D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Normally I would find this slightly titillating but as we have just received a letter advising of Mrs P's appointment with a gynecologist with regards to womb cancer, I'm struggling to snigger let alone laugh.
Giving cyclists a bad name
- Thread starter Freds Dad
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Ooh, genuinely sorry to hear that. I hope Mrs P makes a speedy recovery.
Threevok
Growing old disgracefully
- Location
- South Wales
U
User6179
Guest
Does she decorate the hall from outside through the letterbox?
confusedcyclist
Veteran
There is a well documented 'minority group' cognitive bias where all participants of a minority group are tarred with the same brush of a subset of the associated group. It's actually a important survival trait which helps us avoid danger where we come across it, it helps us respond quickly to our environment without relying on our slower rational brain to make a decision when you might otherwise be put in harms way by hanging around thinking for too long.
Imagine you came across an aggressive animal, one you are not overly familiar, and the encounter ended with a bite, you'd know next time to be wary of that same species without thinking about it too deeply. However, it just so happens this one animal was particularly cranky because it had a thorn in it's paw. It would have otherwise left you alone. Next time, if you dwell on the experience rather than flee, you might realise clearly that was a one off event, or doesn't represent the larger grouping. You made the initial thoughts instinctively without applying rational thought, it's helpful for animals who can't think rationally, and is probably a evolutionary hangover from that, it might keep your safer but it's not necessarily a true reflection of reality. It throws up a few false positives, but the risk of a false positive is inherently less risky than a real threat. This bias applies to all manners of quick judgement calls.
It's a great survival mechanism, but it doesn't help us with understanding reality, we are flawed beings. I don't need to remind you, humans don't really see reality, just their own prespective of it. This is why motor drivers who make up the majority of road traffic don't get the same treatment and red light jumping cyslists.
Hence when one cyclist jumps a red light, we are all 'given a bad name'. Where you encounter such flawed arguments, you might be advised to simply side step the other party, as they are usually quite unwilling to participate in rational debate. It seems that in my experience, people mouthing off are rarely rational beings, yet seemingly the most rational of us are prone to this biases. See this case of Lord Winston, supposedly a man of the scientific method, doesn't apply the same rigours to minority groups does he?
Despite what we think, we are really not as smart or rational as we perceive ourselves. We hardwired like ape. /BeatsChest
Imagine you came across an aggressive animal, one you are not overly familiar, and the encounter ended with a bite, you'd know next time to be wary of that same species without thinking about it too deeply. However, it just so happens this one animal was particularly cranky because it had a thorn in it's paw. It would have otherwise left you alone. Next time, if you dwell on the experience rather than flee, you might realise clearly that was a one off event, or doesn't represent the larger grouping. You made the initial thoughts instinctively without applying rational thought, it's helpful for animals who can't think rationally, and is probably a evolutionary hangover from that, it might keep your safer but it's not necessarily a true reflection of reality. It throws up a few false positives, but the risk of a false positive is inherently less risky than a real threat. This bias applies to all manners of quick judgement calls.
It's a great survival mechanism, but it doesn't help us with understanding reality, we are flawed beings. I don't need to remind you, humans don't really see reality, just their own prespective of it. This is why motor drivers who make up the majority of road traffic don't get the same treatment and red light jumping cyslists.
Hence when one cyclist jumps a red light, we are all 'given a bad name'. Where you encounter such flawed arguments, you might be advised to simply side step the other party, as they are usually quite unwilling to participate in rational debate. It seems that in my experience, people mouthing off are rarely rational beings, yet seemingly the most rational of us are prone to this biases. See this case of Lord Winston, supposedly a man of the scientific method, doesn't apply the same rigours to minority groups does he?
Despite what we think, we are really not as smart or rational as we perceive ourselves. We hardwired like ape. /BeatsChest
Last edited:
night cycler
Guru
- Location
- Rotherham (near town)
An interesting report there by the Guardian (in the Lord Winston link).
Surprised at Winston, I always thought he was more credible.
The lords are apparently no better:
"Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Cycling UK, said the role of members of the Lords was “to provide expert advice, not air their personal frustrations based on anecdote experienced through a taxi window”.
He said: “These are respected figures and opinion formers who should know the risk of making ill-informed off-the-cuff comments in the public eye. The danger is that these remarks are taken as fact and do more harm than good.”
There are already calls from some quarters for the House of lords to be disbanded. This just adds fuel to that calling. How can we be expected to have respect for people like this sprouting the nonsense.
Surprised at Winston, I always thought he was more credible.
The lords are apparently no better:
"Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Cycling UK, said the role of members of the Lords was “to provide expert advice, not air their personal frustrations based on anecdote experienced through a taxi window”.
He said: “These are respected figures and opinion formers who should know the risk of making ill-informed off-the-cuff comments in the public eye. The danger is that these remarks are taken as fact and do more harm than good.”
There are already calls from some quarters for the House of lords to be disbanded. This just adds fuel to that calling. How can we be expected to have respect for people like this sprouting the nonsense.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Nice to see the Lords continuing to work hard to make the case for its own abolishment. Good on them.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
The Lords should stick to cricket.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
fark em
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I dunno, he mumbled his way through The Sweney.
