That changes literally nothing of what I said. Your brain did not evolve to process those scales accurately. If you think you can, that just means you’re lacking in self reflection.
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
Yeah bruh, it’s this little thing called being pedantic.
If I say wealth inequality is crazy, no one should have 250 billion dollars, and you say ‘well actually Jeff Bezos only has 210 billion dollars’, then I will be factually incorrect and my point will still be completely valid.
Did you really just compare the difference between 210 billion and 250 billion to the difference between 14,000 to 75,000 vs millions and one micrometer to five millimeters vs nanometers?
Yes, it’s this little thing called context, thresholds, and relative magnitude.
If your brain is only evolved to process numbers up to a hundred or two, then everything 10000+ is similarly processed through abstractions rather than your brain being able to directly comprehend and compare them.
If instead of asking a guffawing question, you actually tried to point out why my reasoning was flawed, you may have realized those basic aspects of how language and reasoning work on your own.
Relative magnitude, really? You’re undermining your own point by not using a representative example and then calling your example a relative magnitude to the others.
210 billion to 250 billion = ~19% increase
75,000 to a million = ~12,000% increase
Nanometer to micrometer = ~99,000% increase
Nanometer to 5 millimeters = ~499,999,900% increase
That changes literally nothing of what I said. Your brain did not evolve to process those scales accurately. If you think you can, that just means you’re lacking in self reflection.
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4
Yeah bruh, it’s this little thing called being pedantic.
If I say wealth inequality is crazy, no one should have 250 billion dollars, and you say ‘well actually Jeff Bezos only has 210 billion dollars’, then I will be factually incorrect and my point will still be completely valid.
Did you really just compare the difference between 210 billion and 250 billion to the difference between 14,000 to 75,000 vs millions and one micrometer to five millimeters vs nanometers?
Yes, it’s this little thing called context, thresholds, and relative magnitude.
If your brain is only evolved to process numbers up to a hundred or two, then everything 10000+ is similarly processed through abstractions rather than your brain being able to directly comprehend and compare them.
If instead of asking a guffawing question, you actually tried to point out why my reasoning was flawed, you may have realized those basic aspects of how language and reasoning work on your own.
Relative magnitude, really? You’re undermining your own point by not using a representative example and then calling your example a relative magnitude to the others.
210 billion to 250 billion = ~19% increase
75,000 to a million = ~12,000% increase
Nanometer to micrometer = ~99,000% increase
Nanometer to 5 millimeters = ~499,999,900% increase
Notice how all of those numbers are substantially larger or smaller, by many orders of magnitude, than a couple of hundred.
Are you intentionally trying to avoid understanding what I’m writing?
210 billion is not substantially smaller than 250 billion. Are you intentionally trying to miss the point?