Um, you literally were quoted in an article saying you wanted to recruit healthcare experts to drown out bad information with good information on social media. Sorry if I offended, but it's a newbie assumption that that is an effective tactic. What else shoukd I have thought?
-
-
Humans also need shorthand and personalization. Here's the example I like to cite: Andrew Wakefield. When Andrew Wakefield was struck off and then revealed to have committed scientific fraud, he became a shorthand dismissal for antivax views: Oh, the main antivaxer is a fraud.
-
Do I like that this is essentially an ad hominem? Would I rather that facts, evidence, and reason would sway fence sitters more? Of course I would. But you get a lot farther briefly showing how Andrew Wakefield is a disgraced fraud than in laying out the science for hours.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you. And you’re right
@MarkHoofnagle about irrationality...but many are using that in their favor. It might look like pretty photos, but folks like@drrupawong can get convey awesome strabismus education to dedicated non-medical followers and trainees. -
Well, we’ll be happy to be proven wrong. But if you are actually interested in countering disinfo rather than just medical boosterism and information dissemination we can be a source of expertise. In my experience however, most docs don’t have the stomach for it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, that is a common finding in social psychology. People whose core beliefs are challenged tend to double down. Witness doomsday cults which are even more committed when the world doesn't end . Cognitive dissonance is powerful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.