Wikipedia defines common sense as “knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument”
Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they’re a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.
“There’s a first time for everything.”
No, not if I don’t do that thing. I will not have a first time for murder. Getting murdered might be out of my control, but I won’t commit one.
That’s more of an turn-of-phrase, no?
The immune system is strong and defends your body against germs.
The immune system works 100% of 50% of the time. Immunology is the best way to convince someone that it’s a miracle that they’re still alive. Anyways, get vaccinated. Don’t rely on your immune system to figure things out
This is actually good common sense. It works much more than 50% of the time. You’re responding to the very specific instance of anti-vaxxers, whose claims of relying on the immune system instead of vaccines are not considered common sense by most people.
No, I’m responding to regular people. Your immune system is way less effective than you think, hence the wrong common sense part.
Umm, it’s your immune system that detects the vaccine and responds to it by developing antibodies specific to the vaccine (and by extension to the actual disease). Just as it would when challenged in real life by the pathogen.
Vaccination basically gives your immune system a several day head start on producing antibodies.
No.
Getting sick without already being immune leaves your body trying to speed-run anti-body development, while ALSO fighting the disease using more basic physiological responses.
And even with anti-bodies, you’re not actually impervious. You can still get sick with diseases you’re “immune” to, as even deployment of disease-specific anti-bodies is a complex biological process that can go wrong, come too late, or not be enough.
Given time, a person can develop “immunity” against a lot of stuff, but that still doesn’t mean every cell in your body is then changed in a way where that pathogen just bounces off.
You see this most recently with Covid, as people who are vaccinated still get infections, but unlike with unvaccinated people, the body fights it off in a couple days, rather than a few weeks.
But it does still takes those couple days for the latent immunity to kick in, and for the body to deploy that defense.
Another person already commented on how different components of the immune system respond differently, and might even be what kills you faster than the disease.
Not entirely true. Vaccines induce the adaptive immune system, which is slow but precise. Getting sick for real induces the innate immune system, which is god awful and you should not be relying on it. S. pneumoniae causes pneumonia because the innate immune system goes overdrive and kills you before it kills the bacteria. COVID-19 induces cell-innate inflammasome activation and leads to a cytokine storm, which then leads to even more damage to the lungs as the immune cells come in. Both diseases have effective vaccines that do not do anything close to this.
Deadly diseases tend to be deadly not because of the microbe itself, but because the innate immune system overreacts and kills you in the process of fighting off the disease.
Getting vaccinated diminishes the role that the innate immune system plays when you get sick, since the B cells responsible for producing antibodies for the disease are already mature. Having available antibodies also allows the immune system to rely on the complement system, which allows it to detect and kill invading microbes way earlier than otherwise.
Don’t rely on your immune system to figure things out
… in time to keep you alive. I mean, given enough time, the body will figure things out. Vaccines are cheat-sheets to cut that time so it’s accomplished before the host dies.
Or overreact, and kill you that way. Viral fevers, allergies and septic shock are all examples.
Evolution is not a human designer. It’s an endless pile of kludges that ends up working well enough. Although, in some ways that’s even more impressive.
Another variation of that is claiming how getting sick repeatedly is somehow beneficial for getting a strong immune system. That ignores research, as children who have a lot of common infections early in life have higher risk of moderate to severe infections and antibiotic use throughout childhood. That also ignores viruses for which a durable immunity isn’t currently possible, such as COVID.
EDIT: Basically the immunity system doesn’t work like a muscle.
I think the immune system can be likened to a muscle if someone really wants to go with that metaphor, but only if you consider vaccines to be the gym and getting sick is uncontrollable and dangerous physical exertion. So, wanting to develop natural immunity is like wanting to get into street fights to build arm strength. It might kinda work, but you’ll also be in a lot of unnecessary danger.
The immune system is strong and defends your body against germs.
Which is why you should get vaccinated.
Vaccination primes your immune system so it can mount a coordinated response the first time it actually encounters the pathogen.
Yup, vaccination isn’t reinforcements, it’s training. It’s having the other team’s playbook before they even step foot on the field.
For real.
Looking up how almost any potentially deadly disease attacks a human body just makes you go “how tf do you beat that”.
