Getting My Covid Vaccine

[Opo]

@Consept Don't waste energy on ideologs. ❤️

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Mannyb said:

@Consept How’s it faulty? Where’s the attack and who’s being attacked? Why do you feel attacked?
I just wanted to talk about our reality and not going into “what if” and “let’s say”.
Do you want to control how others reply to you?

You can't see how it's faulty because you want to hold on to your position. I would be happy to talk about the reality of the situation but then if you dismiss it because as you said you don't know anyone who has it then it would be necessary to use an example or a hypothetical, but then you dismiss that by saying it's not reality. So you can see that it's basically impossible to discuss on any meaningful level

[Mannyb]

@Consept It’s not impossible, give it a try. Explain to me how Elon Musk and I (and many health professionals) are wrong.

[Mannyb]

5 minutes ago, Opo said:

@Consept Don't waste energy on ideologs. ❤️

Talking about attacks on character, right? @Consept

[Tetcher]

40 minutes ago, Consept said:

Well no, I haven't actually stated my position in this conversation. I'm just saying it's faulty logic, but I notice that there hasn't been an actual reply that focuses on my points from either of you, its just the usual attack on character or criticising the use of examples lol that's a new one. 

I addressed your point in my previous reply but you ignored it. In case you didn't see it I'll quote it for you : 

Quote

It's not necessarily a bad argument from an individual perspective. He doesn't know anyone with malaria, it doesn't concern him much then who would you be to step in his life, talk about it a lot and push him to make malaria a big thing in his life ?

The point is how far do you want to push the conversation and step in someone's life if that person doesn't want to be bothered by this story ? On a more meta perspective the system will adjust itself, if covid is such a threat then it will come into people's experience and they will naturally study the solutions. If it doesn't come in their experience then it didn't matter in the first place whether they got vaccinated or not.

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv Glad to know they’re fine :), that’s my point,

Hmmm, let’s try another one. . . My neighbor has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years and is fine. Therefore, smoking cigarettes is not harmful. 

6 hours ago, Mannyb said:

Would there be really be mass upheaval if the healthier ones don’t get a vaccine? ? 

At a societal level, there is a threshold percentage needed for a vaccine to be highly effective. For coronavirus it’s about 70%. 

The virus can infect, replicate, mutate and spread through healthy people.

6 hours ago, Mannyb said:

Why trust the ones that led us into the mess the world is in? 

The virus spreads through human contact. Social distancing, masks and vaccines reduce viral spread. 

6 hours ago, Mannyb said:

 I’m simply questioning the motives and interests behind all that. Why do the health practitioners I trust question the vaccine and the big corps that are causing illness support it and incentivize people to keep being ill ? ? 78% of people admited with COVID are obese (not surprising since 1 person in 2 is obese nowadays). Metabolic dysfunction is the real driver of this pandemic. But hey just trust processed food companies, the media, and big pharma as if they’ve been helpful to humanity. Everyone I know including myself has MOSTLY only been done harm by these institutions. 

There are nuggets of truth in there, yet the lens you are wearing is creating distortion. 

I would drop the bits about “many doctors question”, “health practitioners I trust” “me and many doctors agree” etc. Those are appeals to authority which can stabilize a distorted image and preventing introspection. A mind holding a hammer will see lots of nails.

[King Merk]

I’ve been on the fence about the vaccine for the last few months now.

I’m a young and extremely healthy individual so I chose to wait things out and analyze other people’s reactions to the vaccines first.

100 million + doses in and the vaccine route seems to far outweigh the contracting covid route.

With this information combined with the information presented here in this forum, I’ve chosen to get my vaccine.

Do I need it personally? No, not really. On a strictly individualistic level I have little to no fear of contracting the rona. That said, when I look at things through a collective lense it become a no brainer to get the vaccine. 

My first Pfizer shot will be tomorrow.

