What/Who to Trust
I was speaking with my boss today, and she mentioned that you shouldn't have more than one egg yolk because of the cholesterol. I just yesterday read a section in Real Food, in which the author talks about the political nature of the official rceommendation of 300mg or less of daily cholesterol. As the account goes, the group of sciemtists in charge of this were not looking at any studies- they came up with a number based I think on what folks were then consuming, on average, and roughly halving it, in accordance with the idea that cholesterol consumption is tied to heart disease.
So I told my boss this, that there is no scientific reason for that, and she recounted some of the trite dismissive allegations of global warming skeptics, 'You can say the same thing about global warming.' And I said that the majority of the world's scientists agree on the basic tenets of global warming. She asked where I heard that, and I said I didn't remember, and she noted that wherever I read it could have been lying or mistaken. My co-worker chimed in that all of the major peer-reviewed publications have been in agreement about the basic ideas of global warming for decades. I tried to point out that general consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees on every point, or that everyone will ever agree on anything, but I'm not very good at arguing, and I don't think she wanted to hear that, so it was sort of left at that. She said, back to the egg yolks thing, that her mother has high cholesterol and her doctor told her not to eat too many egg yolks.
I didn't want to get into a long conversation about how her doctor could be wrong too, and lots of people can belief a mistaken idea, and I knew she would be very defensive, and suggest essentially that, because I didn't have the hard facts to force her to believe it, that I wasn't really credible. One thing about my boss is that she can be very defensive and unreceptive; I should start working on Ran's suggestion to try in these moments to expand my sense of self outward and spread love, but I'm afraid of the pain it will probably cause initially.
It's just so frustrating trying to interact with people who are defensive. I used to love it, because I'd have my facts and figures down, and logically force people to ackowledge and accept my position. It's so violent, and I don't have the energy for it anymore, or, I hope, the spiritual will.
All of this highlighted another thing to me: what are we to say when others won't accept your words or ideas? If my boss wants to say that the peer-reviewed articles on global-warming aren't valid, or that she won't believe them, what is there to do. I think that once we stop experiencing things ourselves, this realm of doubt is cast upon us and all our ideas and exchanges. I mean, if someone doesn't wnat to think something, short of maybe some Orwellian sort of torture, one can't force them to. And why should I want to force them, except for self-serving reasons? Having a set of shared understandings does make coexistence easier, thhough, so that's one reason.
It can get tricky, and I think it's related to solipsism. The exchange just reminded me, in a roundabout way, that we aren't grounded, and when we live in a world of ideas and man-made constructions, it can be hard to remind people that others exist outside of oneself.
So I told my boss this, that there is no scientific reason for that, and she recounted some of the trite dismissive allegations of global warming skeptics, 'You can say the same thing about global warming.' And I said that the majority of the world's scientists agree on the basic tenets of global warming. She asked where I heard that, and I said I didn't remember, and she noted that wherever I read it could have been lying or mistaken. My co-worker chimed in that all of the major peer-reviewed publications have been in agreement about the basic ideas of global warming for decades. I tried to point out that general consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees on every point, or that everyone will ever agree on anything, but I'm not very good at arguing, and I don't think she wanted to hear that, so it was sort of left at that. She said, back to the egg yolks thing, that her mother has high cholesterol and her doctor told her not to eat too many egg yolks.
I didn't want to get into a long conversation about how her doctor could be wrong too, and lots of people can belief a mistaken idea, and I knew she would be very defensive, and suggest essentially that, because I didn't have the hard facts to force her to believe it, that I wasn't really credible. One thing about my boss is that she can be very defensive and unreceptive; I should start working on Ran's suggestion to try in these moments to expand my sense of self outward and spread love, but I'm afraid of the pain it will probably cause initially.
It's just so frustrating trying to interact with people who are defensive. I used to love it, because I'd have my facts and figures down, and logically force people to ackowledge and accept my position. It's so violent, and I don't have the energy for it anymore, or, I hope, the spiritual will.
All of this highlighted another thing to me: what are we to say when others won't accept your words or ideas? If my boss wants to say that the peer-reviewed articles on global-warming aren't valid, or that she won't believe them, what is there to do. I think that once we stop experiencing things ourselves, this realm of doubt is cast upon us and all our ideas and exchanges. I mean, if someone doesn't wnat to think something, short of maybe some Orwellian sort of torture, one can't force them to. And why should I want to force them, except for self-serving reasons? Having a set of shared understandings does make coexistence easier, thhough, so that's one reason.
It can get tricky, and I think it's related to solipsism. The exchange just reminded me, in a roundabout way, that we aren't grounded, and when we live in a world of ideas and man-made constructions, it can be hard to remind people that others exist outside of oneself.
posted by Archangel at 6:16 PM
4 Comments:
I would say that most people think with their feelings. Despite the bullshit thesis that men are logical and women are emotional, they are both inclined at times to be irrational in their beliefs.
