Verified: How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (As an illustration of deceptive bullshit, Chapter Two invokes RFK Jr and his web site that you've promoted here on this Substack.)
Especially overconfident individuals show greater belief in fake news claims, a propensity to consult sources that promulgate inaccuracies, and a willingness to share misinformation
An excellent primer by a pair of luminaries in empirically-informed research on conspiracy theories (be sure to get the post-pandemic updated 2nd edition):
For empirically- and historically-informed research specifically focused on QAnon (I especially recommend Chapter 9 by Uscinski & Enders, authors of the above book):
Regarding Bret Weinstein, anyone not already invested in the conspiracism he peddles can simply google to find plenty of criticism of his anti-vax and other dubious views he promoted during the pandemic, and of whatever new bullshit he's been promoting since. (See, for instance, the DECODING THE GURUS podcast episodes devoted to Weinstein, who is regularly mentioned in many episodes.) Here, however, are two critical reviews skewering his recent book:
A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century review – self-help laced with pseudoscience
Can Knowing How We Evolved Tell Us How We Should Live? Evolutionary Self-Help as a Genre (I've read the other book -- by Kenrick & Kenrick -- reviewed and, along with the reviewer, can highly recommend it.)
Thanks for posting this article. I was not aware of any of the sites you mention so it's expanded my view a bit of what some of those who DYOR ("do your own research") actually do. They're doing "research" of a sort, I suppose, though I have some caveats even with the nuances you've described.
I'm trying to model the HxA Way here with the precept, "Make Your Way With Evidence", though there are times when I think that admonition needs to be more carefully articulated to include the quality of evidence.
In thinking about groups like these--and many others that engage in DYOR, I'm thinking of some research by well-established scholars who've spent decades studying conspiracy theories--those include Uscinski (on Rob's list below), as well as Drochon and Klofstad, who've done extensive work on the demographics of conspiracy theorists on an international level:
Is there something about Millennials and Gen Z that makes them better at DYOR and addressing conspiracy theories--your article seems to be suggesting that the groups you've identify have some facility in this arena that allows them to be both appropriately skeptical but also engage in sifting out appropriate information from the welter of conspiracy theories out there, unmediated and spread on social media rapidly? Or are Millennials and Gen Z no better at this ability with DYOR than any of the rest of us?
I'm thinking especially of the story that burst out this week with the TikTok videos of Osama bin Laden's infamous "Letter to America" explaining why Al-Qaeda's attacks were perfectly justified. Damon LInker's substack article describes the viral spread though I assume you and others have seen it elsewhere, multiple times by now: https://damonlinker.substack.com/p/the-age-of-information-tidal-waves
Are Gen Z students, especially, capable of discernment enough or have sufficient historical knowledge, to engage in DYOR--is this viral spread of TikTok videos of a terrorist counter-evidence against their ability to be discerning or grounded in anything approximating reliable contextual information? (I'm sure I'm also thinking of numerous of the ongoing protests and rallies in recent weeks following the Hamas attacks that reveal lack of historical and geographical knowledge).
So is this an open question about the ability of these two age cohorts, or any of the rest of us, to be adept at DYOR?
I'd point to a NY Times article by philosopher Ballantyne and psychologist Dunning from last year, "Skeptics Say Do Your Own Research; It's Not So Simple" https://archive.li/NhyjE for a good distillation of caveats about DYOR. The two of them don't say that "do your own research" is never appropriate but urge better methods for DYOR.
Also, even a casual search in Google Scholar turns up articles urging cautions about DYOR, by scholars who've spent much time with this "democratic" approach to doing research which often ignores experts and reliable sources:
My ongoing concerns about DYOR is that those who engage in it to a huge degree may become entirely too skeptical of "mainstream" sources and dismiss reliable experts and scholars--who by no means are not infallible but who provide some guideposts and reliable points of reference especially in areas where I don't have knowledge or expertise.
Also, and finally, the lead-in with a quote by Bret Weinstein. If he really thinks that we're all conspiracy theorists to some degree or another, it's just how well we engage in conspiracy theorizing, I totally disagree. He has become known for opinions like this one in recent years because of his own conspiracy-theorizing. He would do well, since he's an educated person in one specialty, to practice some intellectual humility of his own and not proselytize about highly specialized areas where he is not an expert. It's the declarations of certainty by individuals like him that are actually causing larger problems in our civic culture. Relatedly, I'd suggest the recent and going work by the Templeton Foundation on this linchpin intellectual virtue of intellectual humility, with actual research on what it is, how it manifests itself, and how to become better at it, for all those who engage in DYOR.
I guess the point is, some are a lot better than others, and these are some of the podcasts I recommend on that front. The Subliminal Jihad podcast on quantum physics was excellent, and I just listened to their Josh Harris podcast yesterday, which I also found engrossing and well done. I believe it came out in 2020, and based on some Josh Harris projects the hosts surmised that one day we could be paid in tokens online for our attention, which is exactly what then came to pass with Web3.
Out of the three I would say that You Can't Win is probably the most skeptical, but they all often base their podcasts on published books and research. The younger generations are coming of age in an entirely different information landscape than the one you or I grew up in; some of them will be able to do a lot of impressive work due to that, while others will go off course.
I think it is also difficult to define "conspiracy"-- should we abolish all true crime books, or books on historical conspiracies such as Watergate (written by narcissists, according to Rob's formulation), or books/research that challenges current wisdom or re-interprets historical events, or works exposing frauds or cover-ups? Should we just fossilize current information with the idea that any challenges represent conspiratorial thinking?
Some of the groups you mention may be very good researchers and thinkers but I have my doubts about random podcasts like these. Maybe the Millennial and Gen Z experts you've identified here will become sought-after experts in time. I do think there's evidence that there are more challenges now with deep reading, understanding context from history and experience, and being attuned to complexity and nuance. If these podcasters are doing well in that sphere, I think that's great. I am more concerned about generational change when the simplistic and crude binaries in thinking (coming from the by-now familiar Critical Theory influence, and in our context, the #CritLib movement) are used to explain everything in the world or about people.
I think defining "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" is quite possible and in fact scholars in the field have done it: Uscinski, Drochan, others. There are always some elements: a secret cabal; secret knowledge available only to those "in the know"; some totalizing explanation that keeps replicating over time to explain complicated events that may have many explanations. These are commonly identified elements and most individuals who've studied conspiracism, through years of investigation, interviews with people, review of publications and media, and other methods, would point to these features, and others.
