Never let businessmen discuss social issues.
I’m fine with “Never let businessmen.”
Can we even trust the polls themselves?
What the fuck is wrong with people?
I want to scratch the surface and look slightly deeper at this. I think we all agree on the one hand “Science, duh.” and this kind of headline is of course dispiriting.
It sparked an interesting thought for me though. What role does “trust” actually play in science? Scientists certainly don’t operate on trust with one another. The entire practice is based on peer-critique and no one’s results are trusted until someone has repeated them.
Yet somehow we think there is a boundary on this, a sort of outer membrane past which everyone who is outside any scientific field is just supposed to “trust science,” when science itself is a huge, distributed, diverse, and not always especially accountable or even identifiable conglomeration of different people. Not all science is carried out with the same rigor, the same sample size, and there is membership card. A corporation can conduct science. A private individual can conduct science. Exactly who and where is this “Science” we are meant to even trust?
Every study I’ve ever seen shared on Lemmy is looked at critically. There’s no “trust” about it.
So not to trust science honestly sounds like the most scientific thing for a smart person to do. Science also doesn’t require trust. It operates on proof, openness, repeatable experiments and data. Science never asks for “trust.”
We should expect the results that scientists have tried to debunk and failed to be trusted. You know, the repeated results after the initial claim. Unfortunately most of the people at least in the US don’t understand any part of the way science works to come to a conclusion that’s accepted by most scientists.
My suspicion is social media. The hustle culture and billionaires are glazed over; as in there is subliminal messaging to condition to the plebians to worship the rich and lick their boots.
It’s about style. Who are you going to believe, academics who are careful in what they claim and are forever hedging because even 6 sigma isn’t 100% or business people who are absolutely certain when they speak whether their certainty is warranted or not?
I know who I trust more but that’s because I’m not a product of the American education system
they are stupid and don’t even believe basic history like palestine for the last 150 years
- people are very stupid and gullible, on average, and groups of people even moreso
- business people have (or are) marketing people, which is effectively the discipline of socially engineering people to buy your shit
For the guys that get their opinions from businessmen:
- you ooga booga as fuck, dum dum
- businessman manipulate yo ooga booga ass wid fancy word
Wat
Corporations own the media, not scientists.
People are emotionally driven. Everyone is, to an extent. Scientists are less likely to use that to support their point, or they’ll have emotionally displeasing things to say.
I’m a scientist, can confirm.
Well pretend your science is more emotional, Mr scientist! We need to convince the masses, throw a “damn” or two in your sentences, save our planet and pretend for a second science has led to innovation after innovation that has changed quality and ability of life for billions… Yeah, damnit, nothing emotional about science, let’s just keep it boring
I think the people of this country have had enough of experts
Michael Gove
Eh… shitty people exist outside of the United States. We just happen to be very loud about it.
Take, for example, the British. They’re huge assholes, too. Have been for centuries. And everyone hated them the most long before we Americans came along. And, of course, it makes total sense that our country is one of their offspring, so to speak. Funny how the Canadians turned out to be so polite. The jury is still out on the Australians…
Australians are the Gen X of the world, a bunch of cunts, best ignored.
Canadian politeness is founded on ignoring the genocide at home.
Mmm I’m pretty sure I can be polite and recognize generational trauma of indigenous peoples
The Australian jury has gone down to the pub.
Not really sure what that has to do with my comment.
On a side note Australians are known to be racist cunts. New Zealander’s are by accounts the equivalent of Canadians
Rich people own and run the media. That’s just one thing that’s wrong with them.
I always have my poles reversed on these types of stories.
People who study how to convince people are more trusted than people trained to talk in technical jargon about specific fields. Shocker there.
The corpo propaganda is working.
Business leaders tell people what they want to hear, scientists typically bring bad news.
Unless they’re paid off by big corporations to do studies favorable to a company’s products, in which case they bring nice sounding lies. Like how Monsanto wrote entire passages of the paper supposedly proving the safety of their glyphosate.
This shit killed my grandma in her late 60s along with millions of others worldwide.
But I think this is due to a broader incentive problem in science. There’s incentive to find new and interesting things to publish or die. There’s no incentive (in fact strong incentives against) replicating other studies to see if their results hold up to external verification.
Absolutely. All the Parkinsons cases from people who’ve lived next to agricultural land and golf courses, all from ‘safe’ products.
Business leaders: “Our product is going to murder humanity.”
That one is for investors in the ponzi scheme. Don’t forget ‘your self driving car will earn taxi fare while you sleep’ and ‘AI will usher in the 3-day work week’.
this sounds like restating the title rather than supporting it
because scientists are autistic and businesss men are sociopaths
50% Aspie supremacist nonsense, 50% truth.
My brother has Aspergers.
And I can tell you he is 100% superior to you.
