5 ms·

I have found myself increasingly interested in understanding the reasons behind what motivates the people making these threats. My interests aren't really in t

I have found myself increasingly interested in understanding the reasons behind what motivates the people making these threats. My interests aren't really in the threats per se, but rather, the hostility towards science. Do they have poor critical thinking skills? Why are they so angry about the scientists? Do they consider science some sort of a threat ? Maybe there is a mental illness at play? Maybe not in the generally angry people, but at least in the minds of the people who actually make the threats. I suppose one may take anti-social action without being mentally ill, just immature. Fundamentally, I'm curious about how their brains work. By what thought processes do they reach their conclusions?

Elte 5y ago
I don't think it's about reaching conclusions; I think people just don't like hearing bad news, much less bad news about things that they regularly participate in. We say "don't shoot the messenger" for a reason - it's just much simpler to shoot the messenger than to consider the message. What I'm personally always worried about is to what extent I might be doing it myself. It stands to reason that these people themselves don't believe they're engaging in unacceptable behavior, after all.
simonh 5y ago
A lot of these people have become convinced that there is a massive conspiracy of elites to deceive and control them. They're not necessarily anti-science as such, they simply believe anyone telling them things they don't want to hear is an enemy trying to cheat them.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Multiple studies have shown they tend to narcissism and sociopathy. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035125/ They've also been farmed and radicalised by Q-like coordinated anti-vaxxing campaigns which use emotively loaded disinfo to legitimise violent beliefs. The disinfo includes claims that the vaccine kills children (it doesn't) and causes lasting side effects (it doesn't.) The combination of emotionally disordered people and lurid claims about a vaccine "threat" promotes violent outcomes. News from the UK is that an MP was stabbed in his office today. The anti-vaxxers on Twitter seem delighted about this.
- halfjoking 5y ago
  My bet is that the recent circulatory and heart disease excess deaths [1] are from the vaccine. The explanation in the article that it's from "people not seeing doctors" suddenly after 20 months into the pandemic doesn't make sense. If you need an example of long term effects from the vaccine visit the vaccinelonghaulers subreddit. [2] There are people advocating violence on both sides and we should condemn them both. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dying-170117640.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi... [2] https://reddit.com/r/vaccinelonghaulers/ https://reddit.com/r/vaccinelonghaulers/
- native_samples 5y ago
  The Nordic countries have removed Moderna from circulation for younger people because it kills them more than COVID does. Are you going to claim all those governments are in the grip of "Q-like emotively loaded disinfo"? Lasting side effects: of my girlfriend's friends, 4 of them still have periods that are disrupted or entirely missing months after the vaccine. As far as the establishment is concerned, that's impossible and never happens. Do Not Fear Because The Vaccine Is Perfectly Safe And Definitely Does Not Impact Fertility In Any Way, Citizen. Except it obviously does, and it must be happening at scale, because on the incredibly rare occasions a woman manages to get an article published on this in the news media they invariably seem to mention that it affected both them and many of their friends too. Your belief that all these sorts of real events we can observe with our own eyes are "disinfo" is dystopian.
  - croon 5y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... > According to one U.S. study that has yet to undergo peer review young males under 20 are up to six times more likely to develop myocarditis after contracting COVID-19 than those who have been vaccinated. > The Danish Health Authority said it had made the decision even as "heart inflammation is an extremely rare side effect that often has a mild course and goes away on its own". > Although both vaccines are based on mRNA technology, the Pfizer shot contains 30 micrograms of vaccine per dose compared with 100 micrograms in the Moderna vaccine. Your belief that "The Nordic countries have removed Moderna from circulation for younger people because it kills them more than COVID does" IS "disinfo", and dystopian in its own right. You are merely proving the point of the original post.
thomastjeffery 5y ago
The validity of COVID-19 science is the driver for lockdowns and mask mandates, which have become a political wedge issue. It's essentially the same as religious thinking: Jesus said that lusting after a woman is adultery, so I need to be upset with porn stars for ruining marriages. Tucker Carlson said that my right to go daydrinking without a mask is a core American value, so I need to be upset with doctors for recommending the bar be closed or have distancing/mask mandates in place, and thereby infringing on my liberty. It's not about thoughtful conclusions, it's about dogma. If you show a Southern Baptist evidence that porn isn't detrimental to marriage, they will just start defending their religious beliefs. The same pattern is happening with anti-mask and anti-vaccine culture.
halfjoking 5y ago
