3 ms·

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There

I’m more interested in what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. There’s always been places you could go and find nonsense. But what’s different about this moment? What’s drawing people to nonsense? IMO social media gets the blame, but it’s just the vehicle for something darker happening. Something more about widespread nativism that distrusts an educated, cosmopolitan elite. Just because we see this on social media, doesn’t make social media the cause.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
On the other hand… have you considered that your doctor, politicians and scientists may also effected by social media in their professional advice you are supposed to take because they are an authority? We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit. Maybe you are right, maybe it’s not social media but an extreme polarization for another reason and social media is speeding it along? Maybe that’s just what we do over time? Either way, I can’t accept the appeal to authority you started with. I have personally be on the wrong side of a diagnosis and it’s a good thing I didn’t listen to my doctor in favor of information I discovered first on social media.
- epgui 5y ago
  It's not an appeal to authority, it's deferral to expertise. This is a very crucial concept: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...
relax88 5y ago
I agree with your point, but social media certainly appears to amplify the effect, regardless of what the root cause may be. I wonder if perhaps the main problem is that social media changes the structure of human interaction by allowing those with similar ideas to congregate instead of being spread across the network in a diffuse manner. Like in the 1970s if you believed that Aliens were here on Earth and abducting people, the vast majority of people you interacted with would think you’re a crackpot. It would be very difficult to find validation that your ideas are good. Today you simply need to open a Facebook group for UFO conspiracy theorists and you’ve got all of the confirmation bias you need. It has never been easier to find people who agree with you.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
Umberto Eco said it best: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”
- cvwright 5y ago
  I see no problem with letting idiots say idiotic things. As your quote shows, the world has survived the idiots for a very long time. The problem with social media is not that there are people saying things that are dumb or wrong. The problem is that the platforms survive by finding the most virulent idiocy and spreading it as widely as possible.
mikewarot 5y ago
> what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation. Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me. Those same elites built social media, and optimize it to generate profit while externalizing the cost, to our attention and sense making, and society as a whole.
- epgui 5y ago
  I roll my eyes at every utterance of this type of "elite" mantra. It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness. The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.
  - mikewarot 5y ago
    You're right... I was just using the same term as the parent comment. It would be more precise to talk about it in terms of extracting wealth from society without comparable investment of work. Those that game the system, such as the duopoly that infests US Government.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

On the other hand… have you considered that your doctor, politicians and scientists may also effected by social media in their professional advice you are supposed to take because they are an authority? We don’t need to get into all the times doctors have been way wrong. Now those people who might know that are within your ear shot, perhaps a little less than the lunatics who just want to talk shit. Maybe you are right, maybe it’s not social media but an extreme polarization for another reason and social media is speeding it along? Maybe that’s just what we do over time? Either way, I can’t accept the appeal to authority you started with. I have personally be on the wrong side of a diagnosis and it’s a good thing I didn’t listen to my doctor in favor of information I discovered first on social media.

epgui 5y ago
It's not an appeal to authority, it's deferral to expertise. This is a very crucial concept: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...

relax88 5y ago

I agree with your point, but social media certainly appears to amplify the effect, regardless of what the root cause may be. I wonder if perhaps the main problem is that social media changes the structure of human interaction by allowing those with similar ideas to congregate instead of being spread across the network in a diffuse manner. Like in the 1970s if you believed that Aliens were here on Earth and abducting people, the vast majority of people you interacted with would think you’re a crackpot. It would be very difficult to find validation that your ideas are good. Today you simply need to open a Facebook group for UFO conspiracy theorists and you’ve got all of the confirmation bias you need. It has never been easier to find people who agree with you.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

Umberto Eco said it best: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”

cvwright 5y ago
I see no problem with letting idiots say idiotic things. As your quote shows, the world has survived the idiots for a very long time. The problem with social media is not that there are people saying things that are dumb or wrong. The problem is that the platforms survive by finding the most virulent idiocy and spreading it as widely as possible.

mikewarot 5y ago

> what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation. Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me. Those same elites built social media, and optimize it to generate profit while externalizing the cost, to our attention and sense making, and society as a whole.

epgui 5y ago
I roll my eyes at every utterance of this type of "elite" mantra. It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness. The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.
- mikewarot 5y ago
  You're right... I was just using the same term as the parent comment. It would be more precise to talk about it in terms of extracting wealth from society without comparable investment of work. Those that game the system, such as the duopoly that infests US Government.