back
3 comments
Maybe the issue is that the real world is highly complex, and people have a hard time coming to grips with that complexity?

For example, this post starts of with the subject of vaccine safety and efficacy, but what would it take to have an actual expert-level discussion of the issue? Consider: the mammalian immune system is almost ridiculously complex, consisting of a variety of subsystems which interact with each other and which is still not completely understood (e.g. nervous system - immune system interactions are probably important but are still poorly understood).

Vaccination is an attempt to train this system to recognize a particular foreign invader without actually having to get infected with a dangerous pathogen. Pretending such efforts can't go wrong or lead to unintended reactions can be categorized as disinformation, I think.

What I'd expect from a vaccine expert is knowledge of the top ten most successful vaccination efforts and the ten greatest failures of vaccination efforts, including a detailed understanding of what went right and what went wrong in each case - as well as comprehensive understanding of the current state-of-knowledge in the immunology field. A lack of major conflict-of-interest associations with either the pharmaceutical (vaccine defender) or the class-action-lawsuit (vaccine opponent) sectors would also be encouraging.

Incidentally, the post claims Covid vaccines are safe and effective, but it does seem that at least later mutations of the virus allowed it to happily infect and be transmitted by vaccinated individuals, with the caveat that the severity of symptoms seems to have been reduced - but good luck getting anyone to comprehensively discuss this from a pure science perspective, let alone the highly contentious issue of the severity and frequency of undesirable side effects (which appear fairly low, but data seems restricted on the clinical trials, leading to uncertainties).

I found this post insightful and interesting. I especially appreciate the various quotes and links to further sources. I don't have much to contribute to the discussion, but this penultimate paragraph brought up an idea:

>This principle can also apply when private incentives exist but are asymmetric. A pro-Ukraine propagandist can probably make a bit of money, but not as much as a pro-Russian one, because Russia has a lot more money. And debunking propaganda makes little money at all. So the Kremlin’s lies have a natural advantage here.

This seems correct on the face, but leaves out the substantial effects that platforms have by putting their thumbs on the scales. Pro-Ukraine videos perform better on YouTube and Twitter than do Pro-Russian ones. I believe this is because the platforms are explicitly down-ranking pro-Russian propaganda. This is likely being done in the name of combatting misinformation. One thing that is abundantly clear though - in war, both sides are strongly incentivized to lie. For example, you will essentially never hear a true casualty number about a war that's in progress from either side. I follow a number of pro-Ukraine commentators who conveniently leave out the rare occasions that Russia has a military victory, but confidently repeat each Ukrainian success as if it were the tipping point of the war. Is this misinformation? It is certainly selected and communicated with a strong slant.

I wonder if REO Speedwagon explains at least some of the driving force behind conspiracy theories (and maybe misinformation in general).

  But I know the neighborhood
  And talk is cheaper when the story is good
  And the tales grow taller on down the line
  (from "Take It On The Run")
A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be true. It just has to be a good story (in the above sense - a story that people find interesting enough to repeat, maybe with embellishments). People will favor repeating something interesting over repeating something boring. For a story to spread, the interest matters more than the truth.

So maybe the bottom line question is: How do we make the truth into a good, interesting story, without making it less true?

Note well: I am not advocating for the "New Yorker" style of journalism, where you tell about the discoverer's childhood, and what they had for breakfast, and what the weather was on the day that they discovered something. That's not a good story, it's just a long, tedious one.