I'm also not in favor of abolishing or suppressing any books of the genres you mention. There's a range of scenarios in what you're describing, actually. There are opportunities to debunk bad ideas and historical accounts through them but then there really are wild conspiracy theories that don't explain anything in any empirical way that stands up. I also don't favor "fossilizing current information" because that isn't the way inquiry and scholarship work. Ideas presented by scholars, journalists, and other informed citizens should always be subject to scrutiny and review and "updating". I don't see the connection here with conspiratorial thinking at all.
I wouldn't apply the Drochan definition of conspiracy theory to the podcasts I mentioned, certainly not the "totalizing explanation" part. I would say they are examining conspiracies that fit the more general definition of the term-- "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" or "the act of plotting or conspiring." I don't think they are looking to be seen as experts, except perhaps when their podcasts relate directly to their field of study. I think of them more as lifelong readers/ thinkers with above average analytical capabilities.
"Ideas presented by scholars, journalists, and other informed citizens should always be subject to scrutiny and review"-- this is what I feel like Bret Weinstein, as just one example, does well, and gets dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" for doing.
Also I took Weinstein's quote not to mean that everyone is a conspiracy theorist (although if we take into account things like Russiagate, it's getting close) but that before dismissing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" perhaps look into the quality of their work first. I do think Weinstein is very skilled at parsing the quality of scientific research studies even if they are not in his field.
Some other experts (in various areas of health and medicine, and scientific reasoning) have looked into the quality of Weinstein's work--or claims in epidemiology--and have found it very lacking and potentially harmful. I therefore don't agree that he is a reliable source of information in this sphere at all. He's promoted himself as an expert or a guru in ways that go well beyond his expertise.
Wikipedia and Guardian are not in my "go to" lists, so we will just have to disagree here. Understandably if you are not a fan you have not been watching his podcast, but I've caught it every week for years and I've never caught him being anything but a careful thinker.
I am sure Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi have also been called "conspiracy theorists" for their Twitter files work, and they thing is, they ARE conspiracy theorists. They have done the research and uncovered a conspiracy that they have theories about. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually, Wikipedia is considered a reliable source by many because of the crowdsourcing, editing, and fact-checking. It has issues, of course, but I'd rathe rely on it to establishing some basic facts to begin with than use some other sources arrived at randomly. As for the Guardian, I'm well aware of its political coloration but there are excellent articles published in it on science, policy, technology, and international relations. These aren't my only "go-to" sources by any means but part of the information landscape for me.
As for the vaunted Shellenberger and Taibbi and the Twitter files, this is great example of a hyped-up "master conspiracy" that has agitated many in the past year and maybe distracted from more serious problems in our politics and our culture. Very serious ones both internationally and domestically right now. Assuredly, there were contacts between technology platform staff and government officials about some stories (notoriously, the Hunter Biden laptop rabbit hole--of all the world's great challenges right now, surely some perspective about it is necessary), and other clumsy attempts to influence what was shared, and by whom, on Twitter, especially. I'm well aware of the court cases that have issued prohibitions about government interference in social media platforms. I'd suggest, though, that this is also a vexing problem with content moderation, as Charlie Warzel's article here points out:
Just maybe . . . . the so-called "Censorship Industrial Complex" (Shellenberger) may not be the highly coordinated regime of suppression and censorship that some want to claim it is because of their own "priors." The feverish claims made here surely deserve some skepticism, if we're careful consumers of information sources and observers of those who claim to be heroes and heroines of free speech? Including, I'd say, Elon Musk and his motivations as background for creating the Twitter files?
I think that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias play out in the practices of well-educated people (there's research about this)-- regardless of their politics, and it's the motivational aspect that matters. The unwillingness to question one's own "go-to" experts and sources becomes a blind spot and a contributor to The Certainty Trap--which is where we often are with political and cultural polarization today in this country. I'd suggest that conspiracists of all stripes, whether noted journalists, or some political figures now on the scene, are real-time examples, right now, of The Certainty Trap.
Relatedly, I also think that there's a habit of mind called "epistemic responsibility" which is about considering one's own contribution to the epistemic community of citizens, whether writers, journalists, or others who deal with public knowledge and shared information--and that requires some sense of responsibility about what can be accepted or shared--whether totally, or in a qualified way, what needs questioning, and generally, what one owes the community of which one is a part in order to contribute responsibly to that group. We obviously have a huge problem with trust in institutions and that has mostly resulted from leading figures in politics, the media/journalism, science, higher ed, other educational institutions, various cultural institutions, not always acting responsibly in that way. The point is to expect better and demand better of them but not throw out the very foundations of liberal democratic norms we rely on for a functional society of any type. I think Jonathan Rauch's "The Constitution of Knowledge" is still one of the best distillations of thought that I know of for promoting epistemic responsibility . . . . and I would deduce from his system of "liberal science" that the checks and balances that are necessary would mean that celebrity journalists and other experts (Taibbi and Shellenberger) should also be subject to scrutiny, and that conspiracism in general, even though it's a long-sustained and deeply ingrained human habit, can be identified through his proposed system of epistemic "checks and balances." And that conflating conspiracy theories with well-reasoned dissent is actually not helping the liberal democratic norms that are important in sustaining the country.
Oh boy, well I totally disagree with you about the Twitter files.
Back to Wikipedia, I won't dig up a bunch of links, but when it comes to nonpolitical subjects, it is fine, but it is compromised when it comes to anything controversial.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say someone had found Abigail Shrier's arguments convincing regarding the harms of early medical interventions for trans youth, and that person had found a lot of other people who agreed and made sense, and someone else said, "Well she's a bigot and she's harming trans people with her views and here are some Wikipedia articles and Guardian articles backing up my beliefs." I don't think that would prove convincing, and I can pretty much guarantee that there is a hatchet job on Shrier in either Wikepedia or the Guardian or any other source people have typically thought of as "reliable." I could substitute someone like Helen Pluckrose or any number of other figures into this scenario.
Yet the same people who will decry their inability to talk honestly with their friends about social justice issues for fear of being labelled a bigot and who will criticize media coverage on those issues have an inability to grasp that other people feel the exact same way about, say, discussing vaccines, and will shun any discussion of that topic in the exact same way. It's very interesting.
Re" the potential usefulness of Wikipedia: I wouldn't say the article there on Abigail Shrier does a hatchet job at all on her, or on "Irreversible Damage"--unless you have a hugely different conception of what a "hatchet job" is than I do. The article summarizes the book and some of the controversies around it and the critical reception of it, noting the. mixed reviews. These are facts that actually happened since the book was published. How is this a "hatchet job"? I also note that Chris Ferguson, whose judgment in the field of psychology I trust on many fraught topics, was moderately positive but also noted that more research is needed, calling for a preregistered hypothesis and open science methods. This is how research is supposed to work now. I would never think the book should be suppressed, censored in any way, or that Abigail Shrier should be deplatformed for speaking anywhere (which she has been, very regrettably). I am just noting there that Wikipedia does a mostly straightforward summary of what's happened with Shrier and the book. So why the animus against Wikipedia on this particular score? Should Wikipedia be shunned for just recording some of the record on a controversial author and book?
