Here's an example of an exchange I just had. The Joe Rogan podcast on the coronavirus podcast said that those who are dying are largely those who are on deaths door step, generally speaking, the elderly and/or those with pre-existing health conditions. Concluding that the severity of the infection is dependent on your current health/age. To which two coworkers who are both know-it-alls, disagreed and one of them said that you shouldn't believe everything on a podcast. This is a bizarre response in my opinion. I agree that we shouldn't believe everything on any podcast, that would be stupid, so where is this coming from? I think he just made a straw man argument so he can win. Oh and while he was saying this he was getting up and leaving the room, signaling that he is quitting the conversation soon after his statement is done. Lastly I rebutted with, Joe Rogan's podcast is extremely popular and the spread of misinformation on a case this severe definitely would not go without consequences from trial of public opinion. He said yeah he has been tried by public opinion and we can see how that's going for him. I just said ok to abruptly end the conversation because I had nothing else to say and no knowledge to draw on to talk about how he was tried by public opinion before which I don't see anything withing a few quick searches.. Am I crazy to be thinking this? How do you deal with people like this? I'm just planning to avoid engaging in conversations with him.. it's just hard to see that working right now since we all work and have conversations in the same open room.
The guy on the Joe Rogan podcast didn’t even say that though. He said that risk factors like smoking, weak lungs, and diabetes contributed heavily to who died, nothing about deaths door step or age was even mentioned. It just so happened that old 70+ Chinese men had weak lungs from being old + being lifelong smokers and experienced 8% mortality, while their female cohorts only experienced 2%.
Yeah I know, I was quoting Joe. What was said in the podcast is beyond the point of this thread.
But it’s not, because you’re acting like these guys were know it alls when you were actually misquoting / misrepresenting the tone of the podcast. If you told this shit to me IRL you’d probably think I’m a “know it all” as well for just straight dismissing you cause you got your facts wrong.
Zoom out or take a step out. Think if it's a worthy conversation to have. If not let him win and walk away. If not, separate facts from beliefs. Also remember lack of data doesn't imply something is true or not. You get frustrated if you engage with emotions. I know this is easier said than done but I've been trying to follow this, especially with kids (who always know it all) and been successful than I thought
Note with kids things are a little different because you don't necessarily need to let them do whatever they think is right
Separating facts from beliefs is something I will try in the future. In the past we had an argument on which CI/CD technology to use, and I think outlining the facts on our existing CI/CD would help in winning against beliefs of a new technology that has yet to be proven.
Slash them using occams razor first and if that doesnt work strike them down with the "newton's flaming laser sword"
Sounds like a couple people I know. But what do you do 🤷♀️. Some people would rather be right than succumb to “facts and science”.
That's why I'm here to ask. I feel this occurs often in offices where knowledge, power, and money are valued and pursued more often than other values.
Well, it does happen in offices independent of a worldwide calamity