So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
LegalMan of The Quash podcast spent over 30 years as an attorney and speaks similarly of the legal profession. Over half the laws are illegal according to the constitution but it's all appeal to authority and obey authority and go along to get along and the false reliance on "precedent" and lies about how supreme court cases change laws subjected upon parties not involved in the actual case.
One did better than I thought. The person who i picked as the biggest fraud or self-deceived pseudo-intelligent of all, i nailed it.
I will avoid spoilers in case anyone else wants to watch and see how well they can judge IQ by appearance.
Noteworthy: Males dominate upper tail end of IQ scores, but women are higher on average. That means males are extremely smart or extremely dumb whereas women have a more consistent IQ nearer center of bell curve.
Apropos your 'noteworthy'... I'm not really sure that that's true for (white) men. I think that almost all white men, if they're not (((influenced))) by (((society))) have an incredible combination of creativity/autism. A lot of 'dumb' white men make excellent mechanics or carpenters, because their creativity/autism is turned almost completely away from math/literature which are (((our))) standard measures of intelligence.
I don't think that the blonde girl who ranked #2 would have a chance in hell at being a good mechanic, just as I would have similarly low chances of applying make-up as well as she does.
a) true (want) or false (not want) implies consensus to suggested information, while ignoring to adapt to change (need). Ongoing change (thirst; hunger; breathing...) forces adaptation...your consent (want or not want) doesn't negate that.
b) RELY', verb - "to rest on something"...life is in motion (inception towards death). Others tempt one "to rest on" suggested information by ignoring motion.
Sleight of hand..."no rest (cessation of motion) for the wicked (departed)". Motion sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living).
...only works if
What if all represents one in energy (Greek, work)...what if everything works; no matter what each one within believes to "only work if"?
consensus only works if...
If the many consent to suggested choices, then they shape the "chosen few" who choose for them, hence exploiting mass ignorance, while wielding mass consent against the masses.
peers who are sheep
Consenting to suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore being different from each other one. Being implies diversity (living) within equality (process of dying)...the few suggest the inversion thereof (equality through diversity) to the consenting many.
Sleight of hand...counting sheep puts "one" to sleep. One needs to be ONE...not count other ones as two; three; four etc.
who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable
Both trust/distrust and belief/disbelief represent ones consent (want/not want) to the suggestion of another, hence consensual submission of oneself to another one aka to authorize another, while shirking response-ability (choice) over self.
The doctors who deviate from
A DOCKED ORE (phonetic; doctor) prevents the vessel from steering within the way (deviate)...
So true. Peer review is in part relying on consensus, but consensus only works if you can trust the peers. But peers who are sheep and who rely on authority for what they believe, are not trustable. Medicine is a major example of where this all fails. A lot of medical 'professionals' are merely liberal minds operating in a technical field. They are conditioned to obey authority. The doctors who deviate from this get ostracized. And the top of the food chain is the CDC, which is politicized and untrustable.
The comments I started seeing on podcasts are, " I don't need permission to think. If you have an issue with the data, bring it up. Then you've peer reviewed me" And, I agree with that. If there's no issue with the data to bring up, then it's just whining.
I can only speak to the topics I'm interested in, but they say they get people giving them more data and asking that their names not be used.
Well put.
LegalMan of The Quash podcast spent over 30 years as an attorney and speaks similarly of the legal profession. Over half the laws are illegal according to the constitution but it's all appeal to authority and obey authority and go along to get along and the false reliance on "precedent" and lies about how supreme court cases change laws subjected upon parties not involved in the actual case.
It's also because law builds on itself. Understanding 5 laws to get to the one that is being used wasn't an issue 30 years ago.
That reminds me of this video.
Worth a watch for the ending lol.
I watched one of these where they inquired about the number of sexual partners.
Interesting.
I accurately picked the top 3.
One did better than I thought. The person who i picked as the biggest fraud or self-deceived pseudo-intelligent of all, i nailed it.
I will avoid spoilers in case anyone else wants to watch and see how well they can judge IQ by appearance.
Noteworthy: Males dominate upper tail end of IQ scores, but women are higher on average. That means males are extremely smart or extremely dumb whereas women have a more consistent IQ nearer center of bell curve.
Apropos your 'noteworthy'... I'm not really sure that that's true for (white) men. I think that almost all white men, if they're not (((influenced))) by (((society))) have an incredible combination of creativity/autism. A lot of 'dumb' white men make excellent mechanics or carpenters, because their creativity/autism is turned almost completely away from math/literature which are (((our))) standard measures of intelligence.
I don't think that the blonde girl who ranked #2 would have a chance in hell at being a good mechanic, just as I would have similarly low chances of applying make-up as well as she does.
So true...relying on consensus
a) true (want) or false (not want) implies consensus to suggested information, while ignoring to adapt to change (need). Ongoing change (thirst; hunger; breathing...) forces adaptation...your consent (want or not want) doesn't negate that.
b) RELY', verb - "to rest on something"...life is in motion (inception towards death). Others tempt one "to rest on" suggested information by ignoring motion.
Sleight of hand..."no rest (cessation of motion) for the wicked (departed)". Motion sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living).
What if all represents one in energy (Greek, work)...what if everything works; no matter what each one within believes to "only work if"?
If the many consent to suggested choices, then they shape the "chosen few" who choose for them, hence exploiting mass ignorance, while wielding mass consent against the masses.
Consenting to suggested PEER, noun [Latin par.] - "an equal; one of the same rank" tempts one to ignore being different from each other one. Being implies diversity (living) within equality (process of dying)...the few suggest the inversion thereof (equality through diversity) to the consenting many.
Sleight of hand...counting sheep puts "one" to sleep. One needs to be ONE...not count other ones as two; three; four etc.
Both trust/distrust and belief/disbelief represent ones consent (want/not want) to the suggestion of another, hence consensual submission of oneself to another one aka to authorize another, while shirking response-ability (choice) over self.
A DOCKED ORE (phonetic; doctor) prevents the vessel from steering within the way (deviate)...
...tempts one to ignore perceivable hunger.
Consenting to suggested (defilement) or adapting to perceivable (enlightenment)...pollution represents free will of choice.