The answer is usually just “your immune systems kills it faster than it kills you” and that ain’t some sure-fire defense. It’s a straight up microbiological war happening inside you.
“Survival of the fittest”
bitch, explain cows
Bulls seem like they are capable of herd defense, they are kept isolated for a reason. Same with roosters and chickens.
Lol a better example would be “bitch, explain humans” we’re the biggest anomaly to this statement. In ecology we refer to our evolutionary perseverance as “survival of the collaborative”
Fittest for the purpose of being chosen by farmers to participate in breeding.
Cows are the most fit for their environment. Their environment being a useful and sustainable food source for humans to cultivate.
In all of my ecology classes they were super specific about re-framing that concept as “survival of the fit enough”
You don’t actually have to be the best example of something to have your traits carried along, just good enough to consistently make it to reproductive age and then procreate.
It helps explain a lot of weird survival mechanisms - it doesn’t have to be the best way to do things but if it consistently works, then it’s good enough. Like the old saying “if it’s stupid, but it works, then it’s not stupid”
Folk idioms that contradict each other are my favourite. For example, “the cream rises to the top” vs. “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”.
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease”
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
I like to try and combine these to see what kind of reactions I get.
The cream rises to who you know.
The squeaky wheel gets hammered down.
He who laughs last, comes around.
Great minds killed the cat!there’s actually aword for this type of mixed idiom: malaphor
I like saying “we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it”.
Most people don’t catch it.
Good call, I’ll start looking out for these!
-
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker
-
that sugary sweets make kids act “hyper”
-
that the moon’s apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
-
that your base metabolic rate slows as you age is primarily responsible for you putting weight on in middle age
In the case of inverter air conditioning it might make a small difference at it won’t throttle down as it approaches the intended, not commanded, target.
- that sugary sweets make kids act “hyper”
Do you happen to have a source for that? Coz I have witnessed kids act like a horde of wild monkeys on crack right after eating dessert on multiple occasions.
I listed it because it’s one of the things I would sworn by too having seen it first hand. However when you conduct a double blind experiment, kids still get excited at parties / treats / days out / when their friends are over when there’s no sugar in the treats.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-does-sugar-make-children-hyperactive
In otherwords as parents we massively underestimate how excited or crazy kids can get just because they’re excited and not because of something in their bloodstream…
That may be the case. I will need to conduct my own research^^
The claim and evidence here are not logically consistent.
It’s like saying “cyanide won’t make you dead” because, look “people still get dead from falling and crocodiles, even if there’s no cyanide around”.
no, it’s not. it’s a meta analysis of multiple double blind studies. multiple
“For the children described as sugar-sensitive, there were no significant differences among the three diets in any of 39 behavioral and cognitive variables. For the preschool children, only 4 of the 31 measures differed significantly among the three diets, and there was no consistent pattern in the differences that were observed.”
if you did the same with cyanide you would be able to conclude that “taking cyanide and being dead is positively correlated” even if there were other causes of death. in this wide summary of multiple double blind experiements, there is no correlation between sugar intake and child behaviour. that’s not to say kids don’t act up and get hyper, but it’s other causes, most signficantly being parents just underestimate how hard kids find it to regulate themselves when having treats of any sort (non-sugar included) or being in a party atmosphere with friends.
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker
Same with electric range/ovens.
Is this true?? I always assumed that electric ranges simply had a variable duty cycle controlled by the knob. That would mean that if you want to get a pot up to a specific temperature, the fastest way is to set the knob to high until you reach the temperature, then reduce the knob to the desired temperature.
This is different from how an HVAC works, where you set an actual temperature and the HVAC runs until that temperature is reached.
But I could be totally wrong about how electric ranges work.
I did a test on mine using two burners and an infrared thermometer: Starting cold, I turned one burner to medium and another to high, and measured them as they heated up. They heated at the same rate until the medium burner reached its target temperature.
Interesting… if that’s true, then you can know what temperature each setting on the knob is.
I wonder if this is true for all electric ranges?
Huh, these are all common sense statements I would have assumed true. Four our of four, good work!
that your base metabolic rate slows as you age and is primarily responsible for you putting weight on in middle age
Is this not true?
No. At least, it’s not the general cause of ‘middle age spread’.
