There is a serious disrespect for people as rational beings prevalent in the culture here.
People aren’t completely rational beings. Pretending they are is showing more disrespect than acknowledging that we have flaws.
It’s treating humans like dirt, like idiots,
Not like dirt. Not like idiots. As though we sometimes act as idiots, yes. Because we sometimes do. You seem to have trouble confusing “always” and “sometimes”.
like animals.
We are, in fact, animals. We’re a type of ape that has a very big brain, as primates go. We have many differences from the rest of the animals, but the similarities with other animals should be clear enough that it would be a severe mistake to not call us animals.
That’s false and grossly immoral.
Ah, now this is a very honest and revealing statement. These are two separate issues, of course. Statements can be true or false, and actions can be grossly immoral, and not the reverse. Yet they’re linked in your mind. Why is that? Did you decide theses statements(*) were false and thus holding them grossly immoral (or to be charitable, likely to lead to grossly immoral actions), or were you offended at the statements and thus decided they must be false?
I wonder how many people are now more offended due to the clarification, and how many less.
Not offended. Just saddened.
(*) Rather, your misunderstanding of them. “People can think P(X&Y) > P(X)” is not the same as “People always think P(X&Y) > P(X) for all X and Y”. Yes, of course special X and Y have to be selected to demonstrate this. There is a wide range between “humans aren’t perfect” and “humans are idiots”. The point of studies like this is not to assert humans are idiots, or bad at reasoning, or worthless. The point is to find out where and when normal human reasoning breaks down. Not doing these studies doesn’t change the fact that humans aren’t perfectly rational, it merely hides the exact contours of when our reasoning breaks down.
The possible (asserted, not shown) existence of an agenda might indeed have something to do with what studies were done and how the interpreters presented them. The morality or immorality of this agenda is what is a separate issue.
People aren’t completely rational beings. Pretending they are is showing more disrespect than acknowledging that we have flaws.
Not like dirt. Not like idiots. As though we sometimes act as idiots, yes. Because we sometimes do. You seem to have trouble confusing “always” and “sometimes”.
We are, in fact, animals. We’re a type of ape that has a very big brain, as primates go. We have many differences from the rest of the animals, but the similarities with other animals should be clear enough that it would be a severe mistake to not call us animals.
Ah, now this is a very honest and revealing statement. These are two separate issues, of course. Statements can be true or false, and actions can be grossly immoral, and not the reverse. Yet they’re linked in your mind. Why is that? Did you decide theses statements(*) were false and thus holding them grossly immoral (or to be charitable, likely to lead to grossly immoral actions), or were you offended at the statements and thus decided they must be false?
Not offended. Just saddened.
(*) Rather, your misunderstanding of them. “People can think P(X&Y) > P(X)” is not the same as “People always think P(X&Y) > P(X) for all X and Y”. Yes, of course special X and Y have to be selected to demonstrate this. There is a wide range between “humans aren’t perfect” and “humans are idiots”. The point of studies like this is not to assert humans are idiots, or bad at reasoning, or worthless. The point is to find out where and when normal human reasoning breaks down. Not doing these studies doesn’t change the fact that humans aren’t perfectly rational, it merely hides the exact contours of when our reasoning breaks down.
They are not separate issues. The reason for the false statements is the moral agenda.
The possible (asserted, not shown) existence of an agenda might indeed have something to do with what studies were done and how the interpreters presented them. The morality or immorality of this agenda is what is a separate issue.