Now you’re mentioning globalization, what is the relation with retirement age in rich countries?

It’s Falkand now.

I’m not sure how the demographic transition in developing countries relates to retirement age in rich countries.

That’s actually funny.

Since 2006, Denmark has tied the official retirement age to life expectancy and has revised it every five years.

What a depressing law. Progress should mean less mandatory work, not more.

Rich countries have highly developed sports infrastructures that allow better detection of talents and training the talents in the best possible conditions. That is probably already enough to explain the difference in results. No need to look for some drug conspiracy. If your city doesn’t have the money to build a swimming pool, you’ll never have swimming champions from there.

and those who can polate from complete data.

It probably has not happened yet because it could have a big impact on EU inflation. Are EU citizens ready to pay the price or will they vote more for far right populists for every additional euro on the energy bill? I think the citizens not directly facing the danger of Russian invasion are still not motivated enough to push the politicians to act.
See the 2022 energy crisis due to post COVID demand and the Russian invasion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_energy_crisis_(2021–2023)

Definitely not. Making food and eating are among my top pleasures, I’m always motivated to do that. So I rather have to be careful to limit my intake when I’m feeling down.

According to their official 30 project website, there are still a lot of 50, but it does look like less than 51%. It’s also possible the report is based on older numbers as it takes time to collect from many different organizations. https://bolognacitta30.it/mappe/mappa-delle-velocita/

Obviously not great if it’s punitive, but if it introduces new creative gameplay or story branching, it could be cool.

Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I’m saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They’ll bring up reasons. They’ll say “facts”(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They’ll feel they’re knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.

My work hypothesis is that most people are actually not that solid, they think they are until you push them to explain, and then they get softer as you raise points they didn’t consider before.

I know.

And for 1000000 times the cost of normal extraction probably.

You said this:

Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong

I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.

Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.

The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation

I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.

Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?

Yes, the fuck.

Just gently question those: oh, why do you think this? What do you think of those people who have another opinion? Keep pulling on whatever they give.

Try seemingly open-minded questions about what they think. Gently introducing questioning will avoiding confrontation can work to shake their beliefs. It can be satisfying to see them become more nuanced as they try to explain.

1. Human rights as a consensual starting pooint of what is good.
2. Rational skepticism, ranking knowledge/belief based on the proximity to an international scientific consensus.
3. Expressing my opinions and questioning others opinions in a polite and nuanced way that allows civilized discussion. It increases the chance of common progress rather than strengthening tribal bubbles.