3 ms·

There is a really strong echo chamber effect among online communities that promotes blind trust in authority when it comes to some things (vaccines, gun control

There is a really strong echo chamber effect among online communities that promotes blind trust in authority when it comes to some things (vaccines, gun control) while decrying authority in other cases (online privacy, facial recognition). I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people. I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists. We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing. [1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-things-will-be-back-to-normal-by-june/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...

Tainnor 7y ago
every expert I've seen talking about it agrees that we need to first vaccinate at-risk populations because there will be a shortage of vaccines. I'm not sure what kind of viewpoint vaccine skeptics add to this debate. also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.
- henriquez 7y ago
  Trusting authority in some cases and not others is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions. Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.
  - Tainnor 7y ago
    Yes, technically you can try to be more careful in distinguishing between different positions, such as people who are against vaccines and those who are for "delayed" vaccines. It doesn't really change the fact that both have no real evidence to provide for their claims and are promoting practices that, if not well-supported, are clearly dangerous. But more importantly, Bob Sears's opinion on e.g. measles doesn't even matter because we're talking about covid19 right now and there is no vaccine yet, so there is no way to "slow down". By contrast, what he does offer in the context of this new disease are recommendations such as "boosting your immune system" which are patently laughable, see: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-do-to-improve-your-immune-system https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d... edit: I'll have to correct myself, Bob Sears didn't say that (at least not in this context), his cohost did. I do assume we'd know if he disagreed though.
    - lpah4all 7y ago
      The problem is that the only organizations wealthy enough to do the necessary tests to provide "proof" have ZERO motivation to do anything that could jeopardize their already flowing coffers. I mean, the govt could do it, if they weren't in the pockets of the corps. What I'm saying is that if you're waiting for the pharma corps to provide the necessary studies to show their products ineffective or even dangerous, I'd call you a fool. Or do you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund such studies?
      - Tainnor 7y ago
        The problem with your argument is that it's simply unfalsifiable. It could serve to justify any kind of opinion. How do we know the earth is not really flat? Of course, you also choose to ignore how many people don't die anymore from totally curable diseases that were a certain death sentence even just decades ago (e.g. take AIDS).
        lpah4all 7y ago
        If I need to explain to you how we know that the Earth is not flat, then I should just end this conver

Tainnor 7y ago

every expert I've seen talking about it agrees that we need to first vaccinate at-risk populations because there will be a shortage of vaccines. I'm not sure what kind of viewpoint vaccine skeptics add to this debate. also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.

henriquez 7y ago
Trusting authority in some cases and not others is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions. Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.
- Tainnor 7y ago
  Yes, technically you can try to be more careful in distinguishing between different positions, such as people who are against vaccines and those who are for "delayed" vaccines. It doesn't really change the fact that both have no real evidence to provide for their claims and are promoting practices that, if not well-supported, are clearly dangerous. But more importantly, Bob Sears's opinion on e.g. measles doesn't even matter because we're talking about covid19 right now and there is no vaccine yet, so there is no way to "slow down". By contrast, what he does offer in the context of this new disease are recommendations such as "boosting your immune system" which are patently laughable, see: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-do-to-improve-your-immune-system https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d... edit: I'll have to correct myself, Bob Sears didn't say that (at least not in this context), his cohost did. I do assume we'd know if he disagreed though.
  - lpah4all 7y ago
    The problem is that the only organizations wealthy enough to do the necessary tests to provide "proof" have ZERO motivation to do anything that could jeopardize their already flowing coffers. I mean, the govt could do it, if they weren't in the pockets of the corps. What I'm saying is that if you're waiting for the pharma corps to provide the necessary studies to show their products ineffective or even dangerous, I'd call you a fool. Or do you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund such studies?
    - Tainnor 7y ago
      The problem with your argument is that it's simply unfalsifiable. It could serve to justify any kind of opinion. How do we know the earth is not really flat? Of course, you also choose to ignore how many people don't die anymore from totally curable diseases that were a certain death sentence even just decades ago (e.g. take AIDS).
      - lpah4all 7y ago
        If I need to explain to you how we know that the Earth is not flat, then I should just end this conver