4 ms·
More like based on not trusting authority. And then trying to „do research“ on your own. Which frequently goes sideways. But not always. Just like mainstream ap
by mantas 1y ago
More like based on not trusting authority. And then trying to „do research“ on your own. Which frequently goes sideways. But not always. Just like mainstream approach. Sometimes it's correct, sometimes it's not.
Growing up in a highly authority-averse context (early post-soviet era with many historical scars of governments/elite/etc-not-to-be-trusted)... It'd be best if people would both do research on their own AND have the means to do that research. Smart people going sideways sucks. But people believing authority without blinking is very dangerous too. Although it's convenient and sometimes beneficial. But in the long run IMO it's a ticking time bomb.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThat's what gets me, all these "skeptics" are actually entirely willing to trust people, it just has to be someone named RandomDude8914327 or Catturd or whatever.
- mantas 1y agoI think the main point is those people do not trust anybody and look at facts-at-face-value only. And in many cases mainstream communication looks iffy with missing bits of information. Either because some information is classified or some officials feel that less information is better for whatever reason. While iffy sources go extra mile to present their stuff in a very detailed way.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThis seems generous in my view. COVID conspiracists who I talk to tend to be completely devoid of knowledge of basic, basic facts, and totally ignorant of the contents of actual primary sources. They are not curious enough to actually look at the primary sources, probably because it's tedious, but they love spending hours reading other idiots' interpretations of those sources.
- soco 1y agoThat's because RandomDude8914327 doesn't bother with facts, they'll just build imaginary arguments to fit together nicely, thus generating something stable and logical and convincing- just devoid of reality.
- mantas 1y agoIt depends where you draw the line who is COVID conspiracists. Is it only the batshit crazy people. Or is it people who e.g. stuck to lab-origin theory too?
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoI'm mostly referring to people who are in the vague, totally incoherent area of "COVID was a hoax/conspiracy to control people/inject vaccines" ballpark. High-confidence lab leak people are very often conspiracists, while "lab leak is possible (even >50% probable)" are usually not.
- const_cast 1y agoI don't think this is even close to true. Most of my family are Trumpers, anti-vax, and covid-deniers. They will believe any asshat with a microphone and access to Spotify with next to zero thought. They explicitly DO NOT believe any reliable source. Their level of belief is inverse to how reliable the source is. If a rando with no background in anything says it, it's reliable. If a random doctor says it, it could be reliable but probably not. If multiple doctors say it, then it's definitely not true. It's manifested at this point into full science denial. I have one family member who won't take their high blood pressure medicine anymore because they think it's causing the hypertension. Sigh...
- naught0 1y agoIt's too bad the current conspiratorial crowd is winging on about election fraud, vaccines, and fluoride instead of in-plain-sight government corruption, regulatory capture, and obvious financial crimes. They blindly trust "authority," just not any credible one. I wonder if it's too late to start teaching media literacy and critical thinking.
- mantas 1y agoI'm not very familiar with US, but over here „conspirational crowd“, based on thinking patterns, is very diverse. But media seems to flag as „conspirational“ only a portion of it that comes to vaccines. And a lot of people who had issues with vaccines also have issues with corruption and other, let's say, tricky topics. Yet if we want to stop „conspirational“ crowd and make people fall in line with some topics, I'd be worried that it'd affect people concerned with other topics too.
- Retric 1y agoI don’t think it’s about trusting authority or not, it’s about how you construct a consistent model of the world and deal with conflicting bits of information. There’s a willingness in some people to consider some grand conspiracy is lying for complex reasons without considering the possibility that the person talking about it is lying to you or just mistaken for mundane reasons. Perhaps the medical establishment lying to you, or it’s the guy trying to sell you healing crystals. Other times it’s more subtle conflict such as the ‘healing power of touch’ vs ‘touch fulfilling a physiological need’ where it’s easy to exaggerate a subtle misunderstanding to a wildly inaccurate idea.