It's pretty simple - they see scientists as paid shills. According to Stanford[1], out of 45 of the most influential clinical studies, only 44% were successfully replicated. So there is some truth that just because something is supported by evidence in a clinical study, it doesn't mean that it is factual. Then these people see politicians using "the science" as an excuse for attacking their livelihood, shutting down their business, or putting their life in danger from what they see as an unsafe product. /r/HermanCainAward exists for similar reasons, those people see antivaxxers as putting their life in danger so their death has to be celebrated. Extremism on either side is a bad thing. [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218#note-joc50060-1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218#not...
dqpb 5y ago
You can simply look at the prevalence of religion and faith-based thinking to see utterly confused everyone is. When the majority population believes in omniscient cosmic puppeteers, how much logic can you really expect?
ksec 5y ago
It is not just COVID, plenty of people ( myself included ) have received borderline death threat from Intel Fan Boys for merely pointing out AMD's roadmap and how they are going to win during an Intel 10nm fiasco. Or how TSMC will overtake Intel in 2020. There are a few popular Tech Site reporters ( not sure they want to be named ) got similar treatment. Some people just cant accept they were wrong. You would not even question whether it is critical thinking, you should be wondering if they are thinking at all. They are basically Sparrows in Game of Thrones, or fanatics.
arbitrage 5y ago
Likely narcissistic rage, brought on by being told they are wrong to hold the beliefs they have been tricked into identifying with by populists. They see and hear a scientist telling them that they are wrong, and the culturally instilled fragile narcissistic ego -- which overwhelmingly correlates with being white & male -- can't tolerate that injury. They lash out to hurt the person that is threatening their narrative of reality.
dahart 5y ago
This is a good and very important question for us to ask and investigate right now. However, I would start by assuming that people have good critical thinking skills and avoid suspecting or suggesting mental illness is involved. There are enough smart people being hostile towards science that this needs to be taken seriously. And it’s also important to recognize that all of us as humans are susceptible to having strong beliefs that aren’t true. In the media and politics, there has been a concerted attack on public trust in science, and it’s working. When science is telling us things we don’t want to hear, things that are hard to change, sometimes people with agendas try to undermine the message in hopes that we don’t affect the economy or have to undertake any costly actions. That effort seems to get getting stronger, and of course when the President participates and publicly calls scientists names, it certainly doesn’t help. There are quite a few good articles and podcasts covering stories of smart people who went down the Qanon rabbit hole, I think that’d be a great place to start exploring.
native_samples 5y ago
You're conflating "hostility towards science", which doesn't really make sense as a concept and isn't actually widespread at all (unless you count New Age woo type stuff), with "hostility towards specific scientific institutions and their staff" which can make sense for the same reason hostility to any institution or social arrangement can make sense. Sometimes when you find yourself thinking, maybe lots of people around me are just really, really stupid, it helps to look at analogous situations from other times or places. Do things look different then? Consider the example of Lysenkoism. It was a strain of thought in the USSR in the 1930s mostly related to biology and agriculture, presented as scientific. And in some ways it was - he made apparently scientific sounding claims about experiments he (claimed he) did around selective breeding, cross breeding of plants etc. But it wasn't actually true and crop yields declined. Unfortunately for ordinary Russians, Lysenkoism became the official biology of the state and all opposition was suppressed. Any scientists who opposed it were censored and "cancelled" (jailed). In its place the media published stories claiming it had led to great harvests in Siberia, and that anyone who opposed it was guilty of "mysticism, obscurantism and backwardness". Would it have been right for a Russian who knew the truth to threaten Lysenko? Perhaps it's not worth discussing - that would lead to "was it ethical to try and assassinate Hitler" type territory. But at the very least a rejection of it would have been understandable and rational, even though at the time - to someone in the grip of state propaganda - attacks on Lysenko would have seemed like irrational attacks on science itself. Now you're going to be tempted to argue that people who attacked Soviet biologists and people who attack "COVID scientists" are totally different because obviously COVID science is True, and Soviet agronomy was Not True and therefore there's nothing to learn from it. But we are in the same situation today that the Russians were. Although western media isn't technically state controlled, it might as well be. The media is controlled by people who are extremely loyal to the prevailing state ideology and narrative, to the point that the absurd extremes of media propaganda routinely become memes (let's go brandon!). From within the system it can be hard to tell who is really right, and you should think twice then three times before assuming that you're the one who's got it all figured out.

