7 ms·

I think Dan Olson (Foldable Human) nailed the real problem. > Flat Earthers are not otherwise-empty vessels who believe one kooky thing. They believe that thin

I think Dan Olson (Foldable Human) nailed the real problem. > Flat Earthers are not otherwise-empty vessels who believe one kooky thing. They believe that thing because it suits their purposes. [...] it says something they already believe about the nature of the social world. Flat Earth is a thing people want to believe because if it were true it would be irrefutable proof of everything else they believe. Folding Ideas, In Search of a Flat Earth ~29 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44

titzer 5y ago
Great video, thanks for the link!
scrubs 5y ago
It's also worth pointing out there's a ton of talk without requisite risk. Put no-vaxers in a hospital with their check book on the line if wrong ie pay a patient's med bills. Get flat earthers to pay for a satellite to take pictures on their dime. I'll bet a large percentage will walk from the challenge or suddenly get serious when they have real downside risk. Talking crap on tv or YouTube is what? Protected first amendment rights. Nothing more.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  An unfortunate portion of people really give up everything to conspiratorial thinking, and losing it all actually makes them cling even more intensely because they literally have nothing else. So I don't think it'll work the way you think it will.
- greesil 5y ago
  The "no-vaxers" pay with their lives, self-valued at ~$10M USD. If the death rate is 1% then the expected value is $100K. Seems fairly pricey already. I'm not sure lack of skin in the game accounts for dodgy personal beliefs.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Most deaths occurred before the vaccine was available.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      More excess deaths have occurred post-vaccine and vaccine adoption is not correlated with a reduction in excess death at the national level. https://www.usmortality.com/excess-absolute https://www.usmortality.com/excess-absolute
    - _yoqn 5y ago
      I don't think that's actually true. If the reported numbers are correct, the number of deaths in the US was around 250k when the vaccine became available and now it's 700k. That's 450k more after the vaccine despite being widely available for a bit over a year.
      - evan_ 5y ago
        The math is fuzzy since there were several months where even though the vaccine was technically available, you couldn’t just go get it at will. It’s unavoidable, though, that the deaths after will be higher than deaths before the vaccines were available, because one of those is an unbounded range.
      - jseban 5y ago
        There's also a lot of gymnastics involved in order to count all these covid deaths, and a constant withholding of actual absolute death counts. Most serious illnesses will compromise the immune system. A compromised immune system will make you more vulnerable to any infection. So the most common and most spread infection will then also naturally be the most common one to trigger death. If someone has aids, which is a decease that compromises the immune system, and then dies from pneumonia. Did they die from pneumonia or aids?
        _yoqn 5y ago
        Yes, the assigned cause question a problem. And add to that the concept of "excess" deaths being a more telling figure than the causality number. So looking at a model of past deaths you can predict future deaths (roughly) and so assume the excess to that prediction is caused by COVID-19. The problem with that is researchers are saying that up to a third of those deaths could be being caused by health care displacement, not the virus directly. i.e. a trauma patient can't make it into the ICU because it's full of COVID patients. The statistics are a total mess in my opinion and any being professed with any exactitude should be taken with a grain of salt.
- akira2501 5y ago
  Assuming everyone should make medical decisions based purely on individual or even shared monetary grounds is a type of "flat earth" thinking of it's own. It attempts to fit a pre-conceived view onto the world, that "no-vaxers" must be dumb the same way "flat-earthers" are and this helps you rationalize away digital content you personally disagree with without having to engage with it.
  - IAmEveryone 5y ago
    The payment wasn't an argument that money is the only valid objective in decision-making. OP used it to illustrate that these believes are weakly held, "virtue signaling" for a crowd with different virtues, so to speak. I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.
    - firstlink 5y ago
