- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MIT study infiltrates Covid lockdown/mask skeptic groups and finds that they're... smart
Posted on 5/12/21 at 8:59 am to Salmon
Posted on 5/12/21 at 8:59 am to Salmon
quote:
If anything, this paper is simply telling scientists to stop treating the general public as morons.
But then how do scientists let everyone know they're smarter than everyone else?
1
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:01 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
n, and the findings presented in this paper corroborate similar studies about the impact of fake news on American evangelical voters [98] and about the limitations of fact-checking climate change denialism [42].
My take from that is you cry wolf to many times then people don't believe one fricking word you say. It's starts with the media and these higher education universities which are very liberal. Republicans and conservatives(probably most of antimaskers like myself) are not stupid like most liberal media outlets want people to believe. We do our research we don't fall for the fear mongering and much like the governor of my state I use facts not fiction to draw my own conclusion on things. Right now I will remain unvaccinated and yes I will wear a mask if it is required in certain locations so there you go.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:04 am to ell_13
quote:
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
Whoever believes otherwise doesn’t know what science is.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:07 am to Salmon
quote:This is an excellent point and I think the main point of the paper. You have real examples of "experts" being misleading in order to manipulate what they see an ignorant public who can't handle the truth. This creates far more harm in the long run than any short term gain. The best example is Fauci saying masks are not necessary at all early on and then changing is tune once the supply was increased.
- The paper discusses how science, as a whole, treats the general public as dumb and how that leads to distrust from the general public.
quote:I somewhat agree although I think they are claiming that individualist forms of objective analysis is bad and can lead to bad things. They blame it for Jan 6th. They lament that people trust themselves and what they interpret over what someone else interprets for them even if that person is more qualified. The leads back to the distrust part that we agree upon.
- It doesn't say that objective analysis is "bad", as the OP describes, but describes this particular objective analysis as mostly uninformed and based on mistrust, as in the analysis often ignores data that in deemed as "biased", which is often deemed biased based off their own biases.
quote:Scientists through the filter of the media will always be dumbed down and media bias and the distrust that causes will keep people from trusting them no matter the topic. It's where we are.
If anything, this paper is simply telling scientists to stop treating the general public as morons.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:08 am to FLBooGoTigs1
quote:
My take from that is you cry wolf to many times then people don't believe one fricking word you say. It's starts with the media and these higher education universities which are very liberal. Republicans and conservatives(probably most of antimaskers like myself) are not stupid like most liberal media outlets want people to believe. We do our research we don't fall for the fear mongering and much like the governor of my state I use facts not fiction to draw my own conclusion on things. Right now I will remain unvaccinated and yes I will wear a mask if it is required in certain locations so there you go.
Some of us live with old people (elderly parents) that we do not want to pass the virus to, idk why thats a hard concept to grasp
This post was edited on 5/12/21 at 9:09 am
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:09 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Some of us live with old people (elderly parents) that we do not want to pass the virus to, idk why thats a hard concept to grasp
Have you been vaccinated?
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:09 am to ell_13
Exactly what I was trying to say but alot better break down. Thank you
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:15 am to hubertcumberdale
The key word being SOME here. Not hard to understand you get it and good for you now go frick yourself. See that was easy.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:17 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:Who said it was a difficult concept? I agree with your decision because it makes sense that you would want to protect them being in a situation where you have less control over sharing germs through proximity. Totally your choice.
Some of us live with old people (elderly parents) that we do not want to pass the virus to, idk why thats a hard concept to grasp
But right now the "your choice" argument is one-sided. People feel lectured and belittled when told they HAVE to get a vaccine for the greater good and to ignore anything else. I had someone this week tell me that I should get the vaccine to protect others because I could kill someone I care about, they quoted JFK, told me its for the greater good, etc. That kind of logic putts all the onus on me as if my decision is a direct cause of more deaths. It's fascinating that someone would go that far in saying those things to a stranger. Am I just as responsible for killing someone if I ask them to come over for dinner and they die in a crash on the way? Or was it there responsibility to drive safer?
If the vaccine works so well, then those who are vulnerable to a disease should get it. And I even understand the logic in your situation who may be around someone vulnerable often and wants to be extra cautious. But if I don't see a reason to take extra (unnecessary) steps to protect me and the people I'm closest to most often, then that's my choice, too.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:17 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Some of us live with old people (elderly parents) that we do not want to pass the virus to, idk why thats a hard concept to grasp
Feel free to wear a mask then. I don't know why that's a hard concept to grasp.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:19 am to ell_13
quote:
The best example is Fauci saying masks are not necessary at all early on and then changing is tune once the supply was increased.
