The following is false:
‘The only thing we can do is to improve our critical thinking & media literacy, & learn what we must be on guard against … we can learn tools to defend ourselves in this era of rapid falsehood. We need to marshal our ability to think critically‘ https://mobile.twitter.com/drg1985/status/1209049776773378048
Critical thinking, media literacy, etc. are very poor tools for defending against viral falsehoods.
It’s also awful & condescending to believe that viral believers lack critical thinking or are stupid.
I am with #DanahBoyd's much less sanguine analysis in https://medium.com/@zephoria/a-few-responses-to-criticism-of-my-sxsw-edu-keynote-on-media-literacy-7eb2843fae22
"media literacy and critical thinking will be deployed as an assertion of authority over epistemology."
"I believe in empathy and building resilience… I relish people recognizing unconscious bias and grappling with the limits of their own mind. But I’m not at all convinced that asking people to strengthen their individual cognitive capacities will do a lot to address a complex systemic issue."
Media literacy is *interesting* and *worth teaching* for intellectual reasons, along with abstract algebra and Faulkner. But it's not going to cause people to re-evaluate their sacred cows.
I've been privileged? to see radicalization in three places:
- trump people vs the rest
- ISIS recruiting & innoculation
- Hong Kong, pro- vs anti-police/Beijing
All six of these factions insist they're using critical thinking and meta-analysis, that they're seeing the other side's (invalid) arguments.
I'm a programmer. Most of my waking thinking moments are spent ironing out in excruciating detail how to actually do something that was easy to say in words. I combat "Shit's Easy Syndrome" every day (https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html).
None of these factions can construct a real convincing argument against its opponent. Viral beliefs, like real viruses, evolve under intense pressure—their inventors poured all their energy, creativity, and intellect in making these beliefs immune to easy argumentation.
This notion, that you or I can evaluate the medical claims, is toxic. #DanKahan brilliantly illustrates this https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794799&download=yes:
"You learn next week that you have an endocrinological deficit that can be effectively treated but only if you submit to a regimen of daily medications. You certainly will do enough research to satisfy yourself—to satisfy any reasonable person in your situation—that this recommendation is sound before you undertake such treatment. But what will you do?" (cont.)
"Will you carefully read and evaluate all the studies that inform your physician’s recommendation? If those studies refer, as they inevitably will, to previous ones the methods of which aren’t reproduced in those papers, will you read those, too? … will you enroll in a professional training program to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills? … will you redo the experiments—*all* of them…"
"Of course not. Because by the time you did those things, you’d be dead."
And the most surreal thing is that the viral believers are convinced they're scientific—Kahan via https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794799
"[people are] experts at recognizing what science knows—at identifying who knows what about what, at distinguishing the currency of genuine scientific understanding from the multiplicity of counterfeit alternatives [unless there's] disruption to the system of conventions that normally enable individuals to recognize valid science despite their inability to understand it"
In this 2011 paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444, Kahan et al. suggest that
"[science] communicators must attend to the cultural meaning as well as the scientific content of information."
That is, sugar-coat your statements to be acceptable.
For example, one strategy is *identity affirmation*, where, when your findings include something that might conflict with some people's cultural values, you show that information in such a way, or you pair it with another finding, that does support their views.
"When shown risk information (e.g., global temperatures are increasing) that they associate with a conclusion threatening to their cultural values (commerce must be constrained), individuals tend to react dismissively toward that information; however, when shown that the information in fact supports or is consistent with a conclusion that affirms their cultural values (society should rely more on nuclear power), such individuals are more likely to consider the information openmindedly"
This advice would have medical researchers' press releases, if they were presenting evidence against some popular false medicine beliefs (maybe something about cancer that assumes it is not primarily caused by fungus), also maybe include wording about how it remains very important to be vigilant about eating wholesome food…?
As far-fetched as this sounds, it's actually plausible and doable, unlike the original tweeter's delusions about defense against viral medical falsehoods.
I'm reviewing info about aflatoxins & wondering what the carcinogen example here means
To the broader point, perhaps amongst the most corrosive developments of the last 40 years has been the war on regulation, eating away at the idea that professional experts have any societal or at least fiduciary duty to those without expertise:
@deejoe oh, that's apparently one of the viral beliefs Mercola spreads, per the tweet thread in the original toot: https://mobile.twitter.com/drg1985/status/1209036249601851393
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!