(I literally just scheduled the appointment online on my phone as I sit butt ass naked in my bath tub scrolling though the forum. My shot is in about 14 hours from now. Crazy that I have such quick & easy access. Pros of being an American)

Thanks for contributing to the conversation everyone!(: 

Edited May 5, 2021 by King Merk

[Space Coyote]

5 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Consept It’s not impossible, give it a try. Explain to me how Elon Musk and I (and many health professionals) are wrong.

*SIgh* We might as well rename the halo effect the Elon Musk effect.

[Opo]

6 hours ago, Forestluv said:

At a societal level, there is a threshold percentage needed for a vaccine to be highly effective. For coronavirus it’s about 70%. 

Because of the newer strains that spread easier they recently bumped that number to 80%.

[Mannyb]

10 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Hmmm, let’s try another one. . . My neighbor has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years and is fine. Therefore, smoking cigarettes is not harmful. 

At a societal level, there is a threshold percentage needed for a vaccine to be highly effective. For coronavirus it’s about 70%. 

The virus can infect, replicate, mutate and spread through healthy people.

The virus spreads through human contact. Social distancing, masks and vaccines reduce viral spread. 

There are nuggets of truth in there, yet the lens you are wearing is creating distortion. 

I would drop the bits about “many doctors question”, “health practitioners I trust” “me and many doctors agree” etc. Those are appeals to authority which can stabilize a distorted image and preventing introspection. A mind holding a hammer will see lots of nails.

Another ridiculous example... (good enough for yourself, not for me, I’d rather just stick to the topic at hand). 

Appeals to authority sure, I Better listen to you? Don’t think so. Where did you get your information from? Those would also be “authority figures”, unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust.

Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” and harmful meds for decades?

Why should I trust you instead of experts and researchers that provide helpful information? All you’re doing is repeat the mainstream talking points, nothing new to see here...

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mannyb]

7 hours ago, Space Coyote said:

*SIgh* We might as well rename the halo effect the Elon Musk effect.

Yeah sure, instead of thinking independently, doing your research on the topic, and questioning the narrative, you just make fun of whom ever thinks differently? 
Before taking a side, try the opposite perspective, you might learn something.
Here the case for taking the vaccine is advocated by society at large and the institutions of the powers that be (providing the best arguments for the vaccine), now what about a case against it for some people? It’s more difficult because you have to research but you can still do it. Or maybe you’re under your Society’s Halo effect.

Or maybe Elon is just crazy and you are the sane one... Still you haven’t answered. Why do you think you know better than Elon? 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mannyb]

3 hours ago, Opo said:

Because of the newer strains that spread easier they recently bumped that number to 80%.

Of course they did, and soon 90 and then 100%, surprise, surprise...

[Space Coyote]

1 hour ago, Mannyb said:

Yeah sure, instead of thinking independently, doing your research on the topic, and questioning the narrative, you just make fun of whom ever thinks differently? 

No, I did what you literally asked.

Quote

Here explain this following logic & tell me if it’s faulty. Elon Musk doesn’t want to get the vaccine, why? A billionaire who put a car in space and has access to a lot of privileged info is choosing not to get vaccinated

Don't get mad at me because you don't like the thing you literally asked for. 

[Willie]

All done and shot up!

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Mannyb said:

Another ridiculous example... (good enough for yourself, not for me, I’d rather just stick to the topic at hand). 

It only seems ridiculous if one believes the parallel is non-ridiculous.