Elte 5y ago

I don't think it's about reaching conclusions; I think people just don't like hearing bad news, much less bad news about things that they regularly participate in. We say "don't shoot the messenger" for a reason - it's just much simpler to shoot the messenger than to consider the message. What I'm personally always worried about is to what extent I might be doing it myself. It stands to reason that these people themselves don't believe they're engaging in unacceptable behavior, after all.

simonh 5y ago

A lot of these people have become convinced that there is a massive conspiracy of elites to deceive and control them. They're not necessarily anti-science as such, they simply believe anyone telling them things they don't want to hear is an enemy trying to cheat them.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Multiple studies have shown they tend to narcissism and sociopathy. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035125/ They've also been farmed and radicalised by Q-like coordinated anti-vaxxing campaigns which use emotively loaded disinfo to legitimise violent beliefs. The disinfo includes claims that the vaccine kills children (it doesn't) and causes lasting side effects (it doesn't.) The combination of emotionally disordered people and lurid claims about a vaccine "threat" promotes violent outcomes. News from the UK is that an MP was stabbed in his office today. The anti-vaxxers on Twitter seem delighted about this.

halfjoking 5y ago
My bet is that the recent circulatory and heart disease excess deaths [1] are from the vaccine. The explanation in the article that it's from "people not seeing doctors" suddenly after 20 months into the pandemic doesn't make sense. If you need an example of long term effects from the vaccine visit the vaccinelonghaulers subreddit. [2] There are people advocating violence on both sides and we should condemn them both. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dying-170117640.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi... [2] https://reddit.com/r/vaccinelonghaulers/ https://reddit.com/r/vaccinelonghaulers/
native_samples 5y ago
The Nordic countries have removed Moderna from circulation for younger people because it kills them more than COVID does. Are you going to claim all those governments are in the grip of "Q-like emotively loaded disinfo"? Lasting side effects: of my girlfriend's friends, 4 of them still have periods that are disrupted or entirely missing months after the vaccine. As far as the establishment is concerned, that's impossible and never happens. Do Not Fear Because The Vaccine Is Perfectly Safe And Definitely Does Not Impact Fertility In Any Way, Citizen. Except it obviously does, and it must be happening at scale, because on the incredibly rare occasions a woman manages to get an article published on this in the news media they invariably seem to mention that it affected both them and many of their friends too. Your belief that all these sorts of real events we can observe with our own eyes are "disinfo" is dystopian.
- croon 5y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... > According to one U.S. study that has yet to undergo peer review young males under 20 are up to six times more likely to develop myocarditis after contracting COVID-19 than those who have been vaccinated. > The Danish Health Authority said it had made the decision even as "heart inflammation is an extremely rare side effect that often has a mild course and goes away on its own". > Although both vaccines are based on mRNA technology, the Pfizer shot contains 30 micrograms of vaccine per dose compared with 100 micrograms in the Moderna vaccine. Your belief that "The Nordic countries have removed Moderna from circulation for younger people because it kills them more than COVID does" IS "disinfo", and dystopian in its own right. You are merely proving the point of the original post.

thomastjeffery 5y ago

The validity of COVID-19 science is the driver for lockdowns and mask mandates, which have become a political wedge issue. It's essentially the same as religious thinking: Jesus said that lusting after a woman is adultery, so I need to be upset with porn stars for ruining marriages. Tucker Carlson said that my right to go daydrinking without a mask is a core American value, so I need to be upset with doctors for recommending the bar be closed or have distancing/mask mandates in place, and thereby infringing on my liberty. It's not about thoughtful conclusions, it's about dogma. If you show a Southern Baptist evidence that porn isn't detrimental to marriage, they will just start defending their religious beliefs. The same pattern is happening with anti-mask and anti-vaccine culture.

