7 ms·

After spending the last couple of years really diving deep into nutrition science[1] to save my own health, I've come to believe the almost every three- or four

After spending the last couple of years really diving deep into nutrition science[1] to save my own health, I've come to believe the almost every three- or four-letter organization has little to do with its stated purpose and much more to do with feeding itself and ensuring its own propagation, no matter how it has to do it (see, for instance, the American Association of Nutritionists and Dietetics' (AAND) relationship with CocaCola and PepsiCo or the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) relationship with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals)[2]. Regulatory capture, as mentioned in TFA, is a popular method to protect the association. In a previous age, these organizations played an important role in disseminating curated information to its members, with the assumption that it was curated for maximum benefit to those who would ultimately be treated. Today, the Internet has shown that the curation may not be as completely benevolent as we would have hoped as corporate interests subtly and not-so-subtley influence what gets propagated. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to "fix" a heavily entrenched bureaucracy. Instead, I think the best we can hope for it to make them inconsequential. Fortunately, we now have the ability to do this, because we now have the raw information available with just a few clicks. In effect, the wisdom of crowds can overcome the edicts of the anointed[3]. The author of this article is taking a stand, saying that the TLA[4] associated with his field does not represent psychology as he sees it. I think this is a wonderful step, and I would trust him more as a psychologist as a result[5]. As more professionals eschew their self-serving organizations, health care will get better, because those that step away inevitably do so recognizing they have to become the curators of their own knowledge. So when you hear a health care provider is not a member of an organization you would expect them to be, instead of immediately considering it a black mark on their score card, take some time to learn why. You may find they are a better provider for it. 1. Sometimes, it is really hard to use the word nutrition and science together. There is some, but most of it is complete garbage compiled at incredible cost. 2. Sponsorship alone is not a problem, but it's a very dangerous line to walk. Sponsorship that conflicts with the core values of your organization is always a problem. Ask yourself: how strongly would the ADA be pushing for a true cure for diabetes, knowing 1) it would stop having a reason to exist and 2) its major sponsors would take a massive hit in profits? Is it surprising "managing" is the new word for how we treat illnesses? 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPnnDDCIjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzPnnDDCIjo 4. "Three letter acronym" 5. Stepping away is not the only option. There is, for example, a strong group (Dietitians for Professional Integrity) working to change the AAND internally. I hope they succeed. http://integritydietitians.org/ http://integritydietitians.org/

api 12y ago
TL;DR: he who pays the piper calls the tune. I am not convinced that the world of "organic" and "natural" is any better. A lot of that stuff is about using fear mongering to create a manufactured and scientifically baseless division between a higher priced tier of food for yuppies and a lower priced tier for the riff raff. I've heard it called "food gentrification." It's all about market segmentation and charging more to those who can be propagandized into paying it. Bernays would be proud. Eco-ideology is also used heavily to prevent the construction of new housing and infrastructure to artificially limit supply to the benefit of banks and existing property owners. My level of trust in pretty much any letter agency or social/political movement is low across the board. Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement. IMHO we live in a world where the law is do your own primary research or be exploited. No exceptions. I am not sure if it was ever different or if people are just becoming more aware.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  "Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement." This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective.
  - api 12y ago
    I don't see it that way. I see it as a simple recognition of a reality and a call to engage in primary research and reasoning from first principles. It is herds and movements that are disempowering. It's still possible to organize too. People should organize on concrete issues and leave the ideology (levers for mass manipulation) at the door. That way it's a lot harder to leverage group identity signifiers and mythological elements to manipulate large numbers of people while masking ones real agenda. For example, we might create an agency whose goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. That's it. No other bandwagons are implied. Don't get me wrong. I do see the universality of manipulation as a serious social pathology. I just don't know what to do about it in a world where people have to get paid. Seems to me that if money is required to make things happen, only things that are motivated by money or that serve the agendas of those with it will happen.

api 12y ago

TL;DR: he who pays the piper calls the tune. I am not convinced that the world of "organic" and "natural" is any better. A lot of that stuff is about using fear mongering to create a manufactured and scientifically baseless division between a higher priced tier of food for yuppies and a lower priced tier for the riff raff. I've heard it called "food gentrification." It's all about market segmentation and charging more to those who can be propagandized into paying it. Bernays would be proud. Eco-ideology is also used heavily to prevent the construction of new housing and infrastructure to artificially limit supply to the benefit of banks and existing property owners. My level of trust in pretty much any letter agency or social/political movement is low across the board. Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement. IMHO we live in a world where the law is do your own primary research or be exploited. No exceptions. I am not sure if it was ever different or if people are just becoming more aware.

pmoriarty 12y ago
"Nearly anything with a soapbox seems to be a front for something that reduces to political propaganda or wallet emptying. Right or left, religious or secular, green or whatever, it doesn't seem to matter. Nothing is true; everything is an advertisement." This seems to be an incredibly disempowering perspective.
- api 12y ago
  I don't see it that way. I see it as a simple recognition of a reality and a call to engage in primary research and reasoning from first principles. It is herds and movements that are disempowering. It's still possible to organize too. People should organize on concrete issues and leave the ideology (levers for mass manipulation) at the door. That way it's a lot harder to leverage group identity signifiers and mythological elements to manipulate large numbers of people while masking ones real agenda. For example, we might create an agency whose goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. That's it. No other bandwagons are implied. Don't get me wrong. I do see the universality of manipulation as a serious social pathology. I just don't know what to do about it in a world where people have to get paid. Seems to me that if money is required to make things happen, only things that are motivated by money or that serve the agendas of those with it will happen.