You mentioned that the only person you know to get coronavirus is fine now as an example of how the virus isn't that big a deal. That seems reasonable to you based on the lens you are wearing. If a mind has already decided it is reasonable and attached to that belief, the mind will not be open to anyone pointing to the ridiculous nature of it from another view. Structurally, it is very similar to say that since my neighbor who smokes cigarettes is fine, then smoking cigarettes is no big deal. Using these types of metaphors can unlock a mind to realize "Oh, I haven't thought about it like that before". However, if the mind is tightly locked in, it will reject the metaphor for some type of reason - such as "that is a ridiculous example. Good enough for yourself, not for me. I'd rather just stick to the topic at hand. This is a super dense avoidance scheme that has three elements: 1) stating the example is "ridiculous" dismisses the pointer. Since it's "ridiculous" it's not even worth considering. 2) By saying "it's good enough for you, but not for me", regrounds the mind within their belief. By saying "your example is ridculous and good enough for you", dismisses both the example AND the person giving the example. A clever two-fer. And by stating "yet not good enough for me", it raises the merit of one's own belief - "I am above ridiculous examples".  3) "I'd rather stick to the topic at hand" completes the avoidance. The mind can now turn away. The mind has dismissed the pointer, the person using the pointer, has self-validated it's own belief as being better and has turned it's attention away from the pointer. Overall, a very tight, clean and efficient defense mechanism. . . Such a mind will also dismiss this pointer since it recoils from light being shone on it. The mind will dismiss this pointer as "off-topic", "long-winded", "psycho-babble", "psycho-analysis", "projection" etc. 

Since you seem to perceive me as accepting "ridiculous" examples as good enough, my words won't carry much weight when perceived through that lens. So the below breakdown is more for other minds on the thread that are open and curious.

1 hour ago, Mannyb said:

Appeals to authority sure, I Better listen to you? Don’t think so. Where did you get your information from? Those would also be “authority figures”, unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust.

Critical thinking is an important filter, yet critical thinking is distinct from defense mechanisms. The tricky part is that the mind can trick itself that it's defense mechanisms are critical thinking. A mind would need to meet another mind at a higher level of critical thinking to point this out. Yet then defense mechanisms kick in.

Notice the orientation of your questions. They are building a wall. "Better listen to you? Don't think so". You then create a high standard onto which you can dismiss me: "unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust.". . . Now check it out. I actually am a scientist and researcher. I've studied cell biology for over 30 years. I'm a tenured biology professor that teaches molecular, cellular, developmental biology + genetics and neuroscience at a University. I teach viral life cycles and conduct biological research with about a dozen peer-reviewed papers. I only mention this because you set that standard of being a scientist/researcher and I meet that bar. . . Yet notice how the mind will now dismiss that with a clever add in ""unless you are a scientist/researcher or health practitioner I can trust." Although I meet the standard of scientist/researcher, you can still dismiss me as not meeting your standard of "I can trust". And it seems like anything I say that does not confirm your preconceived narrative will label me as someone "I cannot trust". There are all sorts of mechanisms the mind can employ to deal with this cognitive dissonance. Examples: "This guy is lying, he isn't really a scientist", "He may be a scientist, yet he is corrupted by academia", "He is probably being paid by the corrupt pharmaceutical industry", "The scientists I listen to are better than this guy". and on and on. 

A mind of critical thinking is very different. Here the mind would open and be like "Ok, this guy might have something to say that can help me advance my view". The mind doesn't necessarily accept 100%, yet it wants to extract nuggets of truth. In a way, a high level cognitive mind is like a thief as it grabs ideas/information that it can use to create more sophisticated models. For example, I recently came across the free-style rapper Harry Mack. He is a genius in wordplay, awareness, processing and communication. If my mind thought "I am a professor, he is just a youtube rapper. He can't teach me anything" - then my mind would be closed to his genius and would prevent me from growing. Rather, my mind is like "He has some good stuff - I can use some of his expertise to become a better teacher in the classroom". I am now watching his videos that teach elements of freestyle rap. For example, what he says about coherence and flow can be used when presenting to an audience - not just for rap. However, I would not be learning this if I dismissed him as "ridiculous". I had to recognize that he had skills and insights that I lacked. Yet for a growth mindset, this is good news!!! Imagine being curious to expand one's linguistic abilities. Then you meet someone who speaks 10 languages. You just hit the jackpot because they are at such a higher level. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” and harmful meds for decades?

This isn't a growth mindset. The more important question is whether you want your mind to grow into a wisdom and expertise or whether you want your mind to stay contracted. This question can be answered in how you respond toward introspecting your own mind. Do you want to discover locks that restrict you? If so, check it out. . . 

