When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.
All things required for manufacturing goods. Its in the link.
Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector.
That’s a narrow constraint you put on this, it isn’t mine.
The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people’s lives.
Improve lives how? That’s a broad statement. My life can be improved by getting a new car every week. Doesn’t mean it didn’t cost a large amount or energy to produce and dispose of.
Maybe. Just maybe. People are able to think for themselves.
If that were true, how does a lawyer convince someone to divulge information in a deposition of a person that did not want to divulge information. You make a choice, but your choices are influenced by more than ourselves.
I provided one link for support. That does not mean its the only thing. Its used to show there is evidence and you are suppose to read between the lines that there is a whole field with much more. Its a stepping stone, not a destination. But you said this:
It’s extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.
"I believe this only underscores my point. I don’t think you are a psychologist. But this is something we all have heard online lots in these arguments. We all have been influenced by this refuting sentence and often repeat it. I’ve done it in the past. It’s something that affects our choices because at some point it has left a memorable impact on us. If you search for ‘reproducibility,’ you’ll find headline after headline on the topic. Oftentimes, it’s used in internet arguments by people like us to dismiss things. It’s a learned behavior in our culture war discourse. It has been ingrained as a way to reject an argument and to disregard the ‘other side.’ You didn’t engage with the study itself. You didn’t demonstrate that the article I shared was incorrect. Instead, you simply rejected it by citing ‘reproducibility problems.’ That’s a learned behavior. You didn’t independently pore over academic studies to come to this conclusion; rather, you were influenced by someone else to use this argument in these instances.
I was caught peddling bunk folk psychology to peddle my conspiracy theory about we are all getting manipulated to serve the evil overlords and that only makes my point stronger
You didn’t engage with the study itself.
I don’t engage with flat earth bullshit or other conspiracy theories either. I engage with things that are worth engaging with. An Amazon pundit piece peddling crap about your free will being taken away subliminal messages goes into the instant trash with the other garbage.
All things required for manufacturing goods. Its in the link.
That’s a narrow constraint you put on this, it isn’t mine.
Improve lives how? That’s a broad statement. My life can be improved by getting a new car every week. Doesn’t mean it didn’t cost a large amount or energy to produce and dispose of.
If that were true, how does a lawyer convince someone to divulge information in a deposition of a person that did not want to divulge information. You make a choice, but your choices are influenced by more than ourselves.
I provided one link for support. That does not mean its the only thing. Its used to show there is evidence and you are suppose to read between the lines that there is a whole field with much more. Its a stepping stone, not a destination. But you said this:
"I believe this only underscores my point. I don’t think you are a psychologist. But this is something we all have heard online lots in these arguments. We all have been influenced by this refuting sentence and often repeat it. I’ve done it in the past. It’s something that affects our choices because at some point it has left a memorable impact on us. If you search for ‘reproducibility,’ you’ll find headline after headline on the topic. Oftentimes, it’s used in internet arguments by people like us to dismiss things. It’s a learned behavior in our culture war discourse. It has been ingrained as a way to reject an argument and to disregard the ‘other side.’ You didn’t engage with the study itself. You didn’t demonstrate that the article I shared was incorrect. Instead, you simply rejected it by citing ‘reproducibility problems.’ That’s a learned behavior. You didn’t independently pore over academic studies to come to this conclusion; rather, you were influenced by someone else to use this argument in these instances.
I was caught peddling bunk folk psychology to peddle my conspiracy theory about we are all getting manipulated to serve the evil overlords and that only makes my point stronger
I don’t engage with flat earth bullshit or other conspiracy theories either. I engage with things that are worth engaging with. An Amazon pundit piece peddling crap about your free will being taken away subliminal messages goes into the instant trash with the other garbage.