As for Helen Pluckrose, I have great regard for her and have cited her in pieces I've written ,including one on this substack. I think she's a key figure in making the discourse about "social justice" more sane through her knowledge of history and her careful thinking and definitions of all the wonderful convoluted terminology. I'm sure some on the woke left go after her--I've seen it--but mainstream sources? Why?
Re: the Twitter files. I'm happy to admit there was governmental overreach that was totally inappropriate and better moderation policies are needed (even though this is a very challenging area of activity). I point to statements from FIRE about the Twitter files and section 230 and related topics and because I trust FIRE as a protector of free speech, I'm willing to accept there was overreach. I do recall that Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE, observed that the attempts to censor stretched across both Trump and Biden administrations--so this isn't only coming wrapped up with one agenda.
Also, there are other technology analysts and journalists who study these policy issues extensively (Charlie Warzel whose article I sent before) and this one below, who aren't describing the situation in apocalyptic terms and in fact are pointing toward the platform and its current CEO as the problem, apart from governmental interference. So you're saying you disagree with me, but you're also disagreeing with some others who've given a lot of thought to these matters. Are they totally caught in the "mainstream" institution bias?
Surely some diversity of thought is possible on this fraught controversy. I'd hope so, in groups that want to call themselves "heterodox."
As for the Hunter Biden laptop story which was/is one part of the Twitter files, I'd only observe that some perspective about it might be helpful. I know this is a great and favored "narrative" in some circles--there are many "narratives" these days-- but the never-ending partisanship attached to it feeds the polarization roiling the country. Not to forget about it, but to keep it in perspective because now, at this point, it's . . . . old news. The world is aflame with an international crisis, there are huge problems with antisemitic threats, harassment, and violence in this country, and in Europe, there's huge controversies on college campuses and in many communities with enormously different worldviews pitted against each other, and hate and bigotry spreading through yes, the channels of social media (Instagram and TikTok, amply documented).
One of the members of our HxLIbraries group once observed, very aptly I think, that our field no longer does "nuance" well. I agree, and believe that nuance and appreciation of complexity require both mainstream sources, new and emerging voices and thinkers, and a
I'm returning to the top of the Comments here to summarize what at least some of my points have been in this long threaded conversation about conspiracy theories and related matters. I am glad if the podcasts you've identified are helpful on complicated and fraught issues, political, cultural, technological, or other spheres of discussion and. debate. I'm not persuaded that there's a "proper" way to be a conspiracy theorist (if that's a intentional provocative framing to elicit interest, then great, of course). I'm also convinced there are scholars who've deeply researched conspiracy theories and don't conflate them with well-reasoned dissenting viewpoints and perspectives based on facts and evidence, and who understand the psychology of conspiracism. In other words, there's a qualitative difference between conspiracism and dissent. I also think there are hazards with pointing too much to "alternative" sources if they start to displace experts and institutions that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because they're "mainstream". I think there's a more nuanced way of thinking about both: I call it "calibrated trust"--using skepticism but in an open-ended way.
On the matter of conspiracy theories, I'm including here a post I wrote this morning about the Kennedy assassination's endless conspiracy theories and U VA Center for Politics' careful approach to studying that event. (Full disclosure: I posted this in the HxLibraries' portal). Their brief comments summarize my own understanding of what conspiracy theories are and what gives rise to them, and how to think about them.
(My comments on the portal): On the subject of conspiracy theories: most of us know that the JFK assassination spawned large numbers of such theories, and like all other conspiracy theories, they have certain features. The U VA Center for Politics, a quite reputable and responsible institute with seasoned scholars and well-trained graduate students--unlike the conspiracy theory industry around the Kennedy assassination--is conducting a review of records from the National Archives to determine what we know and can't know about that event. This is the way real investigation and inquiry should work, through disciplined scholarship, not through the mental gyrations and motivated reasoning of those who are incentivized by the repetitional benefits and tribal bonding that come from conspiracy theorizing.(end of my comments)
Italics in the preamble below are mine.
@Center for Politics at U VA
As we get closer to the 60th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we’re seeing rampant conspiracy theories get new life. Conspiracy theories can flourish during moments of crisis & social upheaval & when we don’t have all the information or only partial truths. Psychologists have shown that our brains are just wired to be suspicious for the sake of our own survival. People are drawn to conspiracy theories because of our need for knowledge, to feel like we have power over the things that happen to us & to feel good about ourselves & the social groups to which we belong.
Once conspiracy theories are out there, though, it’s very difficult to combat them. That’s why we’ve spent decades researching and revisiting #JFK assassination documents. Getting to the “truth” & creating a strong historical record is hard work. And with that long intro, here’s today’s anniversary post from our findings:
[Anyone interested in the new findings from extensive research conducted by U VA's Center for Politics should follow them on twitter--they're releasing new information based on their review of records from National Archives].
Thank you for your lengthy responses. I wonder if some of our differing perspectives are the result of your background in academic libraries and my background in public libraries, in that I perhaps have more faith (or at least hope) in the general public's ability to educate themselves on various matters and that they don't need to have a PhD in a subject order to come to educated conclusions from doing their own research (although several of the hosts of the podcasts I listed are in fact PhD students).
I know from working in libraries that there are various books on the JFK assassination and assume some of those have been written by scholars. There's always various perspectives and disagreement on issues, as well as continual splitting in religions, political groups, scientific consensus, etc.
My concern is that people have become so fearful of dissent, and so mesmerized by the constant drumbeat of the words "misinformation" and "disinformation," that their fields of inquiry have been greatly diminished and that they are weaponizing the terms "conspiracy theory" and now "nuance" to apply to anything they disagree with, even when the argument they disagree with is in fact nuanced.
Finally I will point out that making everyone afraid of the term "conspiracy theory" is certainly convenient for criminals.
I'll be more concise here (I hope, but it's relatively so). I'm not convinced totally that the difference in perspectives comes from working in different types of libraries over time--though I'm sure there are some differences in interests and affinities and "favored sources" and experts.