Notice how you framed the above question: it has created two categories of people: 1) people that have a "good" track record and 2) people at big institutions who come out with shitty "research" and harmful meds for decades. This is a hyper-simplistic binary mindset set for confirmation bias and dismissal.

Well guess what, you just met someone that transcends both of those categories and can see many nuances from a meta view. I can see the value in your position, yet I am not contracted within your position. I can also see the limitations within your position. As well, I can see both value and limitations in what you perceive as the counter-position. 

For example, I teach a college class on bioethics. Within this class, we take a meta view and look at both unethical and contributions of big institutions related to pharmacology. I have hours of presentations outlining unethical behavior and pseudo-science of the pharmaceutical industry. If I presented this to you, you would be like "yes! yes! That's what I'm talking about!". You would be very open to unethical tricks the pharmaceutical industry uses to manipulate data and the public. For example, using bad science pharmaceutical industries have used funnel plots in which a subset of data is omitted to improve the efficacy of their drug. This is extremely dishonest and manipulative. I could go on and on talking about conflicts of financial interest, lobbyists, lack of consent etc. - literally for hours. Yet this would simply re-enforce the contraction within your mind. You already know this part. Expanding your mind would be to see the larger picture. Imagine an apple orchard that is a mix of rotten apples, partially rotten apples and fresh apples. You can only see the rotten apples. Expansion for you is to see the fresh apples. Yet others have the opposite mindset. Many of my students want to be doctors. Their parents are doctors and they were raised to only see the good in pharmaceutical industries. They can only see the fresh apples. For them, I need to show them the rotten apples in big pharma. And just like you, they have defense mechanisms. They dismiss anything that is not a good apple. This is the opposite to your mindset, yet both mindset are contracted and highly limited. One of the keys to expanding and becoming an meta expert is recognizing that the apple orchard contains a range of apples from rotten to fresh. The next key is recognizing there is value in inspecting both rotten and fresh apples. 

Yet your mindset is not to discern between rotten and fresh apples within the orchard of pharmacology. Your mindset is to maintain a view that the orchard of pharmacology only contains bad apples and everything coming out of that orchard is bad. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

Why should I trust you instead of experts and researchers that provide helpful information? All you’re doing is repeat the mainstream talking points, nothing new to see here...

I'm not an expert in every area, yet I have expertise in some areas. Your question about trust requires personal introspection. Ask yourself "What is my criteria to trust this guy?". What would it take for you to trust me? You said I would need to be a scientist, expert and researcher. I have those qualifications. Yet you've added on a qualifier of "providing helpful information". That is the key. What qualifies as "helpful information" to you? I could provide information that expands your understanding of cell biology, physiology and virology. Yet would you consider that "helpful" information? Based on your responses, my sense is that you only consider information to be "helpful" if it is aligned with your mindset. For example, I could give you information about unethical tricks the pharmaceutical industry to side-step scrutiny and manipulate the public for financial profits. Since that is aligned with your worldview, you would likely consider that "helpful". I could speak about risks of vaccines, which you would likely perceive as "helpful", yet as soon as I give any information that is not aligned with your worldview, it is judged as "non-helpful". For example, I could also give positive information about pharmacology, yet this would not be considered "helpful". If the mindset is only open to seeing rotten apples in the orchard, pointing out fresh apples is not helpful.

As well, labeling anything outside one's worldview as "untrustworthy mainstream" information is a major block. Open your eyes, clear your lens and see that I'm speaking from a meta view. Look up, climb up the mountain and take an overall view.

[Blackhawk]

@Mannyb Do you ever take painkillers? What painkillers? Or some other medicine?

[Mannyb]

4 hours ago, Space Coyote said:

No, I did what you literally asked.

Don't get mad at me because you don't like the thing you literally asked for. 

Not mad, just still waiting...

