Trying to find a balance in medical scepticism

[MembersSchoolPizza]

With the ascendancy of RFK Jr. into the public eye, with the debacle of the COVID vaccine, with the Opioid crisis, with a lot of things that have been going on lately, there’s a – I feel long overdue – shift in the public’s willingness to discuss the missteps, overreach, and corruption of the pharmacological and medical establishment.

This is good, I feel. I think there’s a lot of things that we have, as a society, taken on unearned faith for a long time now. And “trusting the experts” is one of those things we really need to look at hard.

But on the other hand, it seems like humans, being the flawed and fundamentally sometimes stupid creatures that we are, can’t do anything halfway.

Because it seems like no sooner are some people starting to intelligently question things they have believed blindly for their entire lives, a non-trivial contingency… And to some extent RFK Jr. is part of this, although not as far gone nor as uncritically fanatical as some… have gone full on into science-denying woo and hokum.

I get very uncomfortable trying to take a side on this issue, as a result. If I agree that the COVID panic and not-actually-a-vaccine scandal was a travesty, I get lumped in with the people who would try to prevent rabies with herbal teas and getting lots of fresh air. If I say, “I personally feel better when I cut out <some heavily processed ingredient> from my diet,” I get slandered as wanting to kill babies by feeding them diseased milk. But on the flip side, if I say “Yeah, but actually, I have this <very real medical condition>, and the medicine that Big Pharma produces to treat it actually really does work for me,” I get dismissed as a fool who should be lining up to get his 19th Covid booster.

And then others will use one truth to avoid a nuanced discussion of a related, but seperate, issue. It’s true we probably put things in our food we shouldn’t and use chemicals that we shouldn’t in our clothing and what not. And it’s probably equally true that some of those things could be linked to an increase in things like cancer rates, diabetes, etc. But at the same time, things like cancer and diabetes do exist. And as a practical matter, we’re absolutely never going to be able to return to society to a “natural” state, and frankly I’m not even interested in that. I like the luxuries of the modern world. So to some extent, it feels like we have to acknowledge the reality we have, not the utopia we think we want. Telling people they wouldn’t get cancer if they went back to living in a grass hut and eating raw bison, even if it were true, seems to be a non-starter.

I only slightly exaggerate… You can go on Twitter any day of the week and see people saying we need to start raising our own cows and and churning our own butter, and sure, hey, that’s a wonderful tradlife ideal I suppose, but it’s never realistically going to happen for most people.

How do we establish a “gate of sanity” that holds in both directions? I'm not even saying I'm at the correct point of sanity - maybe I'm wrong and the Covid not-a-vaccine is actually worth it, or maybe cutting out HFCS doesn't actually make a difference. There's any number of specific points I'm prepared to accept I could be wrong on, but at least I'm looking at each point and trying to come to a conclusion for myself, not just jumping head-first into someone's ideological camp.

Or who knows, maybe that makes me the biggest idiot of them all.

Why are we so infernally stupid that it seems like we can only accept that binary extremes of any position can be true? Or, if it’s not true that humanity is fundamentally flawed in that way, which I have to believe to avoid losing all hope, why do we allow those people to have an unreasonably large effect on the public discourse around such issues, to the point that intelligent discussion is nearly impossible? And what can we do, going forward? Or are they right? Is the average person unable to navigate such complex issues, and can only choose to carry water for one side or the other?

 

[mofu mofo]

RFK Jr's raw milk stance brings out the accelerationist in me.

 

[Bloitzhole]

Why are we so infernally stupid that it seems like we can only accept that binary extremes of any position can be true?

I believe this is less a matter of stupidity and more a result of fearing both the uncertain and one's own fallible nature.

If I admit to myself that the truth can lie in-between position A and B, I am forced to concede that my current position could be flawed and therefore worthy of constant reexamination and shifting - necessary change. Not only this, whenever I am faced with someone who has a different opinion, I have to acknowledge that the other party, being a multi-faceted human being with strengths, weaknesses, ambitions, aspirations and a swathe of experiences, might have just as much good reason to believe their side.
In short, I can't be entirely confident in myself, my worldview, my judgement of others and worst of all, my actions resulting from said worldview because I acknowledge there is a decent probability of error in my own reasoning.
People fucking hate that shit.

