AnarchistArtificer

This is one of my favourite Lemmy communities. I always smile at posts like these (and I often have at least one friend who would enjoy such posts)

Neat!

You're comparing between different sample pools, which matters when we're talking about probability adjacent stuff. We're not asking "from this large pool of people at an airport, who is likely to receive additional scrutiny?" Because of this, your comment about how you've seen people of all backgrounds get scanned isn't relevant to OP's point.

The scope we're looking at is the pool of experiences across one person's trips. Imagine if it was every time that you got stopped for additional checks at an airport, even when you couldn't see any mistakes that you had made. If you get checked because your keys triggered the sensors, then that's a mistake that you can learn from, but consider how it would feel if you meticulously complied with everything you were meant to do, but were still consistently pulled aside for additional checks.

I know that on the internet, you never know whether someone is being hyperbolic, or straight up spinning a yarn, but try to take OP on faith here and consider how dismissive your comment comes across. I don't know OP's particular circumstances, but I have previously made a comment similar to yours to a friend, who called me out on being an asshole. Back then, I was oblivious to the reality of these things.

My friend explained that the first time they were pulled aside for additional checks, they opted to believe that it was just a random thing. The second time, they felt more uneasy, but actively resisted the "victim mentality" (their words). By the 20th time, they had come to expect it as inevitable, and that no change to how they packed, or what they wore would change things. They desperately wanted to believe that they weren't being targeted for additional searches, but after a certain point, it becomes impossible to believe that these things are random.

I was telling a friend about him the other day. She said she found it odd how it seems like he became a martyr for his ideals, in that the way that he is remembered is almost like he's a mythological figure, more ideal than man. I agreed with her that the loss of humanity due to such a high profile death is tragic, but that it wasn't the internet who turned him into a martyr, but the FBI (and whoever else was pushing for his prosecution).

They threw the book at Aaron Schwartz because they wanted to set a precedent. They wanted to turn him into a symbol, and that led to his death. I'm proud of how the internet rallied around him and made him into a different kind of symbol, but like you, I feel sad to think about what could have been if he hadn't been killed (I know that he died by suicide, but saying that he "died" felt too passive). It sucks that he's just a part of history now.

A huge aspect of this also is that it disproportionately benefits academics and students in parts of the world where there is less institutional access to journal subscriptions. That is to say that SciHub has been a significant force for democratising knowledge and countering historic inequities.

A facet of Scientism, as I understand it, is a sort of hero worship of "Great" scientists. Part of this is because it's easier for us to build a narrative of history if we focus on key figure, but that's antithetical to how science actually works. It neglects the importance of the wider scientific "ecosystem", which includes mechanisms of peer review, academic teaching and learning etc.

I've known people who were pretty prominent academics, who got some of their best ideas from random places, like hanging out in a bar with academics from outside their field. But a good idea on its own matters very little: science, in practice, works on a foundation of trust and community, and basically any research has an entire team of people behind it.

I have no doubt that the scientist mentioned in the headline is exceptional at her job, but by presenting her as the scientist who is working on this presents an inaccurate perspective of how these things actually work. I see why the headline chose to present her as more essential than she likely is, but as it seems to for the person you're replying to, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth

I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were "following the science", despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn't be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn't being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it's more like acknowledging that science isn't a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I'm probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it's probably harmful long term — both to society and to science

Edit: fixed grammar

Where do you live that you get garage lizards like this?!

I respect these choices. Peak chaos shitposting energy

Damn, I bet this woman must be even more sick of attack helicopter jokes than the rest of us

One of my favourite silly jokes when I was a teenage emo was "how many emos does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they all sit in the dark crying". I've outgrown much of the crying, but admittedly, I do still spend a lot of time sitting in the dark. I blame the autism.

Hopefully later, I'll find time to reply more substantially, but I just wanted to say that reading this comment, my first response was "hard relate".

I also struggle with a perfectionist mindset which causes me to get into a "failure-spiral", where the demoralisation from failing causes me to disengage and continue to fail.

"After reading your insight, maybe I'm sensing a change in my perspective. A positive change. Maybe I can LET GO of the feeling of failure and move on."

This is a really positive achievement, and I'm proud of you for it. However, it's important to remember that a quest like this never really stops. Regarding my own propensity to put more pressure on myself, and my frustration that I could neatly solve that problem, a friend compared the effort spent on self improvement to my heart beat — a rhythm that is essential to life, something that only finishes when my life does. This is to say that I'd wager that there will be a point where you will fail in your quest to let go of the feeling of failure. You will inevitably burn out and slip into old patterns of thinking that are harmful to you.

But something I cannot emphasise enough is that this is okay. It's a part of growth and healing. You've grown around this mentality for years, so it's going to take tenacity and time to unpick that and build something new. The important thing is to build the rhythm. When you find yourself failing to fail gracefully, give yourself some time and space to wallow, if you need it, then get back up and keep trying.

Maybe this perfectionist mentality is something you will never fully shake and that's okay, as long as you keep yourself grounded in where you're trying to go and who you're trying to be. Come back and read this post, or other writings of yours that remind you that you want to be more than what you are now. Genuine progress is so subtle and slow that it's hard to notice it when you're focussed on pushing forwards, but if you keep yourself grounded and know where you want to go, you will make progress.