Yes, I may be less convinced than you are about the wisdom and/or ability of the general public to engage in lots of DYOR on complex policy issues, when many polls and studies have shown the general public's lack of knowledge in even basic functions of government, the low participation rate in the U.S. in voting as a responsibility of citizenship (it's embarrassingly low compared to other democracies' rates). This is one indicator to me of at least a deficit in the general public, the lack of civic knowledge, that may hamper DYOR. And in turn that lack of civic knowledge may impede an attitude of openness to other perspectives, and also, of course, the great affliction we're now dealing with, of lack of trust in mainstream institutions, in experts, and in sources that previously provided a set of "shared facts" (the last point is commented on all the time).
I'm also imagine this lack of civic knowledge is bipartisan or across the political spectrum.
(However, I am encouraged by such organizations as Braver Angels and Bridge USA and civic dialogue institutes that work to help people bridge divides and get out of their bubbles and escape the fragmented information siloes that too many people live in or contribute to).
As for misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theories, Im not in the least interested in frightening or impugning anyone. I'm just hoping/wishing that more people were interested in being better informed about this emerging body of research about them (though there's been work on conspiracy theories for years). I know there's a contested terrain here about misinformation/disinformation, but I also don't think the concepts themselves are infinitely elastic or that we can't place some boundaries around what they convey, what they actually are. I continue to believe there's a boundary zone between "conspiracy theory" and "well-evidenced dissent." The latter may have some consequences in some work or professional environments, but that is an organizational problem and a sign of something else--and it's very unfortunate because an expectation of conformity on all matters where there's a range of thought and opinion possible is not healthy.
In general, I think it's a professional obligation for me to know emerging scholarship such as that on misinformation (just as I need to learn more about A.I.)--the profession has to grapple with both. This is the "lifelong learning" that you mentioned in a previous message. Becoming informed about an emerging area of research surely ought to matter in helping us become better in bridging our own discussions within the field with those that we know are occurring in other fields and with the general public. One of the "go-to" sources for me in this way is The Misinformation Review, the OA journal that publishes a particular kind of fast-tracked research--and in fact, there was just published a scoping review (previously posted on the portal) looking back at six years worth' of research on misinformation.
Whatever kind of library we work in, public, academic, school, or other, I hope that sources like this one would be better known in helping us work with all of our constituents in a better way--wouldn't that be a better goal rather than dismissing those with Ph.D.s and others as superfluous to the general pubic's understanding of complicated and nuanced issues?
On the subject of conspiracy theories: most of us know that the JFK assassination spawned large numbers of such theories, and like all other conspiracy theories, they have certain features. The U VA Center for Politics, a quite reputable and responsible institute with seasoned scholars and well-trained graduate students--unlike the conspiracy theory industry around the Kennedy assassination--is conducting a review of records from the National Archives to determine what we know and can't know about that event. This is the way real investigation and inquiry should work, through disciplined scholarship, not through the mental gyrations and motivated reasoning of those who are incentivized by the repetitional benefits and tribal bonding that come from conspiracy theorizing.
Italics in the preamble below are mine.
@Center for Politics at U VA
As we get closer to the 60th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we’re seeing rampant conspiracy theories get new life. Conspiracy theories can flourish during moments of crisis & social upheaval & when we don’t have all the information or only partial truths. Psychologists have shown that our brains are just wired to be suspicious for the sake of our own survival. People are drawn to conspiracy theories because of our need for knowledge, to feel like we have power over the things that happen to us & to feel good about ourselves & the social groups to which we belong.
Once conspiracy theories are out there, though, it’s very difficult to combat them. That’s why we’ve spent decades researching and revisiting #JFK assassination documents. Getting to the “truth” & creating a strong historical record is hard work. And with that long intro, here’s today’s anniversary post from our findings:
I realize some people would actually study the idea of "conspiracy theories" rather than look at actual conspiracies, but I think the latter is still important.
I guess the PhD students that I am referring in to this piece as well as the PhD students/ professors/ writers they are having discussions with don't count, since you disagree with them.
I think I'm not understanding the distinction you're making between those who study the "idea" of conspiracy theories (which are a real thing) rather than those who study *actual* conspiracy theories. The scholars I mentioned before--Uscinski, Drochon--have spent many years studying actual conspiracy theories.
That helps them build up the frameworks and theories that guide their further investigations. They're thoroughly grounded in empiricism and facts and not just in "ideas".
An FYI, I attended a conference earlier this fall where Hugo Drochon led a discussion about conspiracy theories in pluralistic societies. I found it very informative. I also talked to him briefly afterwards--really nice guy, willing to listen to others in that session, not out to demean or frighten anyone.
You may be attributing something to me (about the Ph.D. students you listen to on podcasts) that I didn't claim at all. I didn't say I disagreed with them. I was making a point about alternative sources--which may still be helpful and informative, but probably shouldn't supplant credible sources from the "mainstream" body of scholarship and thinking about a complex arena of human behavior like this one.
With Uscinski and Drochon-- are they studying conspiracy theories to see if the conspiracies are true or to see how they function for the people who believe in or spread them? The latter can be a legitimate field of study, I just think investigating and revealing actual conspiracies (i.e., Watergate, Iran Contra) is also legitimate.
I'm happy to let people come to their own conclusions on all this. You've provided a lot of links for readers to peruse as well as in-depth comments, so people can read those as well as my post and if they so choose listen to some of the podcasts and see what they think.
Sigh.
Bullshitting is characterized by sharing information with little to no regard for truth, established knowledge, or genuine evidence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X23002142
Verified: How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (As an illustration of deceptive bullshit, Chapter Two invokes RFK Jr and his web site that you've promoted here on this Substack.)
