6 ms·
This stupid article is being pushed by multiple channels today. There's an easier explanation other than the self-serving "Our interpretation is that people who
by pessimizer 1y ago
This stupid article is being pushed by multiple channels today. There's an easier explanation other than the self-serving "Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they 'win' by endorsing misinformation – doing so can show 'the enemy' that it will not gain any ground over people’s views." Which incidentally, is a conclusion based on no science, it's just a WaPo editorial.
People believed a bunch of nonsense because people in authority were knowingly lying to them and intentionally confusing the facts at every turn. Normal people have no expertise, so they need to trust someone, and the people who were appointed to those positions of trust showed themselves willing to lie to help their own finances and careers, and to push transient political agendas.
They were left to trust other random people, like their religious leaders, or their family members - anybody who seemed like they had any moral grounding or conscience at all. They also trusted people who also pointed out that official institutional figures were lying - which is a mistake. It's easy for a scammer to point out another scammer, that doesn't mean you should trust him.
All the 5G conspiracy theories are just a reaction to how aggressively and undemocratically 5G was pushed. People intelligently and reasonably assume that if you are willing to run over everybody to do something from which there are enormous amounts of money to be made, you might not give two shits about any health consequences. This is also true, and they are right, but it doesn't mean that there are health consequences, which is the mistake.
But you know everything would have happened the same way if 5G were going to end up doubling the cancer rate or autism, or whatever other bad thing. We just wouldn't hear about it for 50 years, the people who got rich from it would have died of old age surrounded by their fat happy grandchildren, and their silver-spoon kids (your bosses) would be the ones in charge of the investigations and the remedies.
- mmooss 1y ago> a conclusion based on no science What about the research they did, including surveying 5,535 people across eight countries? What science are your claims based on? > stupid Why is it so important for you to bring them down?
- TimorousBestie 1y ago> What about the research they did, including surveying 5,535 people across eight countries? The size of the study is irrelevant if we can’t verify the methodology, and of course those details, if they were published at all, are behind the paywall.
- mmooss 1y ago> those details, if they were published at all They link to the study. These critcisms are a little hard to fathom as information: Is it symbolism of something, the same thing they describe?
- TimorousBestie 1y ago> They link to the study. Yeah—you see, if you click on that link you’ve identified, you’ll find the study itself is paywalled.
- mmooss 1y agoI don't like paywalls for science, but that doesn't mean that all that research doesn't exist. [edit: removed mistaken quotes of and references to another commenter; sorry]
- brookst 1y agoWait, so is it stupid non-science we should insult? Or is it just a claim that we can't verify without a deep dive into methodology? Hopefully those are two very different things.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoI did not and am not taking a stance on the alleged science or non-science because I can’t bloody read it. EDIT: You are quoting an entirely different user, I never said it wasn’t science. THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE.
- tremon 1y agoThank you for illustrating the point of the article. You don't care if any of the claims you're making are true, you are simply looking to score a goal for your tribe. And all of us who disagree with you are simply weak-minded because we don't accept your "easier explanations", right?
- mjburgess 1y agoThe more formal point you're making here is that the survey data social psychologists work with can be explained by an infinite number of hypothesis, and the "statistical testing" they do is basically pseudoscience. All they ask is "is my favoured hypothesis more likely than random?" and that's true, but it says nothing about lots of other explanations. Here everything can be explained by lines of trust, and resilience to information from low-trust sources. Indeed, it's highly rational to highly doubt sources you do not trust, because you are almost never in a position to validation information. Either way, the explanations they choose lead to a clearly partisan political narrative, way outside of the scope of their survey studies, that science washes attacks on trump and his supporters.
- lokar 1y agoI don't think 5G was push undemocratically. A small group of people complaining and getting pushed aside is not undemocratic. They were a tiny minority.
- bee_rider 1y agoI mean, starting with the question of whether or not 5G was “pushed undemocratically” sort of skips over the question of whether or not is should be a democratic decision… It is a technical decision. We make the democratic decision to have organizations like the FCC to hold the technical expertise to evaluate whether something like 5G is a good idea. Deciding democratically as a country that we want to defer some questions to experts is a fine thing to do. I haven’t seen any actual professional RF engineers worried about 5G. From my mostly lay point of view: these are not scary frequencies.
- lokar 1y agoYou argue that people have been lead astray by lying politicians. I think it's equally likely that opportunist politicians are following these conspiracy theories, promoting them to benefit from the phenomenon observed in the study.
- p_j_w 1y ago>All the 5G conspiracy theories are just a reaction to how aggressively and undemocratically 5G was pushed. What the hell does this even mean? Are we upset that carriers and handset manufacturers adopting 5G wasn't put up for a vote? Did adoption of 5G cause some great harm to people?