The alternative is that Position A/B is the sole correct overarching answer, which explains it all away easily, draws clear lines with clear antagonists and no necessary uncertainty. I can safely judge others to be entirely wrong while my worldview and actions arising from it are entirely reasonable and thus, I can be at peace with myself. Great!

I think the only real way for people not to have these fears is for them to have a modicum of certainty when it comes to the basics - shelter, food, community and a way to realize one's potential. Someone who has these things today and knows (s)he will have them tomorrow, is free of some of the biggest sources of anxiety. I am strongly inclined to believe that when people are certain that their foundational needs are met, they are more likely to accept uncertainty in other areas. Hence why in times of great difficulty, people flock towards the extremes.

But wtf do I know, I'm just some bloke on the internet.

 

[failed mist]

There’s the idea that the extreme deniers are controlled opposition. This idea was floated when 5G got rolled out—that the “5G gives you cancer” craze was meant to drown out any mundane concerns, such as how it allegedly fucks with weather radar readings, or the fact that you need them on every street corner for good coverage.

“Gate of sanity” is lib shit tbh. Only way to do it is a standardized media ecosystem, which is why they’re constantly pushing for it. Everyone lives in their own custom reality with their own facts and truths. It’s easy when you can’t really verify much of this shit for yourself.

 

[LilypaCastsUpper]

why do we allow those people to have an unreasonably large effect on the public discourse around such issues, to the point that intelligent discussion is nearly impossible?

One thing is that people don't like to admit they were wrong. There's no shame in making a mistake, the shame is in not learning from it, but somehow that got twisted. That's all life is really, making mistakes and learning from it. It is truly a society of doubling down on mistakes. People have short memories I guess. I take notes/journal everyday to try and avoid repeating mistakes, it's not foolproof but it does help. I feel like journaling used to be a much more ubiquitous daily habit - posting vacation pics on facebook is not a good substitute.

 

[Fek]

To really boil it down: one cannot be afraid in order to pursue honest discourse or inquiry. The moment fears enter into the equation, then those who poopoo such efforts immediately gain control over that fellow's journey. Any perception of this or that group having undue sway over any given topic is downstream from this effect. Authority itself stems from this effect.

Most accept information presented before them because they are horrified of an underlying truth: they are the only ones responsible for themselves (in all ways). Desperation to find outside sources to try and toss that personal power away towards will ensure the issues you're observing, OP, will continue in most. For now, at least.

Now, you mention how it seems those who try their wings at daring to think on their own can then immediately leap to some other extreme. I would suggest this is a healthy and normal reaction (so long as it is temporary) to realizing one's been lied to. It's quite natural to then take a polarizing stance while emotions are worked out. Unfortunately, many are in love with their hatred or suspicion and have trouble budging from this step. Ideally, they would gradually "even back out" and have a much better grasp on all aspects of the given topic/scope than would have been achieved otherwise.

The only cure to this particular issue is, I would suggest, humanity relenting the urge to rush from charlatan to charlatan. From idol to idol, if you will. Prostrating ones self before another and begging them to be treated as though they lacked any agency of their own over, and over, and over. I would imagine most are quite familiar with this effect after experiencing the COVID farce whether first or secondhand. Again, it's all fear.

The honest pursuit of knowledge can be done cooperatively and quite effectively once people stop collectively shitting themselves over who gets what title or bitter laughter at another's attempts to do likewise or hating another for some silly (read: any) reason, etc.

Less division, more cooperation, friends. Sometimes all it takes is daring to hear someone out to help them realize they're staring at shadows on the cave wall. They know (even if not consciously) - they're just hurt/frightened/angry and need a fren.

