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.
Cold Air will make you sick.
There are plenty of studies debunking it, and yet I still hear about it all the time.
This is a common argument in our house.
In Germany, people are very concerned about Zugluft, i.e. draft from opening multiple windows.
Not on a train?
I’ve been hearing it for years, always argued against it.
To tilt your head back if you have a blood nose.
This is no longer recommended advice, because you end up drinking the blood which causes vomiting.
- Probably initially said by someone concerned about their carpet.
Way to stop them is put ice over the back of neck, plug nose with tissue and clear clots each 2 mins.
Any reason not to just let it run? If not on blood thinners.
You can let it run.
I find it clots better by using tissues to plug the flow.
-
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker (edit: I have in mind a bog standard UK home thermostat)
-
that sugary sweets make kids act “hyper”
-
that the moon’s apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
-
that your base metabolic rate slows as you age and is primarily responsible for you putting weight on in middle age
In the case of inverter air conditioning it might make a small difference at it won’t throttle down as it approaches the intended, not commanded, target.
that your base metabolic rate slows as you age and is primarily responsible for you putting weight on in middle age
Is this not true?
No. At least, it’s not the general cause of ‘middle age spread’.
The base metabolic rate refers to how your individual cells respire when at rest. And a brain cell in 20 year old respires much the same way as a brain cell in a 45 year old. Same for all other organs. There is a gradual decline but it’s on the order a single percents.
Organs and tissue at rest respire at different rates, so some of the change people notice is due to change in body composition. Muscle at rest burns twice the calories as fat however this is still only a minor contribution.
Base metabolic rate doesn’t vary much at all. The vast difference in daily calories consumed as one ages is general activity level.
Overall metabolic rate = base rate (varies a little on body composition) + calories burned in general activity (varies a lot)
People typically are less active between 20 and 40. This is not just sport but also lifestyle. People become more efficient in their habits as they age. They drive instead of biking or walking. They sit in the sun on holiday with nice food and wine rather than dancing all night. Etc
Lifestyle choice is the primary cause of excess calorie intake and ‘middle age spread’. Not “my metabolism that I can’t do anything about”.
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker
Same with electric range/ovens.
that the moon’s apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
Explain?
Also, what’s the size/proximity of seasons?
The visual difference of the minimoon and supermoon is not that great, see here but hold your phone at arms length. This is the maximum difference (taken 6 months apart) that the moon ever is relative to itself. In practice, from one night to the next or one month to the next the difference is barely noticeable.
When people say “the moon was huge tonight” what they are generally seeing is the moon illusion
The reference to seasons is badly worded, but what I was referring to is that the earths seasons have nothing to do with how close to the sun it is
Ah, I didn’t realize the moon could look bigger/smaller at different times. I thought you were saying that the moon is actually the same size as the sun or something like that.
- that sugary sweets make kids act “hyper”
Do you happen to have a source for that? Coz I have witnessed kids act like a horde of wild monkeys on crack right after eating dessert on multiple occasions.
I listed it because it’s one of the things I would sworn by too having seen it first hand. However when you conduct a double blind experiment, kids still get excited at parties / treats / days out / when their friends are over when there’s no sugar in the treats.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-does-sugar-make-children-hyperactive
In otherwords as parents we massively underestimate how excited or crazy kids can get just because they’re excited and not because of something in their bloodstream…
The claim and evidence here are not logically consistent.
It’s like saying “cyanide won’t make you dead” because, look “people still get dead from falling and crocodiles, even if there’s no cyanide around”.
no, it’s not. it’s a meta analysis of multiple double blind studies. multiple
“For the children described as sugar-sensitive, there were no significant differences among the three diets in any of 39 behavioral and cognitive variables. For the preschool children, only 4 of the 31 measures differed significantly among the three diets, and there was no consistent pattern in the differences that were observed.”
if you did the same with cyanide you would be able to conclude that “taking cyanide and being dead is positively correlated” even if there were other causes of death. in this wide summary of multiple double blind experiements, there is no correlation between sugar intake and child behaviour. that’s not to say kids don’t act up and get hyper, but it’s other causes, most signficantly parents just underestimate how hard kids find it to regulate themselves when having treats of any sort (non-sugar included) or being in a party atmosphere with friends.
-
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.
Don’t assume a berry is safe to eat just because you see birds eating them. You’re not a bird. Your digestive system is very different from a bird’s digestive system.
If you’ve been starving for a long time, don’t gorge yourself at the first opportunity when you get back to civilization. You can get refeeding syndrome which can kill you. It’s best to go to the hospital where you can be monitored and have nutrients slowly reintroduced in a way that won’t upset the precarious balance your body has found itself in.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Ah, I guess the way it was worded that could be it.
I do know tucking some under your coat in a container is one thing you can do, if you’re in a desperate situation. At best that slows down the rate of heat loss, though.
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)
The best way to actually figure out directions is to learn how the sky works. It’s not complicated, really - stars stay in the same place, the sun and moon slowly move along the ecliptic (a specific big circle), and it all spins around the poles with the time of day.