halfjoking 5y ago

It's pretty simple - they see scientists as paid shills. According to Stanford[1], out of 45 of the most influential clinical studies, only 44% were successfully replicated. So there is some truth that just because something is supported by evidence in a clinical study, it doesn't mean that it is factual. Then these people see politicians using "the science" as an excuse for attacking their livelihood, shutting down their business, or putting their life in danger from what they see as an unsafe product. /r/HermanCainAward exists for similar reasons, those people see antivaxxers as putting their life in danger so their death has to be celebrated. Extremism on either side is a bad thing. [1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218#note-joc50060-1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201218#not...

dqpb 5y ago

You can simply look at the prevalence of religion and faith-based thinking to see utterly confused everyone is. When the majority population believes in omniscient cosmic puppeteers, how much logic can you really expect?

ksec 5y ago

It is not just COVID, plenty of people ( myself included ) have received borderline death threat from Intel Fan Boys for merely pointing out AMD's roadmap and how they are going to win during an Intel 10nm fiasco. Or how TSMC will overtake Intel in 2020. There are a few popular Tech Site reporters ( not sure they want to be named ) got similar treatment. Some people just cant accept they were wrong. You would not even question whether it is critical thinking, you should be wondering if they are thinking at all. They are basically Sparrows in Game of Thrones, or fanatics.

arbitrage 5y ago

Likely narcissistic rage, brought on by being told they are wrong to hold the beliefs they have been tricked into identifying with by populists. They see and hear a scientist telling them that they are wrong, and the culturally instilled fragile narcissistic ego -- which overwhelmingly correlates with being white & male -- can't tolerate that injury. They lash out to hurt the person that is threatening their narrative of reality.

dahart 5y ago

This is a good and very important question for us to ask and investigate right now. However, I would start by assuming that people have good critical thinking skills and avoid suspecting or suggesting mental illness is involved. There are enough smart people being hostile towards science that this needs to be taken seriously. And it’s also important to recognize that all of us as humans are susceptible to having strong beliefs that aren’t true. In the media and politics, there has been a concerted attack on public trust in science, and it’s working. When science is telling us things we don’t want to hear, things that are hard to change, sometimes people with agendas try to undermine the message in hopes that we don’t affect the economy or have to undertake any costly actions. That effort seems to get getting stronger, and of course when the President participates and publicly calls scientists names, it certainly doesn’t help. There are quite a few good articles and podcasts covering stories of smart people who went down the Qanon rabbit hole, I think that’d be a great place to start exploring.

native_samples 5y ago

You're conflating "hostility towards science", which doesn't really make sense as a concept and isn't actually widespread at all (unless you count New Age woo type stuff), with "hostility towards specific scientific institutions and their staff" which can make sense for the same reason hostility to any institution or social arrangement can make sense. Sometimes when you find yourself thinking, maybe lots of people around me are just really, really stupid, it helps to look at analogous situations from other times or places. Do things look different then? Consider the example of Lysenkoism. It was a strain of thought in the USSR in the 1930s mostly related to biology and agriculture, presented as scientific. And in some ways it was - he made apparently scientific sounding claims about experiments he (claimed he) did around selective breeding, cross breeding of plants etc. But it wasn't actually true and crop yields declined. Unfortunately for ordinary Russians, Lysenkoism became the official biology of the state and all opposition was suppressed. Any scientists who opposed it were censored and "cancelled" (jailed). In its place the media published stories claiming it had led to great harvests in Siberia, and that anyone who opposed it was guilty of "mysticism, obscurantism and backwardness". Would it have been right for a Russian who knew the truth to threaten Lysenko? Perhaps it's not worth discussing - that would lead to "was it ethical to try and assassinate Hitler" type territory. But at the very least a rejection of it would have been understandable and rational, even though at the time - to someone in the grip of state propaganda - attacks on Lysenko would have seemed like irrational attacks on science itself. Now you're going to be tempted to argue that people who attacked Soviet biologists and people who attack "COVID scientists" are totally different because obviously COVID science is True, and Soviet agronomy was Not True and therefore there's nothing to learn from it. But we are in the same situation today that the Russians were. Although western media isn't technically state controlled, it might as well be. The media is controlled by people who are extremely loyal to the prevailing state ideology and narrative, to the point that the absurd extremes of media propaganda routinely become memes (let's go brandon!). From within the system it can be hard to tell who is really right, and you should think twice then three times before assuming that you're the one who's got it all figured out.