Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
Which is it - “Donning”-Kruger or confirmation bias? And why are you still talking to me if you think I’m incapable of changing my mind? Lmao.
You obviously haven’t observed enough of me to justify this judgement, and hence there’s no evidence I can offer you to convince you you’re wrong. So with you having long abandoned any attempt to argue your case and instead just browbeating me, I certainly don’t find any compelling reason to continue talking to you. Bye.
If we interact again, try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn’t hold your opinions, and shape your argument to convince that person.
Donning-Kruger means a permanent confirmation bias, so it’s both.
If we do talk again, I’ll try to put myself in the shoes of someone who is euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessings. But because he is enlightened by his own intelligence.
Yes, it’s classic Donning-krueger.
Anything that would disprove your confirmation bias is simply filtered out.
Which is it - “Donning”-Kruger or confirmation bias? And why are you still talking to me if you think I’m incapable of changing my mind? Lmao.
You obviously haven’t observed enough of me to justify this judgement, and hence there’s no evidence I can offer you to convince you you’re wrong. So with you having long abandoned any attempt to argue your case and instead just browbeating me, I certainly don’t find any compelling reason to continue talking to you. Bye.
If we interact again, try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn’t hold your opinions, and shape your argument to convince that person.
Donning-Kruger means a permanent confirmation bias, so it’s both.
If we do talk again, I’ll try to put myself in the shoes of someone who is euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessings. But because he is enlightened by his own intelligence.