Um AkSHUaLlY iTs nOT bIgOtRy iF iTs aUtiSM sUpRemAcIsm- literally a dude calling himself the world’s dumbest man
Which is fitting, because you’d have to be pretty goddamn stupid to confuse “supremacist rhetoric is always cringe” with “autistic people are lesser”
Someone with even a basic level of comprehension might even notice that the second idea is already criticized by the first.
So, how’s your sex life?
But capitalism isn’t a problem
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
Edit:
Insane how this is downvoted when you look at the responses. 🤡🤥
Nobody is making any kind of valid argument that this would be different in a non capitalist society.Nobody is making any kind of valid argument that this would be different in a non capitalist society.
Because they cannot.
Else they should admit that what they consider better than capitalism have the exact same problems, if not worse, that simply are shown in a different way. Or just totally hidden.Exactly, some people are absolutely delusional, and even think there are better systems than democracy, when such a system has never been shown to actually work.
Still they have 100% faith as if it is a religion, or Russian propaganda.You think you have had real democracy in your life? Lol.
How much money have you donated to politicians’ campaigns you wanted to see win? 100$? 1000$? A million+? That will never be enough to compete against the billions of the top 1%. How many TV ads have you paid for your favorite candidate? 0? You will never sway people as effectively as I don’t know, AIPAC did for decades for example. Sure, there are exceptions rising up, like Zohran and El-Sayed, but that’s it? There are dozens and thousands of countries, States and cities that claim to be “democracies” in the world, including my own country/State/City, Mexico, Tamaulipas, which is lowkey ran by the cartel. Do you really think we are a democracy despite what they say? Or what the Jeffrey Epstein Class that run us all say? You think we want these motherfuckers that appear out of nowhere?
Do you even know where did Kamala, Biden, Trump, Obama, George came from at all? With Zohran and El-Sayed you can see their journey, from when they were nobodies up to the influence they command on people now. But what about all those presidents you have had? Who the fuck are those people? Some random Ivy League frat boys that probably drugged and raped women in college? Who the hell gave them the money to be on national TV everyday? It was clearly not you, so. All this time, you have always been forced to elect either politician A which appeals to empathy, or politician B which appeals to sympathy, both with a touch of apathy for the other, both ready to answer for the interests of the top 1% before ours.
You say we are “delusional for even thinking there are better systems than democracy, when such a system has never been shown to actually work” are you talking about communism? Or socialism? Because everyone already knows the top capitalistic countries never allowed them to succeed. Why would they allow that? It’d show everyone that capitalism and this fake democracy you think is better are actually worthless. We Mexico want the US gone. You never dismantled the Iron River, which is only getting 30,000+ innocents killed every year (to me, it’s millions. Imagine the ambience of fear, depression, violence… All those 30,000 people had families too, which are now permanently traumatized, lives ruined. That’s a lot of pain you never hear or pay attention to because they rarely make it to the news, they are not as “sensational” for them to broadcast as other things), all because of the US’ gun culture and psychopathy of allowing thousands of people to die just to make more money. Keep us in fear so we work for you for cheap, and if we disobey you or get out of line, you deport us and treat us like slaves, like shit. Fuck that. Fuck your system, fuck your world. It fucking sucks. We rather have China as a neighbor than you now, even if you are not American or from the US. At least they did not elect a pedophile, and they don’t have a gun culture like the USA’s that is only getting thousands of South Americans and Middle Eastern people killed in the name of profit. You love making money selling guns, bullets and bombs to the Mexican cartels exclusively, not us. The USA armed and empowered the cartels, and then they complain about us opining about them, they tell us “to focus on our own country, to fix our home” but we cannot, because cartels are heavily armed and we are not, all thanks to Americans.
And here you are, still defending the dumbass system that is keeping this reality alive for us. You don’t give a fuck about the innocent. You only give a fuck about you and what makes you feel comfortable. I remember a Blue/Red MAGA whom I slapped with this argument, you know what was their last cope? It was so sad, so petty… He said: “Well. Did you know there are interests of the billionaires that overlap with ours’, right?” Dude thought that was an infallible gotcha. Like, bro. Stop being a bunch of serfs and have some fucking respect for yourself already. Learn how to value yourself as a human being who can do art and express things. You should already be aware that you never had democracy, that you never had freedom. Why the fuck haven’t you woken up yet? That little do you value yourself? That little you care about yourself? Are you gonna keep coping in a corner that maybe this system and world you live in are beautiful, or are you going to help build that beauty? Because fuck, it almost sounds like you want us to comply and just keep following the rules of the Jeffrey Epstein Class, or what do you mean there is no better system than this “democracy” you think you have?
Capitalism and democracy should never be mixed together.
I’m not even going to reply to that, because it is so absurdly nonsensical. But congratulations to you, you managed to sound more crazy than the “AI” cult that has been infesting lemmy lately.
I’m not going to reply to that. 🤣🤣🤣
You can’t even see that everyone is dismissing you from how absurd you sound?
I pity you.
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
Where is a society not capitalist?
So it’s ALL societies, except fantasy ones?
