Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Chief]

How many views are these actual good science communicators getting compared to the likes of Shapiro, Tate, etc? It's a real problem, unfortunately.

I think it's good if he gives enough people some information so they can share it and use it if they encounter the misinformation. Info and facts they can use to protect themselves, if not recognise and respond if people close to them are repeating bad information.

 

[Gralin]

I think it's good if he gives enough people some information so they can share it and use it if they encounter the misinformation. Info and facts they can use to protect themselves, if not recognise and respond if people close to them are repeating bad information.

refuting bullshit is so much harder than speaking it
and a couple of months of heavy bullshit exposure is not easily undone

the problem is people are much more programmable than we think we are

and then of course this fact is used to discredit truth as propaganda by the opponents of truth as well

 

[kickazz]

There's another problem with all this anti-science crap around covid, it's that there are medical experts on the anti-vax, BS side. Sure, they are a significant minority, and their studies are most likely junk, and level of expertise questionable, but there's enough of a micro-presence of naysayers to lend "credibility" in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists.

I mean, it is ironic, the "don't trust doctors" crowd conveniently believe the ones who go against the masks, vaccines, etc.

Because, you know, they're doing the real science, the good science.

We're seeing online the real ugly effects of confirmation bias. As long as there are "experts" who support the conspiracy view, and I expect that's the case because of $$$ and/or religious beliefs, combating the levels of misinformation and pseudoscience is going to be a real challenge, especially when meatheads like Rogan have as big of a reach as he does.

I haven't watched much of Funk's work but from what I've seen, it's good work and I applaud him for it, same as that climate scientist guy (sorry, forgot his name) who does a fantastic job at refuting JPs BS about climate change not being a thing.

But unfortunately, you're not going to make a huge impact unless you have a huge reach.

How many views are these actual good science communicators getting compared to the likes of Shapiro, Tate, etc? It's a real problem, unfortunately.

Bloody oath it's a problem.

And yeah the medical experts that have gone rouge are a worry. I regularly watched Dr John Campbell videos at the start of COVID, and they started out factual and interesting.

For whatever reason I stopped, and only recently realised he went off the rails big time and branched out into conspiracy stuff. Dunno when or how it happened. If I had to guess: the game got to his head and he saw more money to be made peddling bullshit.

Makes me sad.

 

[Gralin]

appealing to peoples fears also is much more effective than appealing to their cognitive functions so its a very uneven battle

 

[kickazz]

refuting bullshit is so much harder than speaking it

Spot on. x1000

 

[kickazz]

appealing to peoples fears also is much more effective than appealing to their cognitive functions so its a very uneven battle

This is true, but I think with these types there is something else at play. The cookers feel like they are "in on some special info not everyone is awake to", and get a bit of a superiority feeling about themselves with these beliefs.


I recon fear can be used for good too. Tipping plenty more people liked vaccines when polio was crippling people in the fifties(?)

 

[Coolangatta]

Yep, I don't know anywhere near enough to be able to do it effectively.

And I don't have social media if you don't count BF so I can't send links and s**t to anyone.

But short of giving someone a shoutout or pulling up my phone/computer and showing them a video, it's not my line of work or expertise to be a debate bro/debunker.

There just doesn't seem to be an anti-Peterson/Shapiro figure that's as big as they are -- Destiny's not gonna be the guy, he just rubs too many people the wrong way and they think he's weird with the former blue hair/open relationship thing.

Christopher Hitchens (and no, I didn't agree with everything he said or thought he was a saint) left a big void after he passed. I can't imagine he would've fallen for the covid conspiracy crap we've seen.

 

[Coolangatta]

This is true, but I think with these types there is something else at play. The cookers feel like they are "in on some special info not everyone is awake to", and get a bit of a superiority feeling about themselves with these beliefs.


I recon fear can be used for good too. Tipping plenty more people liked vaccines when polio was crippling people in the fifties(?)

That's a massive part of it, "I think for myself, I don't listen to the mainstream media, I'm not a sheeple."

They think being a contrarian makes them look smart and skeptical. It's almost like oppositional defiant disorder but it cannot be that prevalent in our society because conspiracy theorists aren't the fringe minority they used to be.

 

[Gralin]

This is true, but I think with these types there is something else at play. The cookers feel like they are "in on some special info not everyone is awake to", and get a bit of a superiority feeling about themselves with these beliefs.


I recon fear can be used for good too. Tipping plenty more people liked vaccines when polio was crippling people in the fifties(?)