The base metabolic rate refers to how your individual cells respire when at rest. And a brain cell in 20 year old respires much the same way as a brain cell in a 45 year old. Same for all other organs. There is a gradual decline but it’s on the order a single percents.
Organs and tissue at rest respire at different rates, so some of the change people notice is due to change in body composition. Muscle at rest burns twice the calories as fat however this is still only a minor contribution.
Base metabolic rate doesn’t vary much at all. The vast difference in daily calories consumed as one ages is general activity level.
Overall metabolic rate = base rate (varies a little on body composition) + calories burned in general activity (varies a lot)
People typically are less active between 20 and 40. This is not just sport but also lifestyle. People become more efficient in their habits as they age. They drive instead of biking or walking. They sit in the sun on holiday with nice food and wine rather than dancing all night. Etc
Lifestyle choice is the primary cause of excess calorie intake and ‘middle age spread’. Not “my metabolism that I can’t do anything about”.
that the moon’s apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
Explain?
Also, what’s the size/proximity of seasons?
The visual difference of the minimoon and supermoon is not that great, see here but hold your phone at arms length. This is the maximum difference (taken 6 months apart) that the moon ever is relative to itself. In practice, from one night to the next or one month to the next the difference is barely noticeable.
When people say “the moon was huge tonight” what they are generally seeing is the moon illusion
The reference to seasons is badly worded, but what I was referring to is that the earths seasons have nothing to do with how close to the sun it is
Ah, I didn’t realize the moon could look bigger/smaller at different times. I thought you were saying that the moon is actually the same size as the sun or something like that.
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker
If you have a 2 stage furnace, this may actually be a thing.
-
A lot of outdoor survival “common sense” can get you killed:
Moss doesn’t exclusively grow on the north side of trees. Local conditions are too chaotic and affect what side is most conducive to moss. Don’t use moss for navigation.
Don’t drink alcohol to warm yourself up. It feels warm but actually does the opposite: alcohol opens up your capillaries and allows more heat to escape through your skin, which means you lose body heat a lot faster.
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
Also, do people not know every berry isn’t edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there’s plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.
Ideally you’d use an external heat source to melt the snow so you’re not wasting your body heat on it (it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness). Failing that, I’ve also heard people recommend filling a water bottle with snow and putting it in between the layers of clothing you’re wearing so it’s not directly touching your skin, that way you don’t lose a bunch of heat really quickly.
I guess that’s true, if you eat a whole bunch of snow at once you could get too cold - especially if you do it while not moving. If you have a fire, of course this is all a non-issue; just make sure not to light yourself, your surroundings or your container on fire, especially during sleep.
it’s also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you’re lost in the wilderness
Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It’s not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can’t imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it
“Bigger is better”
To tilt your head back if you have a blood nose.
This is no longer recommended advice, because you end up drinking the blood which causes vomiting.
- Probably initially said by someone concerned about their carpet.
Way to stop them is put ice over the back of neck, plug nose with tissue and clear clots each 2 mins.
Any reason not to just let it run? If not on blood thinners.
You can let it run.
I find it clots better by using tissues to plug the flow.
The harder it is to pull a bow, the faster the arrows.
Isn’t that true, all other things being equal?
If everything is equal, the arrow gets out of tune. If you tune the arrow it becomes heavier.
Depends.
Compound bows are designed such that you put in a LOT of energy where your mechanical advantage is high (at the start of the draw) then less as your mechanical advantage diminishes (at the end of the draw).
This makes the bow very “light” to pull and easy to hold drawn, but the energy with which the arrow will be fired is higher than almost any other design, save some cross-bows.
So, correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t that also change the way that the arrow is accelerated by the bow? Like, it starts a little slower, and then has increased acceleration until the string returns the the starting position? Whereas a long or recurve bow is going to have the hardest acceleration at the very start, since that’s where the most energy is stored?
And if that’s true, how does that affect the flight of the arrow? I know that with stick bows, the arrow bows as it’s being accelerated, and then wobbles slightly before stabilizing a few feet in front of the bow. Some of that is likely because the arrow has to bend around the bow stave. But do you see less of that with a compound bow?