      > I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle. Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".
      - igorkraw 5y ago
        This is a nonsequitur dragging in unrelated politics, the original point is: the bulk of anti-vaxxers would not commit to a world where they are isolated and left to die if they catch COVID for all the "it's just a flu" talk. I don't agree with GP on wishing it was a thing, but this is bad arguing
    - native_samples 5y ago
      They aren't weakly held, as evidenced by the large number of people who refuse to take them even when they are being fired, prevented from leaving their country or excluded from all public events. The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages. Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines. So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.
civilized 5y ago
This feels right. And the curvature of the Earth is the perfect balance of abstract and bikesheddable. Something you can have strong intuitions about that aren't easy to disprove.
xmprt 5y ago
People don't become flat earthers because they actually believe the earth is flat. They start by realizing that there's something wrong with the current established systems in the world which is a fact. We're living with corrupt politicians, needless wars, starving kids, crumbling democracies, etc. In the search for a scapegoat for these problems they come across the flat earth "theory" and explain away all those problems through this lens ("If they are keeping this a secret then what else are they keeping from us? How else is the establishment trying to control us?")
- erulabs 5y ago
  Exactly. And then in their own way, some more… stupid than others, they try to recreate their own science from observation. That they’re stuck with phenomenology is no surprise - that’s more or less how all human beings have seen the world before the 1600s. Just meaning, if you look around, the world appears flat! It’s a natural default, rather than a conspiracy theory. So if all that’s true, then who are we fooling: the real issue is the lack of ability to educate. You can blame stupidity and give up but that’s not a path forward. To me the strangest bit is the idea that scientists are the authorities? What!? I wish!
  - marcodave 5y ago
    I hate being pedantic, but before the 1600 anybody with some education knew already that the earth was round (see: Columbus, Magellan). Funnily enough, the "flat earthers" of that time were the ones spreading the idea that the Earth was moving :D (see: Galileo)
    - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
      Not just 1600 - it was fairly common knowledge since antiquity. In 300 BCE, we knew not only that the Earth is round, but also roughly its radius. Moon's distance and radius was estimated about 100 years later. Sun-Earth distance was also (incorrectly) estimated about the same time, but with enough precision to know it's much further and bigger than the Moon. Columbus was being dissuaded from his voyage because people correctly calculated his supplies will run out way before he reaches Indies west-wards
rob_c 5y ago
That's just a general statement of people who feel disenfranchised. People are smart enough to know when they're being "lied"* to by the tv/teacher. Especially when the reply is "it just is stop asking"... These same people are unfortunately often not driven enough, and/or in a position where they're able to disentangle the fact that "all of this _evidence_" on the internet, (which is deliberately written at an overly accessible level vs actual science) is ultimately incoherent nonsense. Unfortunately on topics like this, the answer from science and describing reality is actually quite complex and requires time and effort to understand the details and implications. *A lie of omission, or failing to acknowledge "I don't know" and replying with only solid certainty of "I've been told by someone" is akin to teaching from the bible and offers nothing toward scientific literacy. (Deliberately drawing a line between this and theological debates)
etempleton 5y ago
This is with all easily disproven conspiracy theories. Yes, there are many stupid people that believe these things because they saw a video and it was a simple explanation that appealed to them or because someone they like said it once, but some of the flat earthers are smart. Heck, I have seen some pretty outlandish comments on hacker news that aren’t much better and I assume everyone here is smarter than I am. People believe things for emotional reasons. People often, for example, find religion after the death of a loved one. People also want to believe what others in their community believe, so belief can take hold easily once seeded into a community. We all like to think we are rational, we are not.

