framing that concept as “survival of the fit enough”
You don’t actually have to be the best example of something to have your traits carried along, just good enough to consistently make it to reproductive age and then procreate.
It helps explain a lot of weird survival mechanisms - it doesn’t have to be the best way to do things but if it consistently works, then it’s good enough. Like the old saying “if it’s stupid, but it works, then it’s not stupid”
Fittest for the purpose of being chosen by farmers to participate in breeding.
Bulls seem like they are capable of herd defense, they are kept isolated for a reason. Same with roosters and chickens.
Lol a better example would be “bitch, explain humans” we’re the biggest anomaly to this statement. In ecology we refer to our evolutionary perseverance as “survival of the collaborative”
That budgets for households, businesses, nd goverments have much to do with each other.
They are more similar than they are different though. The numbers are bigger and the limits aren’t known, but they do exist. Many countries have felt the pain of excessive debt, the arguments that it can’t happen to the US are essentially that the US is a unicorn country.
The US is a unicorn country because the US dollar is the primary currency in the world. If the Euro supplanted the US dollar for that position, then the problems with excessive debt could absolutely happen in the US.
That’s becoming less true year over year though. Excessive debt can make it less attractive as a standard in addition to the growth of both the Euro zone and BRICS.
True enough. And Trump could very well accelerate that with his economic temper tantrums. Still, I don’t know what currency BRICS would settle on; certainly not the ruble, not after Putin cratered the whole country’s economy. The yuan?
What they settle on isn’t too important other than it won’t be the dollar.
the government can go into unlimited debt if it is willing to cause a hyperinflation at some point later in the future to eliminate all of that debt.
Hmm. Business budgets are pretty similar to household budgets.
In government budgets thing do get a little fuzzy, because historically they always run a slight deficit until they fall to war or revolution and “reset”. If it’s a rich country, they can raise taxes whenever they feel like, too, assuming they don’t care about re-election.
Hurr durr but the national debt is like a credit card and all debt is bad. China can just say pay up and we’re fucked.
And other stupid shit my parents used to say.
China can just say pay up and we’re fucked.
Yeah, them and what army? (Well, the PLA, but going into MAD and great power military strategy would be too much of a digression)
A classical example of Westerners thinking human laws are laws of physics somehow. I assume, anyway. It’d be weird to hear this from anyone recently imported.
Less tax is better.
No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.
I’m not mad at the huge amount I pay in taxes. I’m mad about what I get in return.
Yeah, that’s fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.
But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)
Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.
I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.
but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.
How so?
If one doesn’t vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.
If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn’t a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it’ll be obvious pretty fast.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced
And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.
Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth).
Refreshing to hear!
That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for
I haven’t looked into this but I’m tempted to believe that immediately. Election awareness is amazingly low, even among people who do have strong political beliefs.
Oh man, I’ve knocked on so many doors where people named the party they were definitely voting for, but didn’t know which level of government the election was on for. Like, they think they’re voting for mayor when it’s actually a federal election, for example.
That’s kind of extreme, but the fact it’s not rare shows you the level of actual engagement there is. I’ve come to consider public elections as more of a safety valve for when things veer into actual corruption, and am not so sure direct democracy is a good idea at all, anymore.
Police are there to help you.
They can help you for the rest of your life