[Consept]

@Forestluv Excellent breakdown my friend, if anyone is trying to genuinely open their mind and realise what it is to take on new perspectives they should definitely read that. 

I would just add for @Mannyb that these arguments seemingly against you are not necessarily saying youre wrong, its more theyre just looking at the whole picture and trying to let you know that theres more to the topic than you realise. If you think about it taking any strong position doesnt really make sense, right and wrong opinions are arbitrary, meaning that there can be some truth in everything but nothing is 100% true. So when you take a strong position what youre doing basically is dismissing anything that isnt that position and creating a polarity of right and wrong. 

Many people have this type of thinking, religion, politics, social issues, favourite music whatever. if you notice a lot of the way youve framed your arguments could be interchanged with another completely different position. For example a religious person might say "Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” for decades?" when talking about trusting religious leaders track records and questioning atheists or scientists. What makes the research 'shitty' is that it goes against the core belief of the religious person. However a meta view could see where religion makes sense but also why it doesnt make sense to believe it in a fundamental way. 

[Mannyb]

@Forestluv Sure bud. You can rationalize your example all you want it still doesn’t make sense.
Here’s an example like yours, try this: would you board an experimental plane with a new type of engine that is still in testing, has never successfully flown, and that every time they tried it in the past it crashed? That’s what happened with covid vaccines.

Why don’t you start by analyzing your own mind first? Might learn a thing or two, yet your defense mechanisms won’t allow that... You seem to think you’re above all that since you’re in academia, years of experience etc... And yet I should listen to you instead of other scientists in the field for what reason exactly? Specially when they don’t try to assume how certain people’s mind work without knowing...  

See how easily your argument can be turned around? You seem to be the perfect example of the arrogance of academia with your claim of having transcended other perspectives (why do you need to claim it if you’ve done so?, maybe to reinforce that idea and thus your ego). 

This is the longest assumption I’ve read on my mind, yet you don’t even know me. Instead of imagining what you could tell me and how I’d (potentially,  in your mind) react, just tell me straight without anticipating my reaction. I’m not offended tho, but your style of response is condescending to a new level I’ve rarely seen.

Funny you need to explain yourself in such length ? You could just answer directly but that’s not what you’re interested in doing, wonder why...

Why can’t we have a normal conversation where you’d simply ask for example: hey man I love you and I see where you seem to be at, and think I can help you in a (non condescending) loving way, what do you consider helpful information my brother? Instead you just start assuming and analyzing how i chose to express myself.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mannyb]

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Forestluv Excellent breakdown my friend, if anyone is trying to genuinely open their mind and realise what it is to take on new perspectives they should definitely read that. 

I would just add for @Mannyb that these arguments seemingly against you are not necessarily saying youre wrong, its more theyre just looking at the whole picture and trying to let you know that theres more to the topic than you realise. If you think about it taking any strong position doesnt really make sense, right and wrong opinions are arbitrary, meaning that there can be some truth in everything but nothing is 100% true. So when you take a strong position what youre doing basically is dismissing anything that isnt that position and creating a polarity of right and wrong. 

Many people have this type of thinking, religion, politics, social issues, favourite music whatever. if you notice a lot of the way youve framed your arguments could be interchanged with another completely different position. For example a religious person might say "Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” for decades?" when talking about trusting religious leaders track records and questioning atheists or scientists. What makes the research 'shitty' is that it goes against the core belief of the religious person. However a meta view could see where religion makes sense but also why it doesnt make sense to believe it in a fundamental way. 

Why make an assumption yet again, can’t you just ask? Which strong position have I taken? I’m just saying that I’m not getting vaccinated for now because I’m healthy and I’m not the only one doing so (Elon Musk is taking the same position for example). How is that a strong position? I’m after all here to open myself to different perspectives, haven’t yet heard any convincing arguments.
 

Assuming again here with what makes something shitty, ok.
What makes anything shitty is that it isn’t life affirmative (it doesn’t work and has produced harm, like Pfizer’s criminal history for example) nothing to do with core beliefs.