90% of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory (1 Viewer)

[Mamba]

I couldn't resist googling this one. For anyone else interested:

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I couldn't resist googling this one. For anyone else interested:

Man I lovehate r/askhistorians

 

[Sailorsaint]

I couldn't resist googling this one. For anyone else interested:

FWIW, what makes "CommodoreCoCo" any more reputable than any other knowledge slinger on the interwebs?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

FWIW, what makes "CommodoreCoCo" any more reputable than any other knowledge slinger on the interwebs?

AskHistorians is HIGHLY curated - you have to have published bona fides in the field to ‘answer’ a topic (you can still ask questions if you’re hoi polloi)
Mods will not hesitate to remove comments that aren’t substantive
It’s not unheard of to see a topic and notice there are 75 comments and think ‘this seems a lively topic’ only to click on the thread to see one mod comment about the rules of the sub and 74 ‘removed’ comments
It’s part of my love hate - it’s probably the most old school ‘factual’ sites on the web, but unfortunately that also means it’s often the least entertaining

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting read
===========
When I hear someone extolling the virtues of homeopathy, I am often reminded of a quotation from the TV show 30 Rock.

“There are many kinds of intelligence,” Jack Donaghy tells a particularly stupid employee. “Practical, emotional … and then there is actual intelligence, which is what I’m talking about.”

Similar, and perhaps correlating, are the many kinds of medicine. Natural, complementary, alternative, homeopathic, herbal, traditional. And then there is actual medicine, which works.

It is strange that homeopaths can still find employment in 2023, but somehow they do. In 1853, Queen Victoria’s doctor was already calling the practice “an outrage to human reason”.

In the following 170 years it has been debunked repeatedly and comprehensively. After all, its principles run in complete opposition to science, based as they are on “curing like with like” – an extract of raw onion, say, to treat watery eyes – “strengthening” by process of dilution, and shaking it all up to “promote quantum entanglement”.

Yet last week we heard that the head of the royal medical household is an advocate of homeopathy. Dr Michael Dixon has championed such things as “thought field therapy”, “Christian healing” and an Indian herbal cure “ultra-diluted” with alcohol, which claims to kill breast cancer cells.

Methods like these might be “unfashionable”, he once wrote in an article submitted to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, but they should not be ignored……

Why is homeopathy so useless and yet still so prevalent?

Part of the explanation must be that it has always found champions in elite circles.

In the mid 19th century, dozens of homeopaths served as personal physicians to monarchs around the world – including in Britain, where the first royal homeopathic doctor was a son of the Duchess of Devonshire. Edward, Prince of Wales, was the patron of the London Homeopathic hospital; King George VI named a racehorse Hypericum after a favoured remedy.

The Queen Mother, meanwhile, was something of a maniac for arnica – she coated her dogs with it and pressed it upon her friends. “I think arnica the most marvellous medicine and every doctor, including those not trained in homeopathy, should use arnica,” she once said, madly.

And then there is King Charles, who in his first speech as president of the British Medical Association told the assembled crowd of doctors that modern medicine was “like the celebrated Tower of Pisa, slightly off balance”.

The royals are no longer the fashion influencers they once were. But another bunch of homeopath-advocating elites have risen to take their place: celebrities such as Helena Bonham Carter, David Beckham, Jude Law, Jennifer Aniston, Chris Martin and Cindy Crawford. They continue to spread the word.

But why? These are not people who want for education, and nor are those who follow their advice: the typical user of homeopathy is affluent and middle class. Why are kings, movie stars and the rich so susceptible to this snake oil?……..

King Charles has appointed a homeopath. Why do the elite put their faith in snake oil? | Martha Gill

The aristocracy and celebrities are in thrall to medical quackery that while useless can be far from harmless

www.theguardian.com

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

^ the ‘why’ is what this whole thread is about- the power of belief
Physical healing (medicine) or Spiritual healing (religion) all have some kernel of truth/practice; but the effectiveness relies mostly on the strength of the belief in the system or process

 

[SystemShock]

But why? These are not people who want for education, and nor are those who follow their advice: the typical user of homeopathy is affluent and middle class. Why are kings, movie stars and the rich so susceptible to this snake oil?……..

Same reason they go into Scientology.

And I am going to have to argue about "these are not people who want for education". Being affluent middle class doesn't necessarily mean you are "educated". Actors and musicians may have degrees from Juilliard, which will make them educated, but that doesn't mean they are educated in science. Sports figures like Beckham, they are educated in playing soccer; Beckham signed with a team when he was 12; his football education may have been top notch, but I doubt his school education was Oxford level.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.

While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.

The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.

This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.

“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”

Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.” Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.

The mechanism is explored at length but, in short, false claims or other rumors often generate fewer hits on Google, meaning searchers are more likely to encounter unreliable information that aligns with their assumptions. (The paper is dense; Benton’s summary is useful.)...........

MSN

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/17/do-your-own-research-study/

 

[Sailorsaint]

The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.

While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.

The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.

This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.

“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”

Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.” Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.

The mechanism is explored at length but, in short, false claims or other rumors often generate fewer hits on Google, meaning searchers are more likely to encounter unreliable information that aligns with their assumptions. (The paper is dense; Benton’s summary is useful.)...........

MSN

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/17/do-your-own-research-study/

The information age is truly frightening.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The information age is truly frightening.

We probably feel a similar way the ‘new world’ felt at the beginning of the age of sail

 

[Sailorsaint]

We probably feel a similar way the ‘new world’ felt at the beginning of the age of sail

Probably. Except now when someone says "Cat feces is good for your complexion", millions get that info in minutes instead of hundreds in months.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Probably. Except now when someone says "Cat feces is good for your complexion", millions get that info in minutes instead of hundreds in months.

True but cat face feces probably doesn’t have the impact of ‘here are some blankets for free - no need to thank us’

 

[Sun Wukong]

True but cat face feces probably doesn’t have the impact of ‘here are some blankets for free - no need to thank us’

Long term it very well may.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Long term it very well may.

It’s possible, but usually we find some balance- we start with the utopian phase, pivot quickly to the dystopian and then we moderate
Yes we now have vested interests who are avoiding moderation at all costs, but I feel/hope we’ll revert to the mean soon

 

[Nisey55]

It’s possible, but usually we find some balance- we start with the utopian phase, pivot quickly to the dystopian and then we moderate
Yes we now have vested interests who are avoiding moderation at all costs, but I feel/hope we’ll revert to the mean soon

I think they removed the word moderation from the dictionary a couple of years ago.