That is why lawyers in court make assertions that they know the other one will object to and have stricken from the record. The judge then tells the jury to disregard the comment. Hmm. Is it possible that the lawyer said it b/c he knows he will have touched a nerve and that the jury will probably not be able to put it out of their minds in deliberation? Of course.
And take the incident on my blog about David Icke. I obviously touched a nerve.
People will demand lots of evidence to sway them from a pet belief and very little evidence for something they are predisposed to want to believe. Take psychics. They are wrong a very large percentage of the time. But the people who go to them are predisposed to think that psychics exist, so even one hit out of 18 misses will convince them the person is the real deal.
One of the problems with civilization-science nowadays is that the funding is coming from biases sources (meat industry, drug companies, etc.). Like the example of your boss and eggs, what do we really know for sure? Nothing. All the pro-egg studies are funded by the Egg Council. That means squat. And as you said, they just pulled the 300 mg of cholesterol number out of their asses. So that means squat, too.
I'm with you that forcing people to agree with you is wrong and violent. That's why I've quit most of the yahoo groups I was a member of. Listserv-type setups are so hard on the psyche. There are always trolls, always people who disagree, and it's so easy to get into a pissing match. I much prefer blogs. People are inclined to be more polite, b/c when you comment on another's blog, it's kinda like you're in their home. It's their turf, ya know, so you gotta be respectful. Although, that didn't stop a couple of anonymous dorks from commenting on my blog. :-) And if someone is becoming too contentious, you can always delete their comments and block them. My house, my rules.
Sometimes I just get tired of having everything I say be opposed by someone who is compelled to say something back. The internet is just so rife with stupid feedback, comments, etc. Even something like youtube. Every video has hundreds of comments. Who fucking cares? And if I say something on my blog that someone disagrees with, who cares? Hmm, I sense a blog post in here somewhere. :-)
Enough for now.
In the end it is all faith. We have faith that those who are in charge of determining how many calories are are in a pack of M&M with peanuts are going to do a good job. So many people have a political, ideological or economic ax to grind that I take most of what I read with a grain of salt. It can be quite discouraging. I wonder to myself how it is we seem to know so much about how the dinosaurs lived and died, but we can't agree on eggs.
All I can say is lead by example, and spend your energy wisely - it took me a while to back down from everyday debates and to learn to spend energy on people who are willing to listen and at least do a little bit of exploration on their own.
Cholesterol and saturated fat debates are usually really nasty. People really get defensive so I don't discuss it very often. There's a good book in my Bookshelf section called The Cholesterol Myths which is good to give to anyone interested in learning more. I usually eat about 3 good quality free range eggs a day. I wouldn't touch most other eggs you find in supermarkets.
Hey All,
thanks for commenting!
Marcy: I think you're right that people are often illogical in their beliefs, and I'm reminded of that quote from Carl Sagan:'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' which Ran comments confounds two meanings of extraordinary. The first refers to claims that are outside of our box, so to speak. The second refers to evidence that needs to be more persuasive than evidence supporting one's preconceptions needs to be.
Anyway, I am not too much in agreement about all the positive things people say about eggs coming from the Egg Council. I think there must be some independent, trustworthy sources of information out there, and have a realy hard time throwing my hands in the air and claiming it's all biased and unworkable. I hated that futility of postmodernism and I'm very suspicious whenever I see it anywhere now. No slight on you, though.
I also think you're right about blogs being a more respectful place- they're good in that way.
Frank: Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with an old friend two years ago, when he was discussing 'facts' and 'opinions' in the context of medicine (he was training to be a nurse). He always liked to put 'facts' in quotes because ultimately, it's all about agreement. I say: 'This book is blue,' and you and I haver to have agreed upon understandings of book and blue to mutually understand that as a fact. When you unproblematically assert that statement as fact, you advance a certain worldview and its assumptions, consciously or not.
Dan; You're right, and I try to not engage in frivolous debates and waste energy in places where it will just be drained. And that's a great point about focusing energy not just on people who will listen, but who will also do some investigating of their own.
And yeah, I definitely draw distinctions between the pastured eggs I get from the small farmer at the farmer's market, and the battery eggs from huge factories that make up the bulk of the eggs at the supermarket.
About Uffe Ravnskov: I was exploring thincs.com yesterday (international network of cholesterol skeptics), and there's some good stuff on there in the discussion section. he seems really cool because he bridges the worlds of the medical establishment and peer-reviewed articles with the fringe and more alternative health folks.
Anyway, thanks again for stopping by y'all!
Post a Comment
<< Home