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/26KV2QETSJD1V/ref=nav_wishlist_lists_1
Why Educated Narcissists Fall for Conspiracy Theories
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202310/why-educated-narcissists-fall-for-conspiracy-theories
Education has no protective effect for narcissists and can even increase their susceptibility to false claims
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strange-journeys/202308/why-narcissists-love-conspiracy-theories
Especially overconfident individuals show greater belief in fake news claims, a propensity to consult sources that promulgate inaccuracies, and a willingness to share misinformation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X2300180X
For a reliable overview of the state-of-the-art in the psychology of conspiracy theories, this recent special issue of Current Opinion in Psychology:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/current-opinion-in-psychology/special-issue/103F0RDQHX3
An excellent primer by a pair of luminaries in empirically-informed research on conspiracy theories (be sure to get the post-pandemic updated 2nd edition):
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theories-Joseph-Uscinski/dp/1538173255/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PBKBSA0LRHJ7&keywords=conspiracy+theories+a+primer&qid=1699897102&sprefix=conspiracy+theories+primer%2Caps%2C125&sr=8-1
For empirically- and historically-informed research specifically focused on QAnon (I especially recommend Chapter 9 by Uscinski & Enders, authors of the above book):
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-QAnon-Political-Phenomenon/dp/100905502X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=9781316511534&linkCode=qs&qid=1699897420&s=books&sr=1-1
A reminder that "psychops" is mostly bullshit:
Propaganda (Almost) Never Works
https://www.persuasion.community/p/propaganda-almost-never-works
People Are Less Gullible Than You Think
https://reason.com/2020/02/09/people-are-less-gullible-than-you-think/
(Nor, by the way, is there good evidence that fiction more broadly impacts beliefs: https://twitter.com/robsica/status/1723412739597422925)
Regarding Bret Weinstein, anyone not already invested in the conspiracism he peddles can simply google to find plenty of criticism of his anti-vax and other dubious views he promoted during the pandemic, and of whatever new bullshit he's been promoting since. (See, for instance, the DECODING THE GURUS podcast episodes devoted to Weinstein, who is regularly mentioned in many episodes.) Here, however, are two critical reviews skewering his recent book:
A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century review – self-help laced with pseudoscience
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/24/a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century-review-sciencey-self-help?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Can Knowing How We Evolved Tell Us How We Should Live? Evolutionary Self-Help as a Genre (I've read the other book -- by Kenrick & Kenrick -- reviewed and, along with the reviewer, can highly recommend it.)
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=-yW_p-IAAAAJ&citation_for_view=-yW_p-IAAAAJ%3AUeHWp8X0CEIC&inst=6416714965532506866
Susan,
Thanks for posting this article. I was not aware of any of the sites you mention so it's expanded my view a bit of what some of those who DYOR ("do your own research") actually do. They're doing "research" of a sort, I suppose, though I have some caveats even with the nuances you've described.
I'm trying to model the HxA Way here with the precept, "Make Your Way With Evidence", though there are times when I think that admonition needs to be more carefully articulated to include the quality of evidence.
In thinking about groups like these--and many others that engage in DYOR, I'm thinking of some research by well-established scholars who've spent decades studying conspiracy theories--those include Uscinski (on Rob's list below), as well as Drochon and Klofstad, who've done extensive work on the demographics of conspiracy theorists on an international level:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429452734-3_1/conspiracy-theorists-steven-smallpage-hugo-drochon-joseph-uscinski-casey-klofstad
Is there something about Millennials and Gen Z that makes them better at DYOR and addressing conspiracy theories--your article seems to be suggesting that the groups you've identify have some facility in this arena that allows them to be both appropriately skeptical but also engage in sifting out appropriate information from the welter of conspiracy theories out there, unmediated and spread on social media rapidly? Or are Millennials and Gen Z no better at this ability with DYOR than any of the rest of us?
I'm thinking especially of the story that burst out this week with the TikTok videos of Osama bin Laden's infamous "Letter to America" explaining why Al-Qaeda's attacks were perfectly justified. Damon LInker's substack article describes the viral spread though I assume you and others have seen it elsewhere, multiple times by now: https://damonlinker.substack.com/p/the-age-of-information-tidal-waves
Are Gen Z students, especially, capable of discernment enough or have sufficient historical knowledge, to engage in DYOR--is this viral spread of TikTok videos of a terrorist counter-evidence against their ability to be discerning or grounded in anything approximating reliable contextual information? (I'm sure I'm also thinking of numerous of the ongoing protests and rallies in recent weeks following the Hamas attacks that reveal lack of historical and geographical knowledge).
So is this an open question about the ability of these two age cohorts, or any of the rest of us, to be adept at DYOR?
I'd point to a NY Times article by philosopher Ballantyne and psychologist Dunning from last year, "Skeptics Say Do Your Own Research; It's Not So Simple" https://archive.li/NhyjE for a good distillation of caveats about DYOR. The two of them don't say that "do your own research" is never appropriate but urge better methods for DYOR.
Also, even a casual search in Google Scholar turns up articles urging cautions about DYOR, by scholars who've spent much time with this "democratic" approach to doing research which often ignores experts and reliable sources:
"Do Your Own Research!"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03793-w?fbclid=IwAR1FBtgpjcDQMUrGNSDpWBvFIc61ivAmYTCKzgXYR2bnFNB0VAsj5bXIgIE
"Do Your Own Research: Misinformation, Ignorance, and Social Media"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14778785221113620
"Do Your Own Research" (Ballantyne, mentioned before)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14778785221113620
"Do Your Own Research: Everyday Misinformation and Conspiracy in Online Information Worlds"
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/126257
My ongoing concerns about DYOR is that those who engage in it to a huge degree may become entirely too skeptical of "mainstream" sources and dismiss reliable experts and scholars--who by no means are not infallible but who provide some guideposts and reliable points of reference especially in areas where I don't have knowledge or expertise.
Also, and finally, the lead-in with a quote by Bret Weinstein. If he really thinks that we're all conspiracy theorists to some degree or another, it's just how well we engage in conspiracy theorizing, I totally disagree. He has become known for opinions like this one in recent years because of his own conspiracy-theorizing. He would do well, since he's an educated person in one specialty, to practice some intellectual humility of his own and not proselytize about highly specialized areas where he is not an expert. It's the declarations of certainty by individuals like him that are actually causing larger problems in our civic culture. Relatedly, I'd suggest the recent and going work by the Templeton Foundation on this linchpin intellectual virtue of intellectual humility, with actual research on what it is, how it manifests itself, and how to become better at it, for all those who engage in DYOR.
https://www.templeton.org/discoveries/intellectual-humility
I guess the point is, some are a lot better than others, and these are some of the podcasts I recommend on that front. The Subliminal Jihad podcast on quantum physics was excellent, and I just listened to their Josh Harris podcast yesterday, which I also found engrossing and well done. I believe it came out in 2020, and based on some Josh Harris projects the hosts surmised that one day we could be paid in tokens online for our attention, which is exactly what then came to pass with Web3.
Out of the three I would say that You Can't Win is probably the most skeptical, but they all often base their podcasts on published books and research. The younger generations are coming of age in an entirely different information landscape than the one you or I grew up in; some of them will be able to do a lot of impressive work due to that, while others will go off course.
I think it is also difficult to define "conspiracy"-- should we abolish all true crime books, or books on historical conspiracies such as Watergate (written by narcissists, according to Rob's formulation), or books/research that challenges current wisdom or re-interprets historical events, or works exposing frauds or cover-ups? Should we just fossilize current information with the idea that any challenges represent conspiratorial thinking?