Yep. The paper highlights this example.
quote:
I think they are claiming that individualist forms of objective analysis is bad and can lead to bad things. They blame it for Jan 6th. They lament that people trust themselves and what they interpret over what someone else interprets for them even if that person is more qualified.
They do blame individual analysis on Jan. 6th. Hell I do too
But they also bring up paid "analysis" by tobacco companies in the 60s encouraging people to "think for themselves" when it comes to the dangers of tobacco. There are plenty of cases where "thinking for yourself" can be harmful. That statement doesn't have to evoke a "sheeple" response.
quote:
Scientists through the filter of the media will always be dumbed down and media bias and the distrust that causes will keep people from trusting them no matter the topic. It's where we are.
Right.
And whether or not we (the OT) want to admit it, people today are more literate and proficient in reading data than ever before, mostly due to access.
And this is where the paper discusses the idea of how science should treat the general public as far as access to data. In the past and now, science hasn't shared all the data because they don't believe that the general public will understand how all the data fits together.
The problem is that this data will eventually be discovered, and if it leads to any amount of uncertainty towards the general consensus, it will cause far more harm than it ever would if it were all released together.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:24 am to Salmon
quote:I found this to be a red herring. Telling people to think for themselves in those ads was about manipulating people into NOT looking at the data but to just do what they wanted (ei addicted to). There's a difference between trusting yourself with no basis and thinking for yourself using analysis and the scientific method. Does that mean people should ignore those who may be more qualified at interpreting the specific data? No. I'm not advocating for that at all. But it doesn't mean they can't be questioned if you do your own digging and feel like you need more/better arguments from them before you trust them. JMO.
But they also bring up paid "analysis" by tobacco companies in the 60s encouraging people to "think for themselves" when it comes to the dangers of tobacco. There are plenty of cases where "thinking for yourself" can be harmful. That statement doesn't have to evoke a "sheeple" response.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:27 am to ell_13
quote:
MIT study infiltrates Covid lockdown/mask skeptic groups and finds that they're... smart
So they didn't infiltrate the OT yet. Got it.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:29 am to Centinel
quote:People seem to confusd "you don't have to wear a mask" with "you cannot wear a mask".
Feel free to wear a mask then. I don't know why that's a hard concept to grasp.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:31 am to ell_13
quote:
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
Get fricked, "woke" idiots.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:31 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Some of us live with old people (elderly parents) that we do not want to pass the virus to, idk why thats a hard concept to grasp
When you turn 25, you can flee the coup and get rid of that mask.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:33 am to bayouvette
quote:
Babylon bee stuff right there
idiot stuff right here.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:43 am to hometownhero89
quote:
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
so let's discuss this quote, which I assume this thought is a standard misinterpretation of Kuhn, who is often falsely termed as a "relativist"
Kuhn would argue that "scientific truth" cannot be determined by objective data (process) because there is no objective data because 2 individuals (scientists) could reach different conclusions with the same data due to their own subjective values
Therefore, the only way to define "scientific truth" would be through consensus of the scientific community (institution)
the fact that the "anti-maskers" in this study like to quote Kuhn is kinda problematic towards their own cause
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:44 am to hometownhero89
Covidians are going to melt down.
People who analyze critically are smarter than those who accept authority unquestioned? No way!
People who analyze critically are smarter than those who accept authority unquestioned? No way!
Posted on 5/12/21 at 9:48 am to Salmon
quote:
It doesn't say that objective analysis is "bad", as the OP describes, but describes this particular objective analysis as mostly uninformed and based on mistrust, as in the analysis often ignores data that in deemed as "biased", which is often deemed biased based off their own biases.
It is based on mistrust for good reason. Scientific consensus does not get to the public from their subscriptions to Nature or Virology Journal. It gets to the public through the media, which controls which studies are "good" for us to hear about and which are "bad" or "irresponsible" to publicize.
Imagine a CNN lede: "Harvard study confirms masks are best defense against covid, but UCLA study begs to differ."
That story doesn't run. It suggests that highly qualified, intelligent people can come to differing conclusions and that the reader must weigh each side on his own. You only hear about the study they like.
Half of the public doesn't have a major problem with scientists, per se. They have a problem with the media's favorite scientists and the narrative they decide to get behind because they end up being wrong much more frequently than they let on.
This post was edited on 5/12/21 at 9:52 am
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News