A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't

[Deadeye]

It's quite easy to misunderstand. I was not referring to your original use of "interested in" I was referring to you use of "not caring " so you could apply the label of "a teeny bit psychopathic"

A common tactic to label someone as part of an unpopular segment and discredit their point of view.

Dude. Read my reply properly or, if you did read it properly, don't be disingenuous.

I mirrored your language (worry/care); you changed mine (interested/worry).

I'm not here to pick a fight; just offering an insight into how others see things.
You speak of common tactics, yet deploy them liberally. Perhaps just go back to the OP and see if you fancy reading an interesting book? If not, hey, that's ok!

 

[Jacob]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/10/trump-hurricane-lies-conspiracy-theories

Not just some bloke on youtube but ex president and contender for a second term, most powerful leader in the world.

So crazy in the USA they are having to mount an organised response.
Maybe we need the same sort of thing here, apropos immigration and other issues. Not easy as Tories and Labour have both been on the side of the crazies, to varying degrees.

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response

Radio 4 today interesting, reflected the point I made earlier that we need to change the conversation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023q08
Earlier progs in same series also worth a listen.

 

[artie]

at the very least it will give you an insight into why the rest of us think you've been suckered in.

As I said before why would anyone care/worry/be interested in what you/they/them think?

 

[Jacob]

As I said before why would anyone care/worry/be interested in what you/they/them think?

Because you/they/he/she might learn something? Or is this some sort of riddle?

 

[Deadeye]

As I said before why would anyone care/worry/be interested in what you/they/them think?

And, as I said before

"Well, self-insight is pretty useful for learning how to do things better, and similarly others' views for developing empathy. Feedback (in its broadest sense) is the greatest shaping force in the universe.

Also, if you truly don't care, that's a teeny bit psychopathic..."

But at least you now appear to have accepted that either you changed the emphasis not me, or that the words are equivalent so the diversion was meaningless.

Crikey. And you accused me of using "tactics".

Read it or don't. You'll recognise yourself in there. Whether or not you agree with the diagnosis is another matter of course.

 

[artie]

And, as I said before

"Well, self-insight is pretty useful for learning how to do things better,

Self insight yes, but you don't get that from concerning yourself with what others think

and similarly others' views for developing empathy. Feedback (in its broadest sense) is the greatest shaping force in the universe.

I don't think so

Also, if you truly don't care, that's a teeny bit psychopathic..."

As I said before.

But at least you now appear to have accepted that either you changed the emphasis not me, or that the words are equivalent so the diversion was meaningless.

nope

Crikey. And you accused me of using "tactics".

Read it or don't. You'll recognise yourself in there. Whether or not you agree with the diagnosis is another matter of course.

Just how arrogant can you get?

 

[Dave Moore]

When it comes to you tube just tread very carefully because it is just a free for all and very hard sometimes to separate reality from the fairies as evidenced by these so called influencers who I dare say can only influence the vunerable and gullable who would buy snake lubricant anyway.

You mean like the government did using the scamdemic?

 

[Dauph]

I watched a sociology/psychology video (yes, on YouTube) titled "why do intelligent people believe stupid things" It made the observation that: Unintelligent people are easily mislead by others. Intelligent people are easily mislead by themselves. As humans, we are very good at convincing ourselves that we are right!

 

[kinverkid]

 

[Fergie 307]

I watched a sociology/psychology video (yes, on YouTube) titled "why do intelligent people believe stupid things" It made the observation that: Unintelligent people are easily mislead by others. Intelligent people are easily mislead by themselves. As humans, we are very good at convincing ourselves that we are right!

Ah, "Jacob Syndrome" it's all clear to me now

 

[Fitzroy]

I watched a sociology/psychology video (yes, on YouTube) titled "why do intelligent people believe stupid things" It made the observation that: Unintelligent people are easily mislead by others. Intelligent people are easily mislead by themselves. As humans, we are very good at convincing ourselves that we are right!

‘Confirmation bias’, and the internet feeds you unending streams of confirmation.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I watched a sociology/psychology video (yes, on YouTube) titled "why do intelligent people believe stupid things" It made the observation that: Unintelligent people are easily mislead by others. Intelligent people are easily mislead by themselves. As humans, we are very good at convincing ourselves that we are right!

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

 

[nickds1]

My issue is really the inabilty of a lot of folk to think critically plus being totally susceptible to selection bias.

The need for people to find any reason, however irrational, for almost anything that happens appears bizarre to those who a) have a brain, and b) know how to engage it. They don't understand so need something, anything, to fill that void.

The above does sound rather elitist, but it's not intended to. I just wish folk didn't automatically reach for the easiest "answer" and were a bit more choosy about their sources.

In a recent thread, the lead poster continually referenced a somewhat discredited source on COVID and other health conspiracy theories.

I'm going to quote what I wrote there as it amazes me that the main poster just didn't seem to care that their primary source was hopelessly compromised:

Just to be clear, he's not a medical doctor - the "Dr." bit is from a Phd he did on teaching via digital media (university of Bolton).. He was for many years a nurse practitioner and taught nursing. Recently, one of his videos claiming that there were more excess deaths amongst folk who'd been vaccinated against COVID-19 was debunked on "More or Less" (the opposite was true) and after contact from the BBC, he withdrew it, stating that he wasn't a statistician... which begs the question why he was making such claims (based on statistics) when he knew there was a good chance he was wrong? Other claims he made in early 2024 about blood clots in cadavers were also debunked.

There's a lot more - a long history of false claims - but mostly he seems to peddle conspiracy theories to those susceptible to selection bias and who aren't capable of thinking (specifically, thinking critically) for themselves.

Personally, I feel it's both dishonest & intentionally misleading to use the title "Dr." when commenting in a medical context when you don't have the relevant medical qualifications - you should postfix your name with "Phd". Even with the postfix, it would still be more honest to make it clear what your qualifications actually are, especially if your doctorate was non-medical, e.g. in this case, digital media-related.