Although, I’ve heard you actually can use moss for packing wounds, since it’s pretty absorbent.
Pretty much anything related to statistics and probability. People have gut feelings because our minds are really good at finding patterns, but we’re also really good at making up patterns that don’t exist.
The one people probably have most experience with is the gambler’s fallacy. After losing more than expected, people think they’ll now be more likely to win.
I also like the Monty Hall problem and the birthday problem.
One of my favourite pages on wikipedia:
The thing about that is that it’s a little too complete. How can there be both negativity bias and normalcy bias, for example?
To make any sense, you’d need to break it down into a flowchart or algorithm of some kind, that predicts the skew from objectivity based on the situation and personality tendencies.
I think they probably appear in different types of situations, not all at once. And maybe different types of people/thinking are more prone to some than to others.
Exactly. I feel like just listing them out is of limited use because of that.
It’s extremely useful, because it’s an index to all the known things that might be useful in a given situation. The point is not to assess all of them, the point is to not miss ones you’re unfamiliar with that may be important in your situation.
I imagine psychologists can do more with it, but in practice the main thing I see formal fallacies used for is as something to shout during a debate, and it never seems to convince anyone.
If you can catch yourself using one, that’s good I guess.
I work in the risk assessment space, so they are kind of critical to be aware of, for me :)
The gambler’s fallacy is pretty easy to get, as is the Monty Hall problem if you restate the question as having 100 doors instead of 3. But for the life of me I don’t think I’ll ever have an intuitive understanding of the birthday problem. That one just boggles my mind constantly.
Lemme try my favorite way to explain the birthday problem without getting too mathy:
If you take 23 people, that’s 253 pairs of people to compare (23 people x22 others to pair them with/2 people per pair). That’s a lot of pairs to check and get only unique answers
Really? The birthday problem is a super simple multiplication, you can do it on paper. The only thing you really need to understand is the inversion of probability (
P(A) = 1 - P(not A)).The Monty hall problem… I’ve understood it at times, but every time I come back to it I have to figure it out again, usually with help. That shit is unintuitive.
My favourite explanation of the Monty hall problem is that you probably picked the wrong door as your first choice (because there’s 2/3 chance of it being wrong). Therefore once the third door is removed and you’re given the option to switch you should, because assuming you did pick the wrong door first then the other door has to be the right one
Thanks for the help, it was easier this time 😅
My explanation is better:
There’s three doors, of which one is the winner.
First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.
Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.
Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!
Adding my own explanation, because I think it clicks better for me (especially when I write it down):
- Pick a door. You have a 66% chance of picking a wrong door, and a 33% of picking the right door.
- Monty excludes a door with 100% certainty
- IF you picked a wrong door, then there’s a 100% chance the remaining door is correct (so the contingent probability is
p(switch|picked wrong) = 100%), so the total chance of the remaining door being correct isp(switch|picked wrong)* p(picked wrong) = 66%. - IF you picked the right door, then Monty’s reveal gives you no new information, because both the other doors were wrong, so
p(switch|picked right) = 50%, which means thatp(switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%. p(don't switch|picked wrong) * p(picked wrong) = 50% * 66% = 33%(because of the remaining doors including the one you picked, you have no more information)p(don't switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%(because both of the unpicked doors are wrong, Monty didn’t give you more information)
So there’s a strong benefit of switching (66% to 33%) if you picked wrong, and even odds of switching if you picked right (17% in both cases).
Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That budgets for households, businesses, nd goverments have much to do with each other.
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 Westerners, anyway. It’d be weird to hear this from anyone recently imported.
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”.
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.
Good call, I’ll start looking out for these!
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease”
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
Police are there to help you.
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.
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.
‘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.
If “common sense is not very common”, why is it called common sense?
Slightly off topic, sorry.
When people say that, they mean they’re so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.
Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
deleted by creator
Isn’t that true, all other things being equal?
Depends.
Compound bows are designed such that you put in a LOT of energy where your mechanical advantage is high (at the start of the draw) then less as your mechanical advantage diminishes (at the end of the draw).
This makes the bow very “light” to pull and easy to hold drawn, but the energy with which the arrow will be fired is higher than almost any other design, save some cross-bows.
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.
- No one deserves a handout, as money should be earned.
- Large companies deserve a giant economic stimilus, because if we don’t, our economy will crash.
- Being spied upon by your government or foreign governments whom I worship is okay, because I’ve got nothing to hide.
- Outsiders that sells goods that can be used to spy obviously and should be barred from all markets forever because they’ll definitely spy on you and spying is wrong.
- 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?
The goal is to show that nonsense espoused as common sense usually comes in pairs.
That way, the liar can hoodwink you into any direction he/she wants you to.
“There’s a first time for everything.”
No, not if I don’t do that thing. I will not have a first time for murder. Getting murdered might be out of my control, but I won’t commit one.
deleted by creator
