If so, 50% of our quarrel is because of the messaging differences between the respective countries' governments, so I'll hold off replying further and go back and edit if you are Brit.
As far as 75 years - the info is full of their proprietary research so they want to to keep it that way as …
If so, 50% of our quarrel is because of the messaging differences between the respective countries' governments, so I'll hold off replying further and go back and edit if you are Brit.
As far as 75 years - the info is full of their proprietary research so they want to to keep it that way as long as they can, naturally. But I am happy to agree that there's probably some apprehension about feeding the anti-vaxxer narrative as well.
One thing conspiracy theorists seem not to get, is that often there are quite aboveboard and intentionally organized efforts to oppose yours, because your opponents see how much damage you do to society.
To a criminal, a law-enforcement investigation is a "conspiracy". To a promoter of conspiracy theory and misinformation, a counter-misinformation campaign is a "conspiracy".
As I see it, all misunderstandings between people come from a) not hearing or not trying to understand what the other party has to say, b) pushing one’s own thoughts and ideas as mandatory for everybody except selected exempt figures perceived as “authorities”.
You’ve gone through serious reading and learning, spent a lot of time, and you slowly build your own private vision how this or that is “in reality”. Then you come across a different take, and it doesn’t fit your own findings. So what? A different person has different conclusions. Why would you get excited or offended about it?
Why do you feel the need to teach that person a lesson? Because you know, and you know better? So what? Maybe other people know different, are wrong, and are happy about their findings? Maybe they need to go through a maze to finally find out how to reach their own conclusions?
A safe assumption is that you _never_ know what the other party is thinking. Which is always true, by the way. When things are aligned, we happily glide on presumed understanding and the next second verifies it, then we adjust and go on.
It’s a different thing when you want to pick up a fight. You read a sentence or two, and you want to pour out your unverified accusations on the other. You don’t even know why that person wrote what they wrote. But the best part is when other comment makers take your side and join to destroy the “offender”. You get followers, and this false support makes you feel you were right. And you don’t even know the other person, you have never met, you have no idea about their style of expression, use of synonyms, satire or jokes to make the point. Why? Because a different person sees things in a different way? Really?
That’s the mechanism. No reason to see it as a quarrel or to feel bad in any way.
Why didn’t you look at my post? 192 words, structured, balanced, non-emotional, not targeting anybody, all in a logical sequence, finished with a predicted and exaggerated multiple choice and a closing thought.
Don’t you think somebody had to spend some time to work out a form of conveying a deeper message? You haven’t stopped for a second to analyze what you’ve read. Then, the reaction.
I didn’t want any reaction. Comments are there to stay. You have all the time you need to read, think over, re-read, reconsider, draw conclusions, ask, research, whatever you want. They are not there to justify snapping at others.
Substack like Jessica’s are a great learning place for everyone. They have a certain tone, and respect is a major part of it. I hesitated a moment before posting my comment, because it may appear out of context. But then I thought, Jessica is so committed to trying to find out answers to all these questions, and she spends a lot of time at the screen, all for us, readers. It’s so easy to get entangled in details, base pairs and stuff - doing the work that they certainly have done and refused to share. And we all forget the bigger picture. Four years of life lost, no way to recover it, no way to make up for it. And this thing continues, and we are sinking deeper and deeper in minute biochemical details. “Adding a short comment on this bigger picture might be inspirational for some,” I though, and off it went.
I stand by my motivation. Keeping this bigger picture alongside current developments is the key to remain sane. Sanity includes meaningful and constructive communication. We are losing this skill.
Thank you for the inspiration. Let’s both hope that our exchange will also inspire others.
I'm guessing you're in Britain. True? I'm in US.
If so, 50% of our quarrel is because of the messaging differences between the respective countries' governments, so I'll hold off replying further and go back and edit if you are Brit.
As far as 75 years - the info is full of their proprietary research so they want to to keep it that way as long as they can, naturally. But I am happy to agree that there's probably some apprehension about feeding the anti-vaxxer narrative as well.
One thing conspiracy theorists seem not to get, is that often there are quite aboveboard and intentionally organized efforts to oppose yours, because your opponents see how much damage you do to society.
To a criminal, a law-enforcement investigation is a "conspiracy". To a promoter of conspiracy theory and misinformation, a counter-misinformation campaign is a "conspiracy".
As I see it, all misunderstandings between people come from a) not hearing or not trying to understand what the other party has to say, b) pushing one’s own thoughts and ideas as mandatory for everybody except selected exempt figures perceived as “authorities”.
You’ve gone through serious reading and learning, spent a lot of time, and you slowly build your own private vision how this or that is “in reality”. Then you come across a different take, and it doesn’t fit your own findings. So what? A different person has different conclusions. Why would you get excited or offended about it?
Why do you feel the need to teach that person a lesson? Because you know, and you know better? So what? Maybe other people know different, are wrong, and are happy about their findings? Maybe they need to go through a maze to finally find out how to reach their own conclusions?
A safe assumption is that you _never_ know what the other party is thinking. Which is always true, by the way. When things are aligned, we happily glide on presumed understanding and the next second verifies it, then we adjust and go on.
It’s a different thing when you want to pick up a fight. You read a sentence or two, and you want to pour out your unverified accusations on the other. You don’t even know why that person wrote what they wrote. But the best part is when other comment makers take your side and join to destroy the “offender”. You get followers, and this false support makes you feel you were right. And you don’t even know the other person, you have never met, you have no idea about their style of expression, use of synonyms, satire or jokes to make the point. Why? Because a different person sees things in a different way? Really?
That’s the mechanism. No reason to see it as a quarrel or to feel bad in any way.
Why didn’t you look at my post? 192 words, structured, balanced, non-emotional, not targeting anybody, all in a logical sequence, finished with a predicted and exaggerated multiple choice and a closing thought.
Don’t you think somebody had to spend some time to work out a form of conveying a deeper message? You haven’t stopped for a second to analyze what you’ve read. Then, the reaction.
I didn’t want any reaction. Comments are there to stay. You have all the time you need to read, think over, re-read, reconsider, draw conclusions, ask, research, whatever you want. They are not there to justify snapping at others.
Substack like Jessica’s are a great learning place for everyone. They have a certain tone, and respect is a major part of it. I hesitated a moment before posting my comment, because it may appear out of context. But then I thought, Jessica is so committed to trying to find out answers to all these questions, and she spends a lot of time at the screen, all for us, readers. It’s so easy to get entangled in details, base pairs and stuff - doing the work that they certainly have done and refused to share. And we all forget the bigger picture. Four years of life lost, no way to recover it, no way to make up for it. And this thing continues, and we are sinking deeper and deeper in minute biochemical details. “Adding a short comment on this bigger picture might be inspirational for some,” I though, and off it went.
I stand by my motivation. Keeping this bigger picture alongside current developments is the key to remain sane. Sanity includes meaningful and constructive communication. We are losing this skill.
Thank you for the inspiration. Let’s both hope that our exchange will also inspire others.
I'll take that as a Yes.
Sometimes its discussion. Sometimes it's a war of words.
Discussion comes first. We’ve got enough wars.