Davin News Server

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:57:30 +0000,  Mitchell Holman says...  

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:vr5eue$rcmp$2@dont-email.me:
> 
> > On 3/15/25 10:28 PM, Steve Watts wrote:
> > 
> >> Everybody wants to drill until the next POTUS revokes the former's
> >> Presidential Decree. 
> > 
> > Well the oil market really was in a glut in 2020, gasoline prices
> > were at a dream-like low. 
 
>   Is that why Trump was trying to RAISE gas prices?

Yes, idiot... he's a smart billionaire, while you are a Usenet troll.

What YOU don't know... HE knows.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-glut-how-to-tell-when-its-really-time-to-
worry-1448989665

Oil gluts are NOT good in the long run. 

=====

Trump still winning after WINNING Presidency!

Donald Trump is STILL the 47th U.S. president.

A Second Trump Administration is STILL going!

============================================================================

Psychologists Identify Why Usenet Idiots Believe Fake News

Thought processes and belief systms that people develop early in life to help 
protect against the anxiety and stress of an uncertain world may help explain 
why some individuals fall victim to what has come to be known as fake news, 
but psychologists can offer some strategies to defend against it, according 
to a series of presentations at the annual convention of the American 
Psychological Association.

"At its core is the need for the brain to receive confirming information that 
harmonizes with an individual's existing views and beliefs," said Mark 
Whitmore, PhD, assistant professor of management and information systems at 
Kent State University's College of Business Administration. "In fact, one 
could say the brain is hardwired to accept, reject, misremember or distort 
information based on whether it is viewed as accepting of or threatening to 
existing beliefs."

The key to people's accepting fake news as true, despite evidence to the 
contrary, is a phenomenon known as confirmation bias, or the tendency for 
people to seek and accept information that confirms their existing beliefs 
while rejecting or ignoring that which contradicts those beliefs, he said.

Many of these beliefs and biases are formed early in life when children begin 
to distinguish between fantasy and reality, according to Eve Whitmore, PhD, a 
developmental psychologist with Western Reserve Psychological Associates in 
Stow, Ohio, who also presented at the session. Some of these beliefs can be 
based in fantasy, and that can lead to what she calls nonsensical thinking.

"From the beginning, parents reinforce to their children the skill of 
pretending in order to cope with the realities inherent in culture and 
society," she said. "Children's learning about make-believe and mastery of it 
becomes the basis for more complex forms of self-deception and illusion into 
adulthood."

Parents commonly encourage young children to engage in pretend play. Through 
this pretend play, children often practice little life scenarios, like 
playing house, that help to reinforce cultural norms and beliefs and aid in 
assimilation as they age. The flip side is that children also learn that 
sometimes it's OK to make believe things are true, even though they know they 
are not, according to Eve Whitmore.

In adolescence, people develop critical thinking skills and some begin to 
question what they were taught as children, perhaps religious beliefs or even 
the belief that authority figures such as parents or even the government 
leaders are always right. But going against one's parents' beliefs can cause 
friction within the family, and, despite evidence to the contrary, some are 
willing to rationalize those false beliefs in order to avoid upsetting their 
parents, she said.

It may begin as a conscious decision, but as rationalization piles on top of 
rationalization over the years, these processes can become unconscious. As 
people reach adulthood, many of these false beliefs and biases formed as 
children, instead of being given a good critical examination, are simply 
accepted and continue to influence how a person perceives his or her world, 
according to Mark Whitmore.

"In this way, childhood beliefs persevere throughout a person's life and 
serve as a framework for processing information in adulthood," he said. "In 
attempting to confirm preconceived ideas, a person may resort to both fiction 
and reality in order to preserve these beliefs."

The rise of the Internet and social media has only compounded the problem of 
fake news, according to Mark Whitmore, upending the traditional news model 
where an individual receives from a small number of outlets.

"In today's media environment, the channels are multiple, and the messages 
are often simultaneous and contradictory," he said. "The receiver is often 
faced with paradoxical and seemingly absurd messages. It becomes easier to 
cling to a simple fiction than a complicated reality."

Psychology offers a few evidence-based strategies for defending against the 
pull of fake news, according to Mark Whitmore. One key to avoiding the pull 
of confirmation bias is reducing the anxiety that makes it so appealing.

"One positive defense strategy is humor. Watching late night comedy or 
political satire, while not actually altering or changing the source of the 
stressor, can help reduce the stress and anxiety associated with it," he 
said. "Another is sublimation, where you channel your negative feelings into 
something positive, such as running for office, marching in a protest or 
volunteering for a social cause."

He also recommends that people cultivate an open mind by deliberately 
exposing themselves to different points of view. This can help them moderate 
their viewpoints and make them less extreme, he said.

Critical thinking is also key. People must learn to question what they are 
told and this should begin in childhood, said Mark Whitmore.

"Developing a greater degree of skepticism in children, by encouraging them 
to ask why and to question, diminishes confirmation bias," he said. "All of 
these strategies have substantial research supporting their beneficial 
effects."

==================================================

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² Explains EVERYTHING!

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² makes for shorter winters, except for when 
it makes for longer winters. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² means less snow, except for when Climate 
Change/Global Warming/CO² means more snow. 

And Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes droughts in California and 
floods in Texas and Oklahoma and generally makes wet places wetter and dry 
places dryer, except when it makes wet places drier and dry places wetter, 
except when none of that changes at all, and then Climate Change/Global 
Warming/CO² explains that too! 

And Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes more hurricanes at the same time 
as it causes less hurricanes. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes more rain but less water... and less 
rain but more water?

And Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes more water vapour in the 
atmosphere, at the same time it causes less rain... and less water vapour in 
the atmosphere, when it causes MORE rain? 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² decreases the spread of malaria at the same 
time as it increases the spread of malaria. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² makes San Francisco foggier... Climate 
Change/Global Warming/CO² makes San Francisco less foggy. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes duller autumn leaves... Climate 
Change/Global Warming/CO² causes shinier autumn leaves. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² makes for less salty seas... Climate 
Change/Global Warming/CO² makes for saltier seas. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² causes the polar ice caps to melt... 
Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² also causes the polar ice caps to freeze. 

Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² makes the Earth hotter, unless the Earth 
isn't getting hotter... in which case, Climate Change/Global Warming/CO² can 
explain that too. 

What's the problem here? This sounds like the perfect scientific theory. It 
can explain literally everything including self contradictory things. 

This means it's absolutely perfect, doesn't it? 

Well no, not according to Karl Popper and the philosophers of science and 
within the philosophy of science there's something called the demarcation 
problem... how do you differentiate science from pseudo-science? 

The left won't LET you, and brands you a denierrrrrrr(whining).