A significant part of the problem is social media technology and our relationship with it. The platforms encourage low effort hot takes and gamify narcissistic tendencies (likes, karma, rts, friends, followers). Nuanced discussion or having a deep engagement with a person is often impossible. It fosters divisiveness and tribalism at an amazing scale.<p>I'd wager in a world without Twitter, Facebook, et al we'd have a healthier & stronger society. Humans aren't meant to communicate this way and numerous studies show the physiological toll on the individual and we are all witnessing the societal toll play out in front of us.
Thank you, this is an important and timely article. If, however, you believe that only one faction is anti-truth, you are blind or willfully dissonant.
I would like some comments on this:<p>I have been grappling with how to discuss issues related to covid as truthfully as possible, and I’m wondering if anyone disagrees.<p>My intuition as a physicist says that any discussion or comparison of covid effects that look at total numbers, while true, is less meaningful than looking at these numbers normalized by population size.<p>Both sets of numbers are true, both lead the intuition to different conclusions. What conclusion should the intuition land on?<p>Isn’t it strange that people can argue behind truthful data to lead people to completely different conclusions?
This author is mostly on to it. However, I'm hearing the dog that is not barking.<p>We hear about listening to the science when it comes to COVID-19 and climate change. I totally agree. Why not also listen to the science when it comes to police shootings? And about whether George Floyd protesters further spread the virus or magically spookily didn't? We hear about criticism of the CDC, and I concur. Why not also admit the WHO made a long series of dangerous misstatements to such a degree that it's gotten hard to believe they were just accidents?<p>IMHO the right-wing is leading the way in conspiracy theories and downright dangerous viewpoints. On this we agree. But the left-wing legacy media has its fair share of fake news as well, especially in continually to mischaracterize statements made by Trump, and in framing the narrative in extremely unhelpful ways. Why not report actual death statistics regarding race relations? Why is it never news when a black police officer shoots a white person? Our brains make inferences based on frequency of events, but the events we are bombarded with are biased in a way to lead us to wrong politically-motivated conclusions, time and time again.<p>I'd like to think I'm in the middle. At the very least, I try to heap criticism on everybody. I'd like to see reasonable people to converge in the middle, en masse, and break America out of this dangerous partisan death spiral. This author is clearly reasonable, and on the right track, but seems to still be too much living in the main left-wing bubble and/or too afraid to criticize the left.
The appeal is to “listen to these people.” Unfortunately intellect doesn’t imply integrity, and appeal to authority is what got America to where it is. I would’ve preferred a framework for critical thinking, or at least more emphasis on that aspect rather than saying “you can trust these people.” That’s what everyone is saying, PhDs everywhere. I have an unfinished PhD too, and I’m saying “find out what makes it tick” and “follow the money”
Some reflections, having slept on it.<p>I am disappointed but not at all surprised that many of the reactions here are responses to my partisan position. I worked pretty hard to reduce that without compromising what I was trying to say. Certainly in the Twitter list I'm promoting I think I succeeded; it includes Scott Gottlieb, who was FDA commissioner under Trump and now advising two Republican governors on Covid-19, but doesn't have anybody (D or R) who uses their platform to push partisan political messages.<p>But I think the reduction of everything to partisanship is one of the ways in which we're broken. It's impossible to have a productive conversation under those circumstances. I think it's a kind of learned helplessness. We don't want to solve problems ourselves, we want our political party (and institutions in general) to do it. I'm sure many of us on this thread have fantasies of our party vanquishing the other one on the political stage and carrying out our wishes. Or if our party is in power, then we reflexively want to rationalize away whatever flaws they have. (For the record, I am equally upset by what's going on in blue states and red. Seeing the numbers go up in California, where I live, is at odds with any simplistic narrative that Democrats embrace science and Republicans deny it, with direct consequences for Covid response)<p>In any case, thanks for the responses, they're all respectful, and I appreciate that.
Some more reading on this topic:<p>- This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality -- Peter Pomerantsev<p>- A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy -- Nancy L. Rosenblum<p>- Trust, Facts, And Democracy In A Polarized World [podcast ] <a href="https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com/pew/" rel="nofollow">https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com/pew/</a><p>- darknetdiaries EP 65: PSYOP [podcast] <a href="https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/65/" rel="nofollow">https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/65/</a> (interview with psychological operations worker)<p>- Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare -- Thomas Rid
I've read that 40% of all deaths as of the first week of June were in elder care homes, a lot of them in NY and NJ where C19 patients were _sent to the nursing homes_. It's not so much a partisan issue as it is absolute shit state government issue. The decision to decimate the elderly was made at the state level, without exception. Governor Cuomo in particular needs to go to jail, in spite of granting himself immunity for this.
Just look at the difference in mask recommendations between governments over time will give people a feel on how difficult it is to ascertain truths in an evolving epidemic.<p>There is also the issue of whether the absence of evidence constitutes evidence for absence, notably surrounding the controversies regarding the effectiveness of masks and hydroxychloroquine
Thank you for this excellent post! Out of curiosity, how much time do you spend sifting through COVID-related material every day? Or is it mostly passive (Twitter experts, etc.) at this point?
I've read this article several times, each time trying to understand what the author want to say, but it's just impossible and the title is completely misleading.
For months since all of this started there has been an extremely large division between not just ordinary people, but between people competent enough to discuss the issue like doctors and scientists.
To be completely on one side is naive and telling people what the "truth" is is arrogant.
Now there is tons of data to be working with and continuing with the narrative that we're in some serious and deadly pandemic is just ridiculous.