4 ms·

Just so we now for next time: what is the proper way to express concerns about _this_ kind of things with enough nuance and moderation so as not to be automatic

Just so we now for next time: what is the proper way to express concerns about _this_ kind of things with enough nuance and moderation so as not to be automatically considered an anti-scientist tin foil hat ? What is the scientifically acceptable way to phrase "I'm not concerned about BigPharma planting 5G chips in my future children's eyeballs to turn them into communist ; but I'm very concerned about blind spots during testing and biases in protocol and just plain bad luck that made us miss something ?" Maybe I just write too much software for a living, but my only certitude was that something, somewhere, was going to break. At least I can TDD the hell out of my paranoia. Don't let me write health policy, ever. Sidenode: if this kid had chosen the wrong profession in the wrong country, he would now be facing either "getting a couple of other shot" or "loosing its job". If he had made a tiktok video about his problems, or a facebook post, or a twitter thread, etc... at some point it would have been flagged, and it would have only garnered the attention of the worst possible scammers. And, worst of all, I'm pretty sure his grandmother would now refuse to get boosted. Talk about loose-loose :/

daliz 4y ago
You are completely right. People who expressed concerns or some doubts just a few months ago were attacked, downvoted, silenced and socially outcast. This is not science. This is the opposite of science.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  Well, at the peak of the epidemics, there was a whole industry devoted to claiming the most bogus things and preventing the people with the highest risk / benefit ratio from taking their shots. I made fun of the most hilarious of them too. That did not make me any less scared of the "oooops" moment. This will get worse (myocarditis today, menstural cycles tomorrow, maybe strokes and cancer later ?), then worse (vast number of people completely loosing faith into their docs and letting a much worse epidemy settle), then worse, before it gets... well, before life goes on and we mostly forget, as it has ever done and as we ever did, I suppose ?
- tsol 4y ago
  People don't care about being scientifically honest. If we did, more people would be annoyed by internet atheists championing science above all else. Pushing science as the end all be all path to knowledge isn't the wholesome thing it seems. Some people take it too far and turn it into a cult
scop 4y ago
Eric Weinstein had a great segment on his Portal podcast about this very thing. I can't recall the interview (maybe with Balaji?), but if it comes to me I'll comment it. The gist was that he was talking about Covid and he observed that the guest had to spend an inordinate amount of time saying what he was not saying, to the point of being absurd. He had to constantly preface his comments with a long series of statements of disassociation. "Now I'm not saying X, or Y, and I'm definitely not a P, and I don't agree with everything Z said but..." How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things?
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >"Now I'm not saying X, or Y, and I'm definitely not a P, and I don't agree with everything Z said but..." How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things? Further, it intellectually constricts the speaker, both in thought and speech. It's running a race with lead weights and straitjacket. For a smaller, but longer-lasting example, think of how many times in the past six years you heard someone preface a statement with "I hate Trump, but". Those who lived under Communism and Nazism experienced the same thing: Anything that might be perceived by another as being against approved thought in any way had to uttered in a way that would plausibly insulate the speaker from undesirable consequences. Now, think of how long-term adherence to such behavior crabs the intellect and soul.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  > How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things? Slowly, in carefully written form reviewed by people with the right training. Unfortunately, in the middle of an emergency with the bodies of voting-aged people piling up... Not at all. (Although, I guess not going to the other extreme of "having this conversation in bits of 140 characters among strangers with advertisers at each corner" did not help much.)
- savryn 4y ago
  watching eric go through his arc of disillusionment in public, despite all his sincerity and hopefulness and intelligence was really sobering for me. A lot of us have this inner "oh if only I was a better speaker / smarter / worked on my persuasion skills ..." It's just not how power works. It's not how society works. I get that now, and it was amazing anthropology to see it unfold.
root_axis 4y ago
> what is the proper way to express concerns about _this_ kind of things with enough nuance and moderation so as not to be automatically considered an anti-scientist tin foil hat ? The nuance is key. Frankly, I don't recall much in the way of nuance, I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  Well, if you're scared of something, and it becomes mandatory, even when the decision comes from the most democratically elected government, you'll feel attacked. Which raises a lot of questions (is "being scared" enough of a justification for refusing a law ? On the other hands, do democraticaly elected officials automatically get the right do decide what people should be "scared" about, without having any more evidence than anyone else - given that the only thing that can give evidence is time, time, and more time ?) Questions that, unfortunately, had to be answered hastly and withouth much concerns for the unlucky ones - which, to be honest, is pretty much the theme of history, and we have been among the lucky one until now, so maybe we don't have that much to complain about.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party You don't understand why someone with concerns about the safety of a vaccine might frame the problem not as the existence of a vaccine with tradeoffs other people might want to make, but rather as a political party forcing the decision on everyone? Or are you just being disingenuous? Be better.