 

[Shart Attack]

People in positions of power find it expedient and profitable to keep us filthy hoi polloi divided and arguing amongst ourselves. In particular you have the legacy news media and their internet imitators, who thrive on disagreement. Someone may be completely accepting of and supportive of vaccines for diseases like MMR, smallpox, meningitis, malaria, and feline leukemia, but that person may be opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine because it was forced on the world at figurative and sometimes literal gunpoint before its efficacy (or lack thereof) was even proven. Who knows -- this person may have been generally in favor of the COVID vaccine under different, less dystopian circumstances. There are probably tens of millions of Americans who think along those lines. Modern media move too fast to admit of long, drawn-out explanations, context, or nuance. They demand short, fast stories and catchphrases. A nuanced viewpoint that opposes one particular vaccine but generally supports others doesn't make for an attention-grabbing sound byte; "anti-vaxxer" is catchier. Also, a balanced middle ground doesn't keep people engaged as much as constant strife and tension. People don't watch the news as much if they don't think their way of life is under siege by The Other. They don't need to seek out the news to relieve their mental anxiety if they don't feel anxiety in the first place. So purposely narrowing a debate down to two polarized sides with handy labels that are supposedly poised to destroy the world -- "anti-vaxxer" and "pro-science" -- keeps people at each other's throats and watching the news.

This hypothetical person person gets called an anti-vaxxer by CNN, so a large number of people uncritically agree that he's anti-vaccine. His nuanced, reasonable position no longer matters to the world at large. He's anti-vax now. Somehow, some way, the legacy news media have maintained their credibility with large audiences of credulous people. Eventually their divisive language catches on with their intended audiences. Repeating those catchphrases shapes the audiences' thoughts: "This anti-vaxxer is clearly anti-vaccine. I know that because he's an anti-vaxxer. The news said he's anti-vax, so that means he's anti-vaccine, which means he's anti-science. CNN wouldn't call him anti-vax if he didn't oppose vaccines." Any search for nuance in this supposed anti-vaxxer's stance on your own part would be meaningless. The experts on CNN have told you what he is. Who are you to argue with experts? They're on TV, and that means they're legitimate and important. Who are you? You're not on TV, are you? You're just some know-nothing rube. What, are you anti-vaccine, too? Why are you even still thinking about this? We're on to the Next Thing now. Why are you still thinking about Previous Thing? You're going to be left behind. You don't want to be the only person you know who doesn't have a ready opinion about Next Thing, do you?

Any news media who would oppose CNN's label also find it inconvenient and unprofitable to give long, drawn-out explanations about balanced opinions. They're just as invested in keeping people divided and arguing. Therefore their answer isn't a poll that shows Americans have a hundred different, moderate stances on vaccine science. Their answer is to call the disease a hoax entirely, because then their audience are victims who are being persecuted for refusing to acknowledge a hoax, and persecuted victims will keep coming back to the news for validation and relief from their anxiety.

So you end up with the dominant forms of mass communication grouping everyone in the world into a small handful of opposing sides of a forever war with the world at stake. You're either anti-vaxx, which means you must love raw milk and J-O crystals, or you're pro-science, which means you must love HRT and soy meat substitutes. It's not profitable to let people think about other possible combinations of opinions. Throw them into one of two broad camps and make them fight it out as your news outlet collects the ad revenue.

You're going to have trouble returning national conversations to a healthy state that allows for middle-ground opinions to be heard as long as the dominant forms of mass communication are media that thrive on short, thought-terminating catchphrases, sound bytes, and emotionally charged and divisive language. We would need to change to a medium that allows for longer, more drawn-out, more complete thoughts, one that gives people time to think and digest information, i.e. long-form writing.

Basically shit's been trending in this direction since radio replaced the newspaper. The 24-hour news cycle and social media have only accelerated the decline. I think the final blow was Twitter moving from a medium for drunk college kids to say stupid, inconsequential shit to one of the most popular sources for news-related opinion. In an effort to stay relevant with the kids, and because it's a convenient way to mass-produce propaganda, the legacy media made an effort to legitimize Twitter, a communication platform that is completely antithetical to nuance and at best antagonistic toward rational thought. At this point, I think it's too far gone to fix.