- 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 10:24 am to Salmon
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:24 am to Salmon
quote:I see nothing wrong with this.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be that you accepted the authority of this paper, or more accurately, the OP, unquestioned.
0
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:24 am to RandySavage
quote:
Here's all the science I needed.
...proceeds to list anecdotal events.
This post was edited on 5/12/21 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:26 am to Centinel
quote:
"The science is settled" is one of the stupidest fricking statements someone can make.
Science is never settled.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:28 am to member12
quote:
"The science is settled" is one of the stupidest fricking statements someone can make.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is never settled.
Which is why the OP is correct.
Its not sacred, and worthy of questioning. Hell, its not science without skepticism.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:28 am to ell_13
anybody that has taken an infection control class of any kind knows masks. especially outdoors on a beach boardwalk, or any where outdoors- when you are not sick. is asinine and below Corky IQ.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:32 am to RogerTheShrubber
Scientists "you need to trust our institutions!"
Also scientists:
I wouldn't trust these clowns to pick my groceries at heb.
Also scientists:
quote:
The attempted coup on January 6, 2021 has similarly illustrated that well-calibrated, well- funded systems of coordinated disinformation can be particularly dangerous when they are designed to appeal to skeptical people.
I wouldn't trust these clowns to pick my groceries at heb.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:33 am to cajunangelle
My main issue with the paper is that it seems to take the stance that a skeptical public is a bad thing at face value. But I think a skeptical public who takes the steps to educate themselves and comes into an argument or debate ready to intelligently question experts is good for everyone involved. Experts have to learn not only to be able to defend their thesis to peers but to those who may not have all the pieces to the puzzle but are attempting to put it together anyway. THAT is a healthy community where the scientists and public can learn from one another and gain trust.
ETA: And the trust works both ways. Scientists can become comfortable with giving the public more data and something beyond the 240 character limit and headlines of today's society (which is encouraging). And the public can begin to trust scientists without feeling like they're getting the lecture from an elite class.
ETA: And the trust works both ways. Scientists can become comfortable with giving the public more data and something beyond the 240 character limit and headlines of today's society (which is encouraging). And the public can begin to trust scientists without feeling like they're getting the lecture from an elite class.
This post was edited on 5/12/21 at 10:36 am
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:34 am to ell_13
That article is a very accurate description of the daily anti-mask internet vomit. Gotta give the researchers credit. They described exactly what they saw, and described it accurately.
There is no real conclusion in the article, just observations and a couple of vague suggestions about better messaging.
There is no real conclusion in the article, just observations and a couple of vague suggestions about better messaging.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:34 am to ell_13
I only follow the real “Stanford study”
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:39 am to ell_13
quote:
My main issue with the paper is that it seems to take the stance that a skeptical public is a bad thing at face value.
I didn't get this from the paper. I believe it takes the stance that we have more literate public and that science needs to be better at communicating its data and interpretations as a whole and with better transparency.
If not, people will create their own interpretations, often controlled by their own biases.
The basic problem here is that we are dealing with very basic human emotions here. The vast majority of people are only seeking affirmation and will ignore or manipulate any of all information that is in opposition.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:40 am to TBoy
quote:They did nothing to try and disprove anything the skeptics said. That doesn't make the experts right and it doesn't make the skeptics right either. There are real studies that disprove the need for masks on the public. The best ones center on the asian bird flus and how prevalent masking was there yet it didn't work to control anything. You also have people who think masks work yet think masking healthy or even asymptomatic people does more harm than good. Study from Nature: Asymptomatics spread immunity not disease
That article is a very accurate description of the daily anti-mask internet vomit. Gotta give the researchers credit. They described exactly what they saw, and described it accurately.
There is no real conclusion in the article, just observations and a couple of vague suggestions about better messaging.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:40 am to TBoy
quote:
daily anti-mask internet vomit.
Cultists gonna do cult like things.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:45 am to Salmon
quote:
If anything, this paper is simply telling scientists to stop treating the general public as morons.
Ya and they need to stop selectively telling the truth. But this is what happens when essentially all institutions have eroded the public trust.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:47 am to Salmon
"bad" was a bad word to use... get it?
I digress.
I digress.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:47 am to ell_13
quote:
They did nothing to try and disprove anything the skeptics said.
The article isn't pro-mask or anti-mask. It is a study about the use of visualizations which incorporate actual data sets to present anti-mask arguments online. The article finds that the anti-mask visualizations, along with an appeal to individualization, are effective and much more sophisticated than some folks assume. This is solely about the use of visualizations in anti-mask messaging.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:52 am to TBoy
quote:But not to manipulate anyone. The paper even says that these communities expect each other to be able to discern the data together. And while they do tend to have biases, it's still based on raw data rather than what anyone outside the community says to a reporter through a pointed question or an article that has been edited for a specific narrative. That's the key point. It's less about the effective messaging they have and more about the shitty messaging the experts have. These skeptics choose to ignore what 'badly' shown to them and use the data the find to come to their own conclusions. It's not the visualizations that lead them to their ends. It's the data.
This is solely about the use of visualizations in anti-mask messaging.
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:54 am to ell_13
It's fine the degree in which we disagree is relatively small compared to our agreements on this
I guess the overall question to ask would be "is full transparency and more information always best? or is ignorance truly bliss? and which is better for society as a whole?"
now I know what most here would argue and on the surface I would agree that more information is always better, but considering where we are as a society during this information age and how people lament decades prior, I don't know anymore
I've enjoyed this thread this morning though, so thanks for the link
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:56 am to ell_13
quote:
This is terrifying, because it means we can't scare them into compliance like we can other groups."
Wow..openly admitting you're biggest threat is intelligent free thought.
ETA: my bad....thought that was a quote from the article
This post was edited on 5/12/21 at 11:51 am
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:59 am to scott8811
just for clarity, that isn't a quote from the paper, but rather a Twitter user summarizing the conclusion in a rather hyperbolic manner
Posted on 5/12/21 at 10:59 am to scott8811
quote:
Wow..openly admitting you're biggest threat is intelligent free thought.
think you misunderstood.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News