this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
-20 points (18.8% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8283 readers
28 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Again, that's not proof, it's hypothesis based on anecdotal observation.

Proof would be a well structured repeatable study verifying the hypothesis. Given the other comments, it doesn't even seem repeatable across other anecdotal observations let alone within a study.

I will note, I do form habits easily, and my work and past times require concentration, but I have never found that forms a habit of ignoring things, it forms a habit of having improved concentration when required. If anything I have found increased study leads to improved awareness of my surrounds and increased desire to learn more in general.

You claim your observations are proof of your hypothesis, but my observations directly disprove your hypothesis, so whose observation is correct? You could claim my observations are clouded because if l've concentrated and then am unaware of my ignorance, but I could claim the same thing of you, or even that you haven't concentrated enough and so are unaware of your surroundings and the true nature of things. This is a never ending cycle of anecdotal nonsense. Hence the need for a well structured repeatable study as proof.

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah that's why I put it in quotes, because it's a dumb term for what we're looking for here.

Try just answering those 2 questions.

Or not, this is exhausting.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

I mean I literally did.

But also I agree, this is exhausting, it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. Good luck with your poorly thought out opinion. I'm done.