Some of the groups you mention may be very good researchers and thinkers but I have my doubts about random podcasts like these. Maybe the Millennial and Gen Z experts you've identified here will become sought-after experts in time. I do think there's evidence that there are more challenges now with deep reading, understanding context from history and experience, and being attuned to complexity and nuance. If these podcasters are doing well in that sphere, I think that's great. I am more concerned about generational change when the simplistic and crude binaries in thinking (coming from the by-now familiar Critical Theory influence, and in our context, the #CritLib movement) are used to explain everything in the world or about people.
I think defining "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" is quite possible and in fact scholars in the field have done it: Uscinski, Drochan, others. There are always some elements: a secret cabal; secret knowledge available only to those "in the know"; some totalizing explanation that keeps replicating over time to explain complicated events that may have many explanations. These are commonly identified elements and most individuals who've studied conspiracism, through years of investigation, interviews with people, review of publications and media, and other methods, would point to these features, and others.
I'm also not in favor of abolishing or suppressing any books of the genres you mention. There's a range of scenarios in what you're describing, actually. There are opportunities to debunk bad ideas and historical accounts through them but then there really are wild conspiracy theories that don't explain anything in any empirical way that stands up. I also don't favor "fossilizing current information" because that isn't the way inquiry and scholarship work. Ideas presented by scholars, journalists, and other informed citizens should always be subject to scrutiny and review and "updating". I don't see the connection here with conspiratorial thinking at all.
I wouldn't apply the Drochan definition of conspiracy theory to the podcasts I mentioned, certainly not the "totalizing explanation" part. I would say they are examining conspiracies that fit the more general definition of the term-- "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" or "the act of plotting or conspiring." I don't think they are looking to be seen as experts, except perhaps when their podcasts relate directly to their field of study. I think of them more as lifelong readers/ thinkers with above average analytical capabilities.
"Ideas presented by scholars, journalists, and other informed citizens should always be subject to scrutiny and review"-- this is what I feel like Bret Weinstein, as just one example, does well, and gets dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" for doing.
Also I took Weinstein's quote not to mean that everyone is a conspiracy theorist (although if we take into account things like Russiagate, it's getting close) but that before dismissing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" perhaps look into the quality of their work first. I do think Weinstein is very skilled at parsing the quality of scientific research studies even if they are not in his field.
Some other experts (in various areas of health and medicine, and scientific reasoning) have looked into the quality of Weinstein's work--or claims in epidemiology--and have found it very lacking and potentially harmful. I therefore don't agree that he is a reliable source of information in this sphere at all. He's promoted himself as an expert or a guru in ways that go well beyond his expertise.
Eric Topol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Topol
Timothy Caulfield
https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/full/10.1139/facets-2021-0018
Stuart Ritchie
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/24/a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century-review-sciencey-self-help
Wikipedia and Guardian are not in my "go to" lists, so we will just have to disagree here. Understandably if you are not a fan you have not been watching his podcast, but I've caught it every week for years and I've never caught him being anything but a careful thinker.
I am sure Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi have also been called "conspiracy theorists" for their Twitter files work, and they thing is, they ARE conspiracy theorists. They have done the research and uncovered a conspiracy that they have theories about. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually, Wikipedia is considered a reliable source by many because of the crowdsourcing, editing, and fact-checking. It has issues, of course, but I'd rathe rely on it to establishing some basic facts to begin with than use some other sources arrived at randomly. As for the Guardian, I'm well aware of its political coloration but there are excellent articles published in it on science, policy, technology, and international relations. These aren't my only "go-to" sources by any means but part of the information landscape for me.
As for the vaunted Shellenberger and Taibbi and the Twitter files, this is great example of a hyped-up "master conspiracy" that has agitated many in the past year and maybe distracted from more serious problems in our politics and our culture. Very serious ones both internationally and domestically right now. Assuredly, there were contacts between technology platform staff and government officials about some stories (notoriously, the Hunter Biden laptop rabbit hole--of all the world's great challenges right now, surely some perspective about it is necessary), and other clumsy attempts to influence what was shared, and by whom, on Twitter, especially. I'm well aware of the court cases that have issued prohibitions about government interference in social media platforms. I'd suggest, though, that this is also a vexing problem with content moderation, as Charlie Warzel's article here points out:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-twitter-files-documents-bari-weiss/672421/
Just maybe . . . . the so-called "Censorship Industrial Complex" (Shellenberger) may not be the highly coordinated regime of suppression and censorship that some want to claim it is because of their own "priors." The feverish claims made here surely deserve some skepticism, if we're careful consumers of information sources and observers of those who claim to be heroes and heroines of free speech? Including, I'd say, Elon Musk and his motivations as background for creating the Twitter files?
I think that motivated reasoning and confirmation bias play out in the practices of well-educated people (there's research about this)-- regardless of their politics, and it's the motivational aspect that matters. The unwillingness to question one's own "go-to" experts and sources becomes a blind spot and a contributor to The Certainty Trap--which is where we often are with political and cultural polarization today in this country. I'd suggest that conspiracists of all stripes, whether noted journalists, or some political figures now on the scene, are real-time examples, right now, of The Certainty Trap.
Relatedly, I also think that there's a habit of mind called "epistemic responsibility" which is about considering one's own contribution to the epistemic community of citizens, whether writers, journalists, or others who deal with public knowledge and shared information--and that requires some sense of responsibility about what can be accepted or shared--whether totally, or in a qualified way, what needs questioning, and generally, what one owes the community of which one is a part in order to contribute responsibly to that group. We obviously have a huge problem with trust in institutions and that has mostly resulted from leading figures in politics, the media/journalism, science, higher ed, other educational institutions, various cultural institutions, not always acting responsibly in that way. The point is to expect better and demand better of them but not throw out the very foundations of liberal democratic norms we rely on for a functional society of any type. I think Jonathan Rauch's "The Constitution of Knowledge" is still one of the best distillations of thought that I know of for promoting epistemic responsibility . . . . and I would deduce from his system of "liberal science" that the checks and balances that are necessary would mean that celebrity journalists and other experts (Taibbi and Shellenberger) should also be subject to scrutiny, and that conspiracism in general, even though it's a long-sustained and deeply ingrained human habit, can be identified through his proposed system of epistemic "checks and balances." And that conflating conspiracy theories with well-reasoned dissent is actually not helping the liberal democratic norms that are important in sustaining the country.
Oh boy, well I totally disagree with you about the Twitter files.
Back to Wikipedia, I won't dig up a bunch of links, but when it comes to nonpolitical subjects, it is fine, but it is compromised when it comes to anything controversial.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say someone had found Abigail Shrier's arguments convincing regarding the harms of early medical interventions for trans youth, and that person had found a lot of other people who agreed and made sense, and someone else said, "Well she's a bigot and she's harming trans people with her views and here are some Wikipedia articles and Guardian articles backing up my beliefs." I don't think that would prove convincing, and I can pretty much guarantee that there is a hatchet job on Shrier in either Wikepedia or the Guardian or any other source people have typically thought of as "reliable." I could substitute someone like Helen Pluckrose or any number of other figures into this scenario.