daliz 4y ago

You are completely right. People who expressed concerns or some doubts just a few months ago were attacked, downvoted, silenced and socially outcast. This is not science. This is the opposite of science.

phtrivier 4y ago
Well, at the peak of the epidemics, there was a whole industry devoted to claiming the most bogus things and preventing the people with the highest risk / benefit ratio from taking their shots. I made fun of the most hilarious of them too. That did not make me any less scared of the "oooops" moment. This will get worse (myocarditis today, menstural cycles tomorrow, maybe strokes and cancer later ?), then worse (vast number of people completely loosing faith into their docs and letting a much worse epidemy settle), then worse, before it gets... well, before life goes on and we mostly forget, as it has ever done and as we ever did, I suppose ?
tsol 4y ago
People don't care about being scientifically honest. If we did, more people would be annoyed by internet atheists championing science above all else. Pushing science as the end all be all path to knowledge isn't the wholesome thing it seems. Some people take it too far and turn it into a cult

scop 4y ago

Eric Weinstein had a great segment on his Portal podcast about this very thing. I can't recall the interview (maybe with Balaji?), but if it comes to me I'll comment it. The gist was that he was talking about Covid and he observed that the guest had to spend an inordinate amount of time saying what he was not saying, to the point of being absurd. He had to constantly preface his comments with a long series of statements of disassociation. "Now I'm not saying X, or Y, and I'm definitely not a P, and I don't agree with everything Z said but..." How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things?

TMWNN 4y ago
>"Now I'm not saying X, or Y, and I'm definitely not a P, and I don't agree with everything Z said but..." How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things? Further, it intellectually constricts the speaker, both in thought and speech. It's running a race with lead weights and straitjacket. For a smaller, but longer-lasting example, think of how many times in the past six years you heard someone preface a statement with "I hate Trump, but". Those who lived under Communism and Nazism experienced the same thing: Anything that might be perceived by another as being against approved thought in any way had to uttered in a way that would plausibly insulate the speaker from undesirable consequences. Now, think of how long-term adherence to such behavior crabs the intellect and soul.
phtrivier 4y ago
> How can you have a conversation if so much time is spent not saying things? Slowly, in carefully written form reviewed by people with the right training. Unfortunately, in the middle of an emergency with the bodies of voting-aged people piling up... Not at all. (Although, I guess not going to the other extreme of "having this conversation in bits of 140 characters among strangers with advertisers at each corner" did not help much.)
savryn 4y ago
watching eric go through his arc of disillusionment in public, despite all his sincerity and hopefulness and intelligence was really sobering for me. A lot of us have this inner "oh if only I was a better speaker / smarter / worked on my persuasion skills ..." It's just not how power works. It's not how society works. I get that now, and it was amazing anthropology to see it unfold.

root_axis 4y ago

> what is the proper way to express concerns about _this_ kind of things with enough nuance and moderation so as not to be automatically considered an anti-scientist tin foil hat ? The nuance is key. Frankly, I don't recall much in the way of nuance, I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party.

phtrivier 4y ago
Well, if you're scared of something, and it becomes mandatory, even when the decision comes from the most democratically elected government, you'll feel attacked. Which raises a lot of questions (is "being scared" enough of a justification for refusing a law ? On the other hands, do democraticaly elected officials automatically get the right do decide what people should be "scared" about, without having any more evidence than anyone else - given that the only thing that can give evidence is time, time, and more time ?) Questions that, unfortunately, had to be answered hastly and withouth much concerns for the unlucky ones - which, to be honest, is pretty much the theme of history, and we have been among the lucky one until now, so maybe we don't have that much to complain about.
puffoflogic 4y ago
> I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party You don't understand why someone with concerns about the safety of a vaccine might frame the problem not as the existence of a vaccine with tradeoffs other people might want to make, but rather as a political party forcing the decision on everyone? Or are you just being disingenuous? Be better.