firemonkey wrote:
There's a difference between whether something is reasonable or not , and whether someone is being manipulated to say that 'unreasonable' thing .
You have adults in a position of power and influence touting she should be given a Nobel Peace Prize for hysterical passion and hyperbolic binary fallacies.
There is obviously a political agenda here,
To me.
firemonkey wrote:
As for the Dunning-Kruger effect - It doesn't work on a "You're 16 and I'm 60, and therefore you're going to overestimate your intelligence more" basis.
Did you understand the significance of the quote I posted?
Do you understand what "metacognition" refers to?
Metacognition is not something we are born with.
It is an acquired ability through significant self-reflection.
And it is obvious to me that she hasn't attained that level of enlightenment due to her unrealistic belief in her understanding of a very complicated subject.
In other words, she thinks she knows more than she really does, i.e, she has "illusory superiority".
This is my considered opinion.
I admit I am not infallible,
Just close to it.
When you were 16, did you even know what it was?
I certainly didn't and I am a god damned genius equivalent to 10 Einsteins.
Being aware of your own thought processes take years of cognitive, err, cognition.
firemonkey wrote:
I don't think all climate change sceptics are stupid, but I do think those who choose to attack a 16 year old girl rather than give a reasoned response as to why she is wrong are showing themselves to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic .
I am out of the media loop you are plugged into.
The discussion about Greta where I get most of my information revolves around objective, factual, observations and adult interpretation based on life experience, not the Disney channel.
The world is full of ignoramuses and imbeciles, young and not so young, on both sides of the political divide.
Here is a suggestion:
Let us focus on what is said by rational mature individuals rather than the cringe-worthy elements of our respective societies.
Pointing out the marsupials by the critics of the, err, critics of Greta and ignoring the emus is a simple "red herring" strategy.
Trumps does it all the time so you guys/gals over in septic tank land would be well aware of this.
It is akin to the "straw man" tactic.
Political don't:
Never ever give the opposition an even break.
Never give an objective Truth if it favours the enemy.
And in this particular case, distract away from rational debate and focus on the ratbags that will polarise partisan politics.
Politics is a dirty, dirty, dirty game and I do wonder at the psychological integrity of the hysterical and/or conniving participants.
I do wonder at the moral paucity of those who disrespect the truth for political gain.
"The end justifies the means"?
I don't think so, Tim.