Yet the same people who will decry their inability to talk honestly with their friends about social justice issues for fear of being labelled a bigot and who will criticize media coverage on those issues have an inability to grasp that other people feel the exact same way about, say, discussing vaccines, and will shun any discussion of that topic in the exact same way. It's very interesting.
Re" the potential usefulness of Wikipedia: I wouldn't say the article there on Abigail Shrier does a hatchet job at all on her, or on "Irreversible Damage"--unless you have a hugely different conception of what a "hatchet job" is than I do. The article summarizes the book and some of the controversies around it and the critical reception of it, noting the. mixed reviews. These are facts that actually happened since the book was published. How is this a "hatchet job"? I also note that Chris Ferguson, whose judgment in the field of psychology I trust on many fraught topics, was moderately positive but also noted that more research is needed, calling for a preregistered hypothesis and open science methods. This is how research is supposed to work now. I would never think the book should be suppressed, censored in any way, or that Abigail Shrier should be deplatformed for speaking anywhere (which she has been, very regrettably). I am just noting there that Wikipedia does a mostly straightforward summary of what's happened with Shrier and the book. So why the animus against Wikipedia on this particular score? Should Wikipedia be shunned for just recording some of the record on a controversial author and book?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage#Background_and_publication_history
As for Helen Pluckrose, I have great regard for her and have cited her in pieces I've written ,including one on this substack. I think she's a key figure in making the discourse about "social justice" more sane through her knowledge of history and her careful thinking and definitions of all the wonderful convoluted terminology. I'm sure some on the woke left go after her--I've seen it--but mainstream sources? Why?
Re: the Twitter files. I'm happy to admit there was governmental overreach that was totally inappropriate and better moderation policies are needed (even though this is a very challenging area of activity). I point to statements from FIRE about the Twitter files and section 230 and related topics and because I trust FIRE as a protector of free speech, I'm willing to accept there was overreach. I do recall that Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE, observed that the attempts to censor stretched across both Trump and Biden administrations--so this isn't only coming wrapped up with one agenda.
Also, there are other technology analysts and journalists who study these policy issues extensively (Charlie Warzel whose article I sent before) and this one below, who aren't describing the situation in apocalyptic terms and in fact are pointing toward the platform and its current CEO as the problem, apart from governmental interference. So you're saying you disagree with me, but you're also disagreeing with some others who've given a lot of thought to these matters. Are they totally caught in the "mainstream" institution bias?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/twitter-files-explained-elon-musk-taibbi-weiss-hunter-biden-laptop.html
Surely some diversity of thought is possible on this fraught controversy. I'd hope so, in groups that want to call themselves "heterodox."
As for the Hunter Biden laptop story which was/is one part of the Twitter files, I'd only observe that some perspective about it might be helpful. I know this is a great and favored "narrative" in some circles--there are many "narratives" these days-- but the never-ending partisanship attached to it feeds the polarization roiling the country. Not to forget about it, but to keep it in perspective because now, at this point, it's . . . . old news. The world is aflame with an international crisis, there are huge problems with antisemitic threats, harassment, and violence in this country, and in Europe, there's huge controversies on college campuses and in many communities with enormously different worldviews pitted against each other, and hate and bigotry spreading through yes, the channels of social media (Instagram and TikTok, amply documented).
One of the members of our HxLIbraries group once observed, very aptly I think, that our field no longer does "nuance" well. I agree, and believe that nuance and appreciation of complexity require both mainstream sources, new and emerging voices and thinkers, and a
lot of rebuilding/reinvigoraton of trust.
I'm returning to the top of the Comments here to summarize what at least some of my points have been in this long threaded conversation about conspiracy theories and related matters. I am glad if the podcasts you've identified are helpful on complicated and fraught issues, political, cultural, technological, or other spheres of discussion and. debate. I'm not persuaded that there's a "proper" way to be a conspiracy theorist (if that's a intentional provocative framing to elicit interest, then great, of course). I'm also convinced there are scholars who've deeply researched conspiracy theories and don't conflate them with well-reasoned dissenting viewpoints and perspectives based on facts and evidence, and who understand the psychology of conspiracism. In other words, there's a qualitative difference between conspiracism and dissent. I also think there are hazards with pointing too much to "alternative" sources if they start to displace experts and institutions that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because they're "mainstream". I think there's a more nuanced way of thinking about both: I call it "calibrated trust"--using skepticism but in an open-ended way.
On the matter of conspiracy theories, I'm including here a post I wrote this morning about the Kennedy assassination's endless conspiracy theories and U VA Center for Politics' careful approach to studying that event. (Full disclosure: I posted this in the HxLibraries' portal). Their brief comments summarize my own understanding of what conspiracy theories are and what gives rise to them, and how to think about them.
***************************************************************************
(My comments on the portal): On the subject of conspiracy theories: most of us know that the JFK assassination spawned large numbers of such theories, and like all other conspiracy theories, they have certain features. The U VA Center for Politics, a quite reputable and responsible institute with seasoned scholars and well-trained graduate students--unlike the conspiracy theory industry around the Kennedy assassination--is conducting a review of records from the National Archives to determine what we know and can't know about that event. This is the way real investigation and inquiry should work, through disciplined scholarship, not through the mental gyrations and motivated reasoning of those who are incentivized by the repetitional benefits and tribal bonding that come from conspiracy theorizing.(end of my comments)
Italics in the preamble below are mine.
@Center for Politics at U VA
As we get closer to the 60th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we’re seeing rampant conspiracy theories get new life. Conspiracy theories can flourish during moments of crisis & social upheaval & when we don’t have all the information or only partial truths. Psychologists have shown that our brains are just wired to be suspicious for the sake of our own survival. People are drawn to conspiracy theories because of our need for knowledge, to feel like we have power over the things that happen to us & to feel good about ourselves & the social groups to which we belong.
Once conspiracy theories are out there, though, it’s very difficult to combat them. That’s why we’ve spent decades researching and revisiting #JFK assassination documents. Getting to the “truth” & creating a strong historical record is hard work. And with that long intro, here’s today’s anniversary post from our findings:
[Anyone interested in the new findings from extensive research conducted by U VA's Center for Politics should follow them on twitter--they're releasing new information based on their review of records from National Archives].