A modern compound bow will fire the arrow in a straight line, directly forwards, as the bow will have a section that allows the arrow to be shot through the space that would be occupied by the stave on a traditional bow. While the bow must obviously be gripped in line with the tension, the rest of the center section is offset to allow the archer to both shoot and sight directly along the line the arrow will travel.
How much firing then causes the arrow to bend would depend entirely on the stiffness of the arrow, but the resulting total energy being imparted is not going to be different just because the acceleration curve is different. If the arrow bends, then yes, you’d lose some energy to that.
But if anything, starting off slow and then accelerating harder as you go is the gentler and more efficient acceleration curve when accounting for that.
In a traditional long bow yes. In a modern compound bow, not necessarily.
That budgets for households, businesses, nd goverments have much to do with each other.
Hurr durr but the national debt is like a credit card and all debt is bad. China can just say pay up and we’re fucked.
And other stupid shit my parents used to say.
China can just say pay up and we’re fucked.
Yeah, them and what army? (Well, the PLA, but going into MAD and great power military strategy would be too much of a digression)
A classical example of Westerners thinking human laws are laws of physics somehow. I assume, anyway. It’d be weird to hear this from anyone recently imported.
They are more similar than they are different though. The numbers are bigger and the limits aren’t known, but they do exist. Many countries have felt the pain of excessive debt, the arguments that it can’t happen to the US are essentially that the US is a unicorn country.
The US is a unicorn country because the US dollar is the primary currency in the world. If the Euro supplanted the US dollar for that position, then the problems with excessive debt could absolutely happen in the US.
That’s becoming less true year over year though. Excessive debt can make it less attractive as a standard in addition to the growth of both the Euro zone and BRICS.
True enough. And Trump could very well accelerate that with his economic temper tantrums. Still, I don’t know what currency BRICS would settle on; certainly not the ruble, not after Putin cratered the whole country’s economy. The yuan?
What they settle on isn’t too important other than it won’t be the dollar.
the government can go into unlimited debt if it is willing to cause a hyperinflation at some point later in the future to eliminate all of that debt.
Hmm. Business budgets are pretty similar to household budgets.
In government budgets thing do get a little fuzzy, because historically they always run a slight deficit until they fall to war or revolution and “reset”. If it’s a rich country, they can raise taxes whenever they feel like, too, assuming they don’t care about re-election.
Common sense isn’t just “not so common,” it is a fundamentally broken concept at its core and a crutch that people use to hoist themselves above others they feel they are better than.
Cold Air will make you sick.
There are plenty of studies debunking it, and yet I still hear about it all the time.
This is a common argument in our house.
In Germany, people are very concerned about Zugluft, i.e. draft from opening multiple windows.
I’ve been hearing it for years, always argued against it.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
That means you ahould take the immesiate payoff or be happy with what you have instead of spensing a bunch of time trying to get more.
Hehe ok I’ll wear those down votes. I didn’t understand the reference as I heard it first on The Two Ronnies as ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the shepherd’s bush’ which I think think might be a carry-on reference.
I didn’t see why l would want a bird in my hand in the first place.
PS - what happened to your D key?
I switched keyboards on android, new one doesn’t have autocorrect or swipe, but it doesn’t connect to the internet. I don’t always proofread posts.
it also means don’t risk everything you have for a somewhat opaque promise of something better
If “common sense is not very common”, why is it called common sense?
Slightly off topic, sorry.
When people say that, they mean they’re so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.
Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
Less tax is better.
No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.
I’m not mad at the huge amount I pay in taxes. I’m mad about what I get in return.
Yeah, that’s fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.
But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)
Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.
I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.
but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.
How so?
If one doesn’t vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.
If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn’t a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it’ll be obvious pretty fast.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced
And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.
Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth).
Refreshing to hear!
That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for
I haven’t looked into this but I’m tempted to believe that immediately. Election awareness is amazingly low, even among people who do have strong political beliefs.
Oh man, I’ve knocked on so many doors where people named the party they were definitely voting for, but didn’t know which level of government the election was on for. Like, they think they’re voting for mayor when it’s actually a federal election, for example.
That’s kind of extreme, but the fact it’s not rare shows you the level of actual engagement there is. I’ve come to consider public elections as more of a safety valve for when things veer into actual corruption, and am not so sure direct democracy is a good idea at all, anymore.
