THREAD:
I watched Netflix doc The Social Dilemma—so many self-important people pronouncing such nonsense about their power to rule the world through social media with their algorithms that "control" us helpless automata, yet another "existential" threat to humanity. Be skeptical!
Evidence from cognitive science (cf Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday) shows that these people had next to no influence on the 2016 election or anything else of importance. Pure self-aggrandizement. "I worked for the tech company that now threatens humanity. I'm guilty!"
BS
"Is this the last generation...?" Oh please. Every generation of 25-35-year olds thinks they're witnessing the end of the world & that they were part of it. Sorry kids. The "like" button is not "destroying the world." You're not that important. Get over yourselves. Perspective.
I've been hearing this narrative since I thought I was part of that world-changing generation in my 20s. X will "change the world." Y will "destroy humanity". Z is an "existential threat". It never happens. "This time is different." Study history. No it isn't.
These naïfs act shocked to discover that Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon et al. do things to attract customers & get them to spend more money in order to make a profit. Diabolical! Here's an idea—if you're worried, quit using the services. Oh it's the plebes you're worried about?
It gets worse: "These markets undermine freedom and should be outlawed." Outlawed? As in imprisoning the CEOs of these tech companies? Ok, how about we start with imprisoning all you programmers who "robbed us of our freedom" through your algorithms that "control" our actions?
Do any of these pundits think they themselves are helpless automata who lost all volition over their lives because of social media? Of course not! It's the "flea-beetles", "chattering dwarves", the "botched & the bungled" (Nietzsche) who must be rescued by these cyber Übermensch.
This whole moral panic over social media is nothing more than self-aggrandizing elitism by a bunch of millennial snobs who look down on the rest of humanity as nothing more than impotent lunk-heads incapable of simply turning off the machine the elites built. Quit.
END THREAD
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ 🚨 Can We Save Science from Activism? 🚨
From endorsing political candidates to promoting exceptions for BLM protests during Covid lockdowns, modern social science has taken a political turn.
But science, when done right, is the best available tool to discover how the world really is—not what it should be.
So, what now? Scientists who still value objectivity lay out the path forward in Skeptic.
A thread 🧵👇
2/ Principle #1: Measure Well
Many social science ideas, like microaggressions, have fundamental measurement issues. If something is defined entirely by personal perception, how can we objectively test or falsify it?
Example: Some claim that microaggressions cause psychological harm. But what if highly neurotic individuals are both:
✔️ More likely to perceive slights
✔️ More likely to struggle with mental health?
3/ As psychologist Scott Lilienfeld pointed out, anything can be called a microaggression—including opposite behaviors.
Calling on a student vs. not calling on a student? Both have been labeled microaggressions.
Good science demands clear definitions and testable claims.
If this is true what else should be true? If @DineshDSouza is right then why won’t True the Vote turn over evidence they have of election fraud to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations? GBI says what little there is doesn't "even merit an investigation." readtangle.com/otherposts/200…
GBI Director Vic Reynolds in a Sept. 30 letter: “What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cellphones to ballot harvesting. As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”
In fact, now the Georgia State Election Board has issued subpoenas to True the Vote to force them to release the alleged incriminating evidence. That tells us they don't have any and that this is pure political gamesmanship. ajc.com/politics/subpo…
Interesting push back against my critique of the self-important Netflix doc threadreaderapp.com/thread/1304796…
I stand by my conclusion that these self-flagellating programmers are delusional. Evidence in the form of replicable studies for their claims lacking
Remember when Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems said 20 years ago that we would soon be engulfed in nanotechnological gray goo?
In the film @JonHaidt says social media causes teen problems esp. in girls, echoing @jean_twenge from her book iGen. But those studies didn't replicate.
Not only did the studies linking social media/screen time to depression/suicide not replicate, they have since been refuted, as @JonHaidt publicly noted. So his appearance in The Social Dilemma must have been filmed before that. Here are some slides from my lecture on the subject
I received a lot of good feedback from conservatives on my (failed) thread trying to encapsulate conservatism, so let me try again with a real thread, starting with the stereotypes of how liberals see conservatives & how conservatives view liberals (from my The Believing Brain):
What liberals think of conservatives:
Conservatives are a bunch of Hummer-driving, meat-eating, gun-toting, small-government promoting, tax decreasing, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally-dogmatic blowhards.
What conservatives think of liberals:
Liberals are a bunch of hybrid-driving, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, whale-saving, sandal-wearing, big-government promoting, tax increasing, bottled-water-drinking, flip-flopping, wishy-washy, Namby Pamby bedwetters.