I think your comparison is emblematic of the problem we have today

like really think about the comparison you made between polio and covid conspiracies

 

[Coolangatta]

Just trying to get inside their head a bit, I'd imagine if someone like me who defaults to expertise when in doubt, they see that as sheeple mentality, going along with the herd etc, when really it's just, "If I'm gonna go up against 99% of the world's historians, I better have a damn good case."

But they think being a free thinker means questioning everyone, especially the experts because you shouldn't just buy what "they" tell you.

But oh boy do they love their Youtube/podcast cult leaders.

 

[the_interloper]

Yep, I don't know anywhere near enough to be able to do it effectively.

And I don't have social media if you don't count BF so I can't send links and s**t to anyone.

But short of giving someone a shoutout or pulling up my phone/computer and showing them a video, it's not my line of work or expertise to be a debate bro/debunker.

There just doesn't seem to be an anti-Peterson/Shapiro figure that's as big as they are -- Destiny's not gonna be the guy, he just rubs too many people the wrong way and they think he's weird with the former blue hair/open relationship thing.

Christopher Hitchens (and no, I didn't agree with everything he said or thought he was a saint) left a big void after he passed. I can't imagine he would've fallen for the covid conspiracy crap we've seen.

I've wondered about this too, unless it's Whoopi Goldberg and the ladies on the View!

 

[kickazz]

Just trying to get inside their head a bit, I'd imagine if someone like me who defaults to expertise when in doubt, they see that as sheeple mentality, going along with the herd etc, when really it's just, "If I'm gonna go up against 99% of the world's historians, I better have a damn good case."

But they think being a free thinker means questioning everyone, especially the experts because you shouldn't just buy what "they" tell you.

But oh boy do they love their Youtube/podcast cult leaders.

The logical angle to dismissing experts is that it falls under the Appeal to Authority fallacy. On that, they have a point.

The problem with really complex issues is that none of us have time to be across the detail for all of them. Where possible we should read the results (or even try to repeat them) of what exists have found and understand how they came to their conclusion. But a water tight understanding of everything is beyond our capacity.

Ironically this applies to cookers too, it's just that their Appeals to Authority are to the aforementioned YouTube cult leaders.

 

[kickazz]

I think your comparison is emblematic of the problem we have today

like really think about the comparison you made between polio and covid conspiracies

So I meant in the polio days, fear of getting polio was a strong motivator to get vaccinated. People's lived experience saw to that.

With modern opposition to vaccines, this has somehow been flipped and the anti vaxx own the fear space. why? Who knows, but perhaps they've worked well for so long that the logic behind them is just taken for granted.

Indeed, with COVID we saw a bit of a Renaissance of vaccine support (public pride in getting vaccinated, etc) because in part again to fear of the disease, and that it was new.

 

[Chief]

The logical angle to dismissing experts is that it falls under the Appeal to Authority fallacy. On that, they have a point.

But where the authority holds that position due to good work and adhering to the scientific method and referencing solid papers, over guesswork and misinformation then it is valid.

The problem with really complex issues is that none of us have time to be across the detail for all of them.

Which leaves us with a dilemma, yes.

These grifters rely on things like Gish gallops and people's misunderstanding of the peer review system.

So many self-published "studies" and pre-prints are taken up as hard proof. Any issue in the peer review system are taken as proof that it's completely unreliable and scientists (with opposing views) are corrupt.

 

[kickazz]

But where the authority holds that position due to good work and adhering to the scientific method and referencing solid papers, over guesswork and misinformation then it is valid.

I agree. The key thing is that it is the method, the papers, and so on that needs to speak the truth here. The authority kind of 'has no authority', the data does. Hopefully that's not confusing!

e.g. Dr John Campbell. Is an authority on infectious diseases, so worth listening to. But when he started to drift away from adherence to method and peer reviewed papers, his reputation diminishes that authority he once had.

Pragmatically you are 100% spot on, I'm just being a bit anal from a logical/philosophical pov. You can never trust anyone completely, only data. But not trusting anyone ever is impractical, so we have to use good judgement in deciding who we trust and when.

 

[Chief]

The authority kind of 'has no authority', the data does. Hopefully that's not confusing!

True. If you insincerely attack the method the data was collected or the person who did it, similar result.

Clipping videos of out of context quotes for TikToks and the like.

Context and careful reading goes out the window if Bob381Q1337 ("Good Aussie, Proud Dad, opinions my own, Libertarian") gathers 30,000 followers tweeting Jorpy clips... and gets brought into a network of similar dorks to cross-promote each other for social proof.

 

[Chief]

This guy agrees with me!

 

[Kram]

I'm not asking for people to give up on indigenous rights, but it's fair to say that Voice vote is one and done, probably worth pursuing some sort of other action.

I think for some the referendum was foremost about themselves and the welfare of Indigenous Australians a distant second.