![]() How about people who focus on counter-custody training targeting grown men? Are they including the fact that in the U.S., a grown man’s chance of being abducted in *any* way is about 1/10,000, while the chance of a female child being abducted is about 1/500?ĭo those courses help parents design plans to help prevent such things, or are they largely just entertainment? This isn’t to say those courses are useless – it’s still wise to understand some principles that will help prevent abduction for adults as well, but are those same people taking into account your odds of dying in traffic are something like 1/77? If we apply Gell-Mann’s principle, why would we think someone advocating this would be right on other topics? If their main goal is to sell products, and they’ll smile and encourage you to buy and carry something with a 1% efficacy rate, why would you trust them on any other topic relating to your safety? Products that check boxes without delivering. We can’t fault people who learned bad information, but we have to ask: Why are people still teaching this and selling tourniquets without windlasses? We know there’s science that *strongly* states that without a windlass, ‘tourniquets’ failed to stop bleeding 99% of the time. Many people learned this as a method of stopping bleeding, and because very few people are called on to stop arterial bleeding, it persists. Doesn’t mean you can’t be courteous, but you also shouldn’t let patently bad information slide.įor example, there are a couple of almost undying myths that many people don’t realize are bad information, such as “I don’t need a tourniquet, I’ll just use my belt!” It’s your time and money, after all, and no one deserves it any more than they deserve respect. This isn’t rude, and you should be entirely comfortable making judgments. So, when we see someone advocating head-scratching misinformation that represents a ‘wet streets cause rain’ situation, we think it’s good practice to either have them explain more fully, demonstrate the validity, or move along. Some of our areas of overlap include topics on which we rarely speak, but we have some experiential knowledge. If you have a problem with the facts, the problem isn’t the facts. We hope you’ll consider it’s value as well. This is a really great quality that isn’t ours – we owe it to our mentors and teachers who came before us, and instilled a sense of respecting those who put in the work. In short, we hope that if you trust our articles, it is because we’ve established ourselves as having an unwavering commitment to being factually correct and able to talk on the subject drawing on some experience. Said simply, if we don’t know about it, we won’t be talking about it. If we know that we’re not the authority to consult for a topic, we’ll find someone who is. On ISG, there’s a wide array of topics written from a pool of contributing authors. Let’s take a quick look at why, if the best someone can do if you ask a reasonable question is attack your character, that you’re probably the one who’s right.Īs we’ve written before, we are consciously aware that there are things we don’t know. ![]() So as long as people continue to be people, you’ll probably find yourself fighting plenty of ignorance… and if we learned anything from side scrolling video games from the 90’s, it’s if you’re encountering more bad guys, you’re going the right direction. ![]() This has a tendency to make people look arrogant or unnecessarily confrontational, and chances are if you question self-styled experts, you’ll find yourself facing down an accusation or two as well. If you’ve ever wondered why we at ISG say that we hold ourselves 100% accountable for any and everything we say, or that we’re always willing to hear opposing views and modify our positions as necessary, it’s for this exact reason. It’s far more difficult to extend that conclusion and say “well, if they would produce information that’s patently wrong on that topic, why should I trust them on * any* topic?” Crichton’s specific quote on the topic can be found here – but for the purpose of this article, it’s mostly important to understand that when facts are presented poorly or in an illogical sequence – as Crichton says “reversing cause and effect – the ‘wet streets cause rain’ stories” – we can generally stop and recognize that the author is wrong… if we know something about the topic first. Michael Crichton popularized the concept which was formed by his friend, Physicist Murray Gell-Mann. A stack of lies and pictures of also lies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |