You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
I want to point out that critical thinking isn't just about putting the dots together yourself. You can never be an expert on every subject.
Logical systems always begin with a set of assumptions you build on top of. In math and formal logic, these are called axioms. Two parallel lines will never meet; the behavior of gravity is constant, etc. Go back far enough and there will be a set of assumptions that we hold to be true because we have to start somewhere.
Often, misinformation is specifically designed to slot seamlessly into critical thinking techniques by being logically sound... if you build on bad assumptions being simultaneously fed to you.
At some point we have to choose what experts we trust and hold their opinions as soft axioms in our own belief system. Misinformation networks get you by propping up fake "experts" to fill this role, then let you feel "smart" by applying logic to a bad set of starting assumptions.
A huge part of real-world critical thinking is the ability to identify trustworthy experts to do the legwork of studying a specialty field for us, since we can't do it all ourselves.
How do we go about finding a trustworthy expert?
There's no easy answer for that. For me it's people who are data-driven in their opinions, will happily explain and share that data for scrutiny, and who are generally well-regarded in their field, and therefore getting double-checked by other experts.
The nice thing about peer-reviewed science is that you don't have to JUST vibe-check the person. All of their studies will have been reviewed by multiple scientists. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've come up with to date. If what they believe gets disproven by other studies, you can see how they react. Do they dig in, or do they adapt their world view?
Empathy is also important to me, so data-driven beliefs who's execution is informed by empathy.
That was very insightful, Thank you!