NYTimes: The Widening World of Hand Picked Truths

[stevenleser]

The combination of the Alex Jonesing of society making everything a conspiracy and the religious right muddying the waters with religious pseudo science, people have their entire own version of reality rather than relying on empirical and peer reviewed results. It's frightening, IMHO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/the-widening-world-of-hand-picked-truths.html



.
.
.

Like creationists with their “intelligent design,” the followers of these causes come armed with their own personal science, assembled through Internet searches that inevitably turn up the contortions of special interest groups. In an attempt to dilute the wisdom of the crowd, Google recently tweaked its algorithm so that searching for “vaccination” or “fluoridation,” for example, brings vetted medical information to the top of the results.

But presenting people with the best available science doesn’t seem to change many minds. In a kind of psychological immune response, they reject ideas they consider harmful. A study published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that it is more effective to appeal to anti-vaxxers through their emotions, with stories and pictures of children sick with measles, the mumps or rubella — a reminder that subjective feelings are still trusted over scientific expertise.

.
.
.
(More at above link)

[Control-Z]

1. K&R

Excellent read. Thanks!

[Hortensis]

2. Good for Google -- realizing feeding people right back only their own presumptions might

have repercussions beyond profit margins. Imagine.

A significant portion of our population has ALWAYS been this way, though, and presumably always will be. The difference is they can connect in larger numbers and quicker by computer instead of through local meetings, newsletters, etc.

Remember MADD? Mutually assured destruction? This Iran deal brings that to mind. The same political types who vehemently oppose the Iran deal now vehemently and worriedly opposed the various bilateral arms reduction talks and treaties of last century. They also angrily and worriedly opposed all the nuclear test ban treaties, in spite of the radioactive clouds spreading across our nation and the world. ALL of them produced right-wing outrage and condemnation.

They were sure any administration that did not insist on total capitulation, but was instead willing to negotiate with our enemies, was weak, incompetent, guilty of appeasement, and even infiltrated and controlled by our enemies -- and that following those paths guaranteed our destruction. The same now. Many of the same people voted then as will go to the poles in 2016 -- and they have never changed their minds.

They are chickenhawks who would prefer to send my grandsons to die in a ground war that cannot be won over negotiating with an opponent.

Limited war is also anathema to them. They see our great victory as leader of the 100-nation coalition in the First Gulf War as a great failure, which is a major reason for the Second Gulf War invasion, which failed as all experts expected.

They were and are outraged that we face defeat and do not use our nuclear might -- and moral and religious right -- to secure victory.

And, of course, there is now as then a very large overlap of nationalist protectionism with religious right and end-times beliefs. Religion is seen as providing justification for genocide. And, of course, like GWB, religion provides all the answers and knowledge needed to be far wiser and more knowledgeable than any mainstream expert ever could be. Information that conflicts with their beliefs, and by far most does, simply confirms that they are right to reject mainstream information sources.

Nothing new here.

[pampango]

3. "But presenting people with the best available science doesn’t seem to change many minds."

Viewed from afar, the world seems almost on the brink of conceding that there are no truths, only competing ideologies — narratives fighting narratives. In this epistemological warfare, hthose with the most power are accused of imposing their version of reality — the “dominant paradigm” — on the rest, leaving the weaker to fight back with formulations of their own. Everything becomes a version.

Altruism and compassion toward the feelings of others represent the best of human impulses. And it is good to continually challenge rigid categories and entrenched beliefs. But that comes at a sacrifice when the subjective is elevated over the assumption that lurking out there is some kind of real world.

The widening gyre of beliefs is accelerated by the otherwise liberating Internet. At the same time it expands the reach of every mind, it channels debate into clashing memes, often no longer than 140 characters, that force people to extremes and trap them in self-reinforcing bubbles of thought.

[stevenleser]

4. It makes you want to throw up if you think about it for too long

This trend heralds the return of the world to the dark ages or worse.

And I am not sure Republicans would object to a return to feudalism.

[Igel]

5. One of the cherries that's picked is the

mention of primarily left-of-center ideas but "exposing" them as primarily RW/fundie ideas.

Must protect one's reader's from the horrible truth that their political or socio-cultural foes are only part of the problem. Stroking egos to stoke egos makes $, which seems to be the primary truth that may have. (We have this conceit that it's a RW disease. I hope that cherry's been pitted.)

[Jim Lane]

6. Kind of like what Judith Miller did in the pages of that selfsame newspaper. (n/t)

[Silent3]

7. Unfortunately I see a lot of that right here on DU

I think Republicans, in general, are worse than Democrats about "hand picked truths", but we've got a very strong contingent here who loves science when science says what they want to hear, but thinks that all science that doesn't match what they want to hear is a government and/or corporate conspiracy.

[Egnever]

8. Sort of ironic coming from the paper of Judith

Glad at least someone there is starting to recognize the danger of the two sides to an argument nonsense.