Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️

FJ is retired. He is happily married to MrsFJ. Supports Watford. RTs are mostly things he finds funny. No tweet theft. Likes the meta. Hates Vauxhalls

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@brivael Socialism is a cult or a mental illness. Read what Pascal Boyer has to say about why religions persist. Socialism is the same.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@RanTeeThree He self referred to a private hospital after he first attempted suicide. The second attempt led to him being sectioned by the NHS.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

Here is another amazing new idea for you: read Minds Make Societies by Pascal Boyer, and find out about Dan Kahan’s work on identity protective cognition.

Believing in socialism and hating capitalism is not an intellectual choice. It’s an identity. That’s why they ignore facts they don’t like - subconsciously. That’s why they look at you with that face.

Dan Kahan’s work on identity-protective cognition explains why facts so often fail to persuade. It’s a form of motivated reasoning that operates largely subconsciously: people selectively accept or reject evidence to protect their standing in affinity groups that share core values and commitments, usually without realizing they’re doing it.
When a factual question becomes a marker of group loyalty (climate change, gun control, pandemic measures, etc.), individuals face social and psychic costs for concluding the “wrong” way. So the mind quietly adjusts the weight given to evidence—in-group experts are trusted, out-group experts are scrutinized or dismissed, and ambiguous data is interpreted in the group-congenial direction—all without conscious intent.
A striking finding from Kahan’s studies is that higher scientific literacy and numeracy don’t reduce polarization on these issues—they often increase it. The most cognitively proficient people are simply better at constructing sophisticated justifications for the position that predominates in their group. The goal isn’t pure accuracy; it’s avoiding the costs of being out of step with one’s people.
Because the process is largely automatic and outside awareness, people experience their conclusions as straightforwardly factual rather than identity-driven. Understanding this helps explain persistent public divides even when the underlying evidence is relatively clear.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@LairdSummerisle Yup. Twats.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@botzarelli @EC2man No it isn’t. The US has not invaded Canada, nor will they. Russia has occupied big bits of Ukraina, in the face of a treaty specifically saying they wouldn’t, since 2014.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@BriggsonBeer @ossettbrewery I know, mine are pretty fixed. I have to wait for fashion to change again. In the meanwhile I am lucky if a pub has one pump I like.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

Would you do this on that salary? What a calibre of person will they get?

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@UKLabour Will it be connected to the grid?

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@BBCNorthEast No. If a Christmas card offends you maybe you should either grow up or leave.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

The reason for all that is their decision to believe in socialism is not one of intellect, but identity. As explained by Dan Kahan and Pascal Boyer:

Dan Kahan’s work on identity-protective cognition explains why facts so often fail to persuade. It’s a form of motivated reasoning that operates largely subconsciously: people selectively accept or reject evidence to protect their standing in affinity groups that share core values and commitments, usually without realizing they’re doing it.
When a factual question becomes a marker of group loyalty (climate change, gun control, pandemic measures, etc.), individuals face social and psychic costs for concluding the “wrong” way. So the mind quietly adjusts the weight given to evidence—in-group experts are trusted, out-group experts are scrutinized or dismissed, and ambiguous data is interpreted in the group-congenial direction—all without conscious intent.
A striking finding from Kahan’s studies is that higher scientific literacy and numeracy don’t reduce polarization on these issues—they often increase it. The most cognitively proficient people are simply better at constructing sophisticated justifications for the position that predominates in their group. The goal isn’t pure accuracy; it’s avoiding the costs of being out of step with one’s people.
Because the process is largely automatic and outside awareness, people experience their conclusions as straightforwardly factual rather than identity-driven. Understanding this helps explain persistent public divides even when the underlying evidence is relatively clear.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@MissLauraMarcus Nope. The other guy is a prick as well.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@WasAcop This whole gagging injunction business needs looking at, but I suspect politicians are among the biggest users. Where is Nick Brown?

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@by_Lienhard Top tier car, one of my top five.
Sadly it caused Citroen’s demise.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@MysteriosoX Thailand?

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@ukhomeoffice The kids who get them will laugh at you. It’s ASBO 2.0

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@UKLabour Tractors and turnips?

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@UKLabour This is just cope. He is taking us down the shitter.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@ImtiazMadmood I’d be happy for them to be deported immediately and their home country decide how to deal with them. They should also be barred from entering UK again via DNA data.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@MineCooky The EU puts a heavy import duty on Chinese cars. In Britain without that, Chinese cars are top sellers.

[Fat Jacques 🏴‍☠️ @Fat_Jacques]

@TorstenBell If you understood maths at all, you’d know even that is a stretch.