titzer 5y ago

Great video, thanks for the link!

scrubs 5y ago

It's also worth pointing out there's a ton of talk without requisite risk. Put no-vaxers in a hospital with their check book on the line if wrong ie pay a patient's med bills. Get flat earthers to pay for a satellite to take pictures on their dime. I'll bet a large percentage will walk from the challenge or suddenly get serious when they have real downside risk. Talking crap on tv or YouTube is what? Protected first amendment rights. Nothing more.

KittenInABox 5y ago
An unfortunate portion of people really give up everything to conspiratorial thinking, and losing it all actually makes them cling even more intensely because they literally have nothing else. So I don't think it'll work the way you think it will.
greesil 5y ago
The "no-vaxers" pay with their lives, self-valued at ~$10M USD. If the death rate is 1% then the expected value is $100K. Seems fairly pricey already. I'm not sure lack of skin in the game accounts for dodgy personal beliefs.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Most deaths occurred before the vaccine was available.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    More excess deaths have occurred post-vaccine and vaccine adoption is not correlated with a reduction in excess death at the national level. https://www.usmortality.com/excess-absolute https://www.usmortality.com/excess-absolute
  - _yoqn 5y ago
    I don't think that's actually true. If the reported numbers are correct, the number of deaths in the US was around 250k when the vaccine became available and now it's 700k. That's 450k more after the vaccine despite being widely available for a bit over a year.
    - evan_ 5y ago
      The math is fuzzy since there were several months where even though the vaccine was technically available, you couldn’t just go get it at will. It’s unavoidable, though, that the deaths after will be higher than deaths before the vaccines were available, because one of those is an unbounded range.
    - jseban 5y ago
      There's also a lot of gymnastics involved in order to count all these covid deaths, and a constant withholding of actual absolute death counts. Most serious illnesses will compromise the immune system. A compromised immune system will make you more vulnerable to any infection. So the most common and most spread infection will then also naturally be the most common one to trigger death. If someone has aids, which is a decease that compromises the immune system, and then dies from pneumonia. Did they die from pneumonia or aids?
      - _yoqn 5y ago
        Yes, the assigned cause question a problem. And add to that the concept of "excess" deaths being a more telling figure than the causality number. So looking at a model of past deaths you can predict future deaths (roughly) and so assume the excess to that prediction is caused by COVID-19. The problem with that is researchers are saying that up to a third of those deaths could be being caused by health care displacement, not the virus directly. i.e. a trauma patient can't make it into the ICU because it's full of COVID patients. The statistics are a total mess in my opinion and any being professed with any exactitude should be taken with a grain of salt.
akira2501 5y ago
Assuming everyone should make medical decisions based purely on individual or even shared monetary grounds is a type of "flat earth" thinking of it's own. It attempts to fit a pre-conceived view onto the world, that "no-vaxers" must be dumb the same way "flat-earthers" are and this helps you rationalize away digital content you personally disagree with without having to engage with it.
- IAmEveryone 5y ago
  The payment wasn't an argument that money is the only valid objective in decision-making. OP used it to illustrate that these believes are weakly held, "virtue signaling" for a crowd with different virtues, so to speak. I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.
  - firstlink 5y ago
    > I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle. Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".
    - igorkraw 5y ago
      This is a nonsequitur dragging in unrelated politics, the original point is: the bulk of anti-vaxxers would not commit to a world where they are isolated and left to die if they catch COVID for all the "it's just a flu" talk. I don't agree with GP on wishing it was a thing, but this is bad arguing
  - native_samples 5y ago
    They aren't weakly held, as evidenced by the large number of people who refuse to take them even when they are being fired, prevented from leaving their country or excluded from all public events. The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages. Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines. So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.

civilized 5y ago

This feels right. And the curvature of the Earth is the perfect balance of abstract and bikesheddable. Something you can have strong intuitions about that aren't easy to disprove.

xmprt 5y ago

People don't become flat earthers because they actually believe the earth is flat. They start by realizing that there's something wrong with the current established systems in the world which is a fact. We're living with corrupt politicians, needless wars, starving kids, crumbling democracies, etc. In the search for a scapegoat for these problems they come across the flat earth "theory" and explain away all those problems through this lens ("If they are keeping this a secret then what else are they keeping from us? How else is the establishment trying to control us?")

erulabs 5y ago
Exactly. And then in their own way, some more… stupid than others, they try to recreate their own science from observation. That they’re stuck with phenomenology is no surprise - that’s more or less how all human beings have seen the world before the 1600s. Just meaning, if you look around, the world appears flat! It’s a natural default, rather than a conspiracy theory. So if all that’s true, then who are we fooling: the real issue is the lack of ability to educate. You can blame stupidity and give up but that’s not a path forward. To me the strangest bit is the idea that scientists are the authorities? What!? I wish!
- marcodave 5y ago
  I hate being pedantic, but before the 1600 anybody with some education knew already that the earth was round (see: Columbus, Magellan). Funnily enough, the "flat earthers" of that time were the ones spreading the idea that the Earth was moving :D (see: Galileo)
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    Not just 1600 - it was fairly common knowledge since antiquity. In 300 BCE, we knew not only that the Earth is round, but also roughly its radius. Moon's distance and radius was estimated about 100 years later. Sun-Earth distance was also (incorrectly) estimated about the same time, but with enough precision to know it's much further and bigger than the Moon. Columbus was being dissuaded from his voyage because people correctly calculated his supplies will run out way before he reaches Indies west-wards

rob_c 5y ago

That's just a general statement of people who feel disenfranchised. People are smart enough to know when they're being "lied"* to by the tv/teacher. Especially when the reply is "it just is stop asking"... These same people are unfortunately often not driven enough, and/or in a position where they're able to disentangle the fact that "all of this _evidence_" on the internet, (which is deliberately written at an overly accessible level vs actual science) is ultimately incoherent nonsense. Unfortunately on topics like this, the answer from science and describing reality is actually quite complex and requires time and effort to understand the details and implications. *A lie of omission, or failing to acknowledge "I don't know" and replying with only solid certainty of "I've been told by someone" is akin to teaching from the bible and offers nothing toward scientific literacy. (Deliberately drawing a line between this and theological debates)

etempleton 5y ago

This is with all easily disproven conspiracy theories. Yes, there are many stupid people that believe these things because they saw a video and it was a simple explanation that appealed to them or because someone they like said it once, but some of the flat earthers are smart. Heck, I have seen some pretty outlandish comments on hacker news that aren’t much better and I assume everyone here is smarter than I am. People believe things for emotional reasons. People often, for example, find religion after the death of a loved one. People also want to believe what others in their community believe, so belief can take hold easily once seeded into a community. We all like to think we are rational, we are not.