Aside from idiocy, why do some people, even the intelligent,

>>8754938

There are two, and only two, reasons people give to explain the seemingly intractable problem that, given access to the same information, two people can disagree: either the other person is stupid, and doesn't understand what the facts are, or, he is evil, and is either trolling you by pretending to believe something different, or is trying to trick other people into believing falsehoods for their own malign benefit.

This simple dichotomy of evil-or-dumb remains to this day the only explanation anyone ever has for this puzzle.

Notice that this is always framed in terms of "HE must be evil/dumb", not "maybe I'M evil/dumb". Afterall, /I/ hold the views I do because I follow reason and the facts, it's /HIM/ who is wrong, and /HIS/ wrongness that requires an explanation (evil or dumb).

>>8754938

Free will.

>>8754938
To protect their own ego and self identity or group identity.

Simple psychology.

>>8754938
>established facts?
YOUR established facts, you mean.

>>8754938

they're actually right.

>>8754938
swag

>>8754938
>>8754946
Oh no, it's almost as if abstract ideas have multiple abstract answers. It's almost as if established facts can be created to support these abstract answers, but more established facts can be created to support other abstract answers that are diametrically opposed.

It's almost as if being right or wrong has no significant meaning because the abstract ideas in question have multiple abstract answers

>>8754938
RADICAL FREEDOM

I prefer not to think about it.

>>8756069
>YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN'

>>8756140

Which is a safer position. Because now you come up to the real task.

Coming up with probabilistic problems while preparing for the event of a black swan.

>>8756146
People who prefer safety will die not having stepped outside of their front door.

>>8756151
Doors are for pussies.

>>8756140
You certainly can't know nuffin' about problems invented by humans.