Thank you for your lengthy responses. I wonder if some of our differing perspectives are the result of your background in academic libraries and my background in public libraries, in that I perhaps have more faith (or at least hope) in the general public's ability to educate themselves on various matters and that they don't need to have a PhD in a subject order to come to educated conclusions from doing their own research (although several of the hosts of the podcasts I listed are in fact PhD students).
I know from working in libraries that there are various books on the JFK assassination and assume some of those have been written by scholars. There's always various perspectives and disagreement on issues, as well as continual splitting in religions, political groups, scientific consensus, etc.
My concern is that people have become so fearful of dissent, and so mesmerized by the constant drumbeat of the words "misinformation" and "disinformation," that their fields of inquiry have been greatly diminished and that they are weaponizing the terms "conspiracy theory" and now "nuance" to apply to anything they disagree with, even when the argument they disagree with is in fact nuanced.
Finally I will point out that making everyone afraid of the term "conspiracy theory" is certainly convenient for criminals.
I'll be more concise here (I hope, but it's relatively so). I'm not convinced totally that the difference in perspectives comes from working in different types of libraries over time--though I'm sure there are some differences in interests and affinities and "favored sources" and experts.
Yes, I may be less convinced than you are about the wisdom and/or ability of the general public to engage in lots of DYOR on complex policy issues, when many polls and studies have shown the general public's lack of knowledge in even basic functions of government, the low participation rate in the U.S. in voting as a responsibility of citizenship (it's embarrassingly low compared to other democracies' rates). This is one indicator to me of at least a deficit in the general public, the lack of civic knowledge, that may hamper DYOR. And in turn that lack of civic knowledge may impede an attitude of openness to other perspectives, and also, of course, the great affliction we're now dealing with, of lack of trust in mainstream institutions, in experts, and in sources that previously provided a set of "shared facts" (the last point is commented on all the time).
I'm also imagine this lack of civic knowledge is bipartisan or across the political spectrum.
(However, I am encouraged by such organizations as Braver Angels and Bridge USA and civic dialogue institutes that work to help people bridge divides and get out of their bubbles and escape the fragmented information siloes that too many people live in or contribute to).
As for misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theories, Im not in the least interested in frightening or impugning anyone. I'm just hoping/wishing that more people were interested in being better informed about this emerging body of research about them (though there's been work on conspiracy theories for years). I know there's a contested terrain here about misinformation/disinformation, but I also don't think the concepts themselves are infinitely elastic or that we can't place some boundaries around what they convey, what they actually are. I continue to believe there's a boundary zone between "conspiracy theory" and "well-evidenced dissent." The latter may have some consequences in some work or professional environments, but that is an organizational problem and a sign of something else--and it's very unfortunate because an expectation of conformity on all matters where there's a range of thought and opinion possible is not healthy.
In general, I think it's a professional obligation for me to know emerging scholarship such as that on misinformation (just as I need to learn more about A.I.)--the profession has to grapple with both. This is the "lifelong learning" that you mentioned in a previous message. Becoming informed about an emerging area of research surely ought to matter in helping us become better in bridging our own discussions within the field with those that we know are occurring in other fields and with the general public. One of the "go-to" sources for me in this way is The Misinformation Review, the OA journal that publishes a particular kind of fast-tracked research--and in fact, there was just published a scoping review (previously posted on the portal) looking back at six years worth' of research on misinformation.
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
Whatever kind of library we work in, public, academic, school, or other, I hope that sources like this one would be better known in helping us work with all of our constituents in a better way--wouldn't that be a better goal rather than dismissing those with Ph.D.s and others as superfluous to the general pubic's understanding of complicated and nuanced issues?
***************************************************************************
On the subject of conspiracy theories: most of us know that the JFK assassination spawned large numbers of such theories, and like all other conspiracy theories, they have certain features. The U VA Center for Politics, a quite reputable and responsible institute with seasoned scholars and well-trained graduate students--unlike the conspiracy theory industry around the Kennedy assassination--is conducting a review of records from the National Archives to determine what we know and can't know about that event. This is the way real investigation and inquiry should work, through disciplined scholarship, not through the mental gyrations and motivated reasoning of those who are incentivized by the repetitional benefits and tribal bonding that come from conspiracy theorizing.
Italics in the preamble below are mine.
@Center for Politics at U VA
As we get closer to the 60th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we’re seeing rampant conspiracy theories get new life. Conspiracy theories can flourish during moments of crisis & social upheaval & when we don’t have all the information or only partial truths. Psychologists have shown that our brains are just wired to be suspicious for the sake of our own survival. People are drawn to conspiracy theories because of our need for knowledge, to feel like we have power over the things that happen to us & to feel good about ourselves & the social groups to which we belong.
Once conspiracy theories are out there, though, it’s very difficult to combat them. That’s why we’ve spent decades researching and revisiting #JFK assassination documents. Getting to the “truth” & creating a strong historical record is hard work. And with that long intro, here’s today’s anniversary post from our findings:
[
I realize some people would actually study the idea of "conspiracy theories" rather than look at actual conspiracies, but I think the latter is still important.
I guess the PhD students that I am referring in to this piece as well as the PhD students/ professors/ writers they are having discussions with don't count, since you disagree with them.
I think I'm not understanding the distinction you're making between those who study the "idea" of conspiracy theories (which are a real thing) rather than those who study *actual* conspiracy theories. The scholars I mentioned before--Uscinski, Drochon--have spent many years studying actual conspiracy theories.
That helps them build up the frameworks and theories that guide their further investigations. They're thoroughly grounded in empiricism and facts and not just in "ideas".
An FYI, I attended a conference earlier this fall where Hugo Drochon led a discussion about conspiracy theories in pluralistic societies. I found it very informative. I also talked to him briefly afterwards--really nice guy, willing to listen to others in that session, not out to demean or frighten anyone.
You may be attributing something to me (about the Ph.D. students you listen to on podcasts) that I didn't claim at all. I didn't say I disagreed with them. I was making a point about alternative sources--which may still be helpful and informative, but probably shouldn't supplant credible sources from the "mainstream" body of scholarship and thinking about a complex arena of human behavior like this one.
With Uscinski and Drochon-- are they studying conspiracy theories to see if the conspiracies are true or to see how they function for the people who believe in or spread them? The latter can be a legitimate field of study, I just think investigating and revealing actual conspiracies (i.e., Watergate, Iran Contra) is also legitimate.
I'm happy to let people come to their own conclusions on all this. You've provided a lot of links for readers to peruse as well as in-depth comments, so people can read those as well as my post and if they so choose listen to some of the podcasts and see what they think.
I think that's all fine, Susan. I am disengaging with this topic for now.