Wrote a little Facebook post earlier... I've been trying to convey this message for a while now. Still could use some work. I'm trying to get better at saying only what needs to be said, and no more.
I think now more than ever, it is imperative we follow the science.
However, follow the science, to me, does not mean follow the math being run on a cherry picked data set.
If your tribe, any tribe, is cherry picking data -- question it. Ask yourself, who has chosen the data being presented in support of a particular conclusion?
What are the financial affiliations between individuals and organizations here that may introduce bias in the way the data is being presented? Who are the priests of truth?
Do they deserve our trust when contradictory data is being actively censored, and at no time in the history of censorship have the ones censoring been the good guys?
If you currently believe active censorship is good, as long as it produces a "good" result in the end (lives saved, whatever goal), this is Machiavellian - a trait that is associated with the most socially dangerous personality disorders
-- and I would suggest you look into the DSM for guidance about the psychological health of whoever you look to as a leader, or yourself.
I'm pretty sure our future depends on our ability to figure this out.
To me, it is clinically insane to believe that the people who are best positioned for personal gain are also the ones in possession of the most trustworthy data related to saving and improving others lives.
However, follow the science, to me, does not mean follow the math being run on a cherry picked data set.
If your tribe, any tribe, is cherry picking data -- question it. Ask yourself, who has chosen the data being presented in support of a particular conclusion?
What are the financial affiliations between individuals and organizations here that may introduce bias in the way the data is being presented? Who are the priests of truth?
Do they deserve our trust when contradictory data is being actively censored, and at no time in the history of censorship have the ones censoring been the good guys?
If you currently believe active censorship is good, as long as it produces a "good" result in the end (lives saved, whatever goal), this is Machiavellian - a trait that is associated with the most socially dangerous personality disorders
-- and I would suggest you look into the DSM for guidance about the psychological health of whoever you look to as a leader, or yourself.
I'm pretty sure our future depends on our ability to figure this out.
To me, it is clinically insane to believe that the people who are best positioned for personal gain are also the ones in possession of the most trustworthy data related to saving and improving others lives.