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
We only have evidence of it in capitalist countries.
do you really imagine that in a non capitalist society cooperate leaders would be trusted less?
Seeing as China’s government is run by scientists and doctors, yes.
So in what society is this NOT the case?
Seeing as China’s government is run by scientists and doctors, yes.
What? How does that make any sense? So what are they saying about their business people? Are they too trusted more? Or are you just making shit up as you go?
No, I misread and thought you said corporate no cooperate. Now I have no idea what you’re saying.
THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT CO-OPS!! THEY’RE USING THE WORD COOPERATE AS AN ADJECTIVE TO REFER TO CO-OPS!
“A COOPERATE MANAGER”
“A cooperate manager.” LMAO
This smuck is like: “corporate managers—not to be confused with cooperate managers.”
I removed that part, because apparently people don’t get it.
But I would wager that cooperate managers would be more trusted than corporate ones. Without them being any different in all practical matters.Also Science is not entirely capitalist, business managers are. So saying that science would be trusted more in a on capitalist society doesn’t make the least bit of sense.
doesn’t make the least bit of sense.
cooperate managers
Oh, boy.
I suppose you are aware that it means a manager of a company co-owned by the workers, so I must admit I don’t get your response?
people in general hate feeling dumb, and are taught by sick society early that ignorance and stupidity are the same.
Being reminded they aren’t the smart one leads to anger often.
This is difficult for me to believe, honestly.
At least here in the US, there is outright hostility to Big Business, and in particular, Big Tech. We are collectively very sick of the price gouging that’s been rampant for the last five years and also the egregious treatment of local communities by companies trying to build data centers. We’re reaching a point where they can’t even gaslight us into supporting it by promising tax breaks to homeowners anymore.
Also, we’re increasingly learning that the engagement of people who are anti-science is astroturfed, and that was put on display in a big way last week when Russian bots were silenced temporarily. There’s still a chunk of people who are anti-science, and they happen to be very loud, but their opinions are amplified artificially, not representative of the whole.
Maybe it’s different in the UK and Sweden, but I’m skeptical.
Zero surprise for me. Capitalist media constantly promotes rich people as honest sources of information… and these are the same people constantly attacking science.
It’s that but not just that.
Notice people paying attention to actors and musicians on social subjects, even though the domain expertise of those people is acting and music respectivelly, not sociology.
(You can even see it here in Lemmy: some actor or other says something on a social subject somebody agrees with and they make a post here about it, under which tons of people write about how they totally agree and it’s so good that said person talked about it. If anybody points out “they’re an actor, not a domain expert” they’re assumed to be of an opposite opinion, even of an opposite political side)
I think there is a broader problem of people’s trust on certain subjects being far more highly positivelly correlated with the fame of the advice/opinion giver than with domain expertise.
Your point about rich people does dovetail with this - rich people are often treated as celebrities by the media.
PS: Also there are a bunch of interesting effects around this - for example the more somebody’s opinion on something is talked about on the media, even negativelly, the more they are perceived as having a relevant opinion on that subject (the so-called “Halo Effect”).
* study financed by the fascist businessmen
It’s a simple matter if incentives. Businessmen need to understand enough of social reality to leverage it for profit. Scientists only need to understand the smallest most myopic slice of social reality to publish a paper on it to maintain their tenure track. While businesses have been successfully making money repeatedly from society for a few centuries, researchers have produced a reproducibility crisis where their findings are obviously specious and meet the much lower standard of convincing some gatekeepers to publish them.
Businessmen also have every incentive to lie to you and everyone else.
Yup, they do, but even their lies are useful signal. Social researchers incentivized by the tenure system and publish-or-perish have no reason to lie to you because they have no idea whether the lies are even inaccuracies. The only people they care about informing are the gate keepers. Academica have been totally kneecapped by the for-profit system and very little of what they do is related to the real world anymore.
What kind of scientists? Natural scientists, or social scientists? Cuz both are horrible, but one’s significantly more horrifying than the other.
Edit: I apologise for the misunderstanding. English is not my first language. What I meant was that if people would trust businesspeople over natural scientists in matters of social issues, that is already bad, but if people would trust businesspeopls over social scientists in matters of social issues, that’s a significantly worse judgement to make.
Nah, I’m less inclined to trust a businessman even in economics than a scientist. We’ve been inundated for years about how college just brainwashes kids, but the only ones I see consistently producing samethink are business and law schools. I say that’s where the brainwashing is, wiping out their empathy and humanity for the love of a dollar.
Why are “natural scientists” horrible?
I apologise for the misunderstanding. What I meant was that if people would trust businesspeople over natural scientists in matters of social issues, that is already bad, but if people would trust businesspeopls over social scientists in matters of social issues, that’s a significantly worse judgement to make.
Why are “social scientists” horrible? What’s the difference? jfc.
TBH the attack on “social science” is a longstanding fascist project to impose social oppression.
I completely agree.
Yeah I mean, I don’t disagree. I was just taken aback that they mentioned “natural scientists”
