They are just not aware that they have this fear and can’t therefore understand and work on it effectively. Some people just seem to be stuck in emotional toddlerhood.
They are just not aware that they have this fear and can’t therefore understand and work on it effectively. Some people just seem to be stuck in emotional toddlerhood.
So is it your idea to limit the spread of misinformation after the fact, and then everything is fine? To say that vaccine denial is reproduced top to bottom, instead of being reproduced by the system of consumers and consumers of such content, abetted by the circumstance of vaccines themselves lending themselves well to paranoid narratives, is a bit shortsighed.
I get that this is a charged topic, but let’s not let the subject or “victim” of misinfo off the hook, as well as all the other relevant factors that can be understood to make it easier to combat antivax.
For one, people in Somalia have much much bigger fish to fry and don’t feel the need to appeal to a nationalistically tainted right to bodily sovereignty. Secondly, there are other health measured the masses of people are subjected to. For instance lock downs, masking, fluoridation of drinking water, the GMO scare, the roundup scare, the gene editing scare, even sodium intake recommendations are twisted into pro salt conspiracy theories (I fucking wish I was joking but I had a gigantic fight with someone over this and it seems to be an issue on JP social media.) I could come up with many more. Public health is the perfect incubator for conspiracy theories, and it just so happens that vaccines are the queen here. For reasons that are quite obvious I would add. The sting, liquid going into one, (to an uneducated public) murky mechanisms of action, compulsion, etc.
Also people in Somalia aren’t as used to the internet and social media yet.
Not one of the things you listed regarding Somalia was “an imminent property of the object.” Every one was a sociological factor. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The differences across countries can only be explained through sociological factors, rather than some quality of the vaccine itself.
I didn’t say any of that. I cited one case of state sponsored misinformation to demonstrate the effects that misinformation in general can have. I never painted it in terms of “top down” misinformation outside of that one example. Of course, once someone is an antivaxxer they’re likely to spread misinformation organically.
The solution is a combination of banning the proliferation of antivax misinformation as far as possible, promoting a better understanding of science through funding education, and through any other methods that are shown to be effective. For example, some doctors have found it helpful to offer a choice between staggering the shots instead of doing them all at once, even though there’s really no difference, just to let people feel like they’re making a choice. As you mentioned, there’s some limited success with addressing people who are hesitant because of a fear of needles. But these little tactics miss the core, underlying reasons why it’s happening in the first place, which needs to be addressed on a larger scale.
I think you don’t understand what I mean by immanent property, at no point did I say that the immanent properties link back perfectly to the phenomena. The word to watch out for was “abet”. My argument hinges on the idea, or rather lived fact, that things are seldom monocausal. It is an interplay of immanent properties that find themselves fulfilled with regard to certain ends and methods, that have to come first, and then fuel as well as sparks. Nothing of this can be eliminated or shrunk down to misinfo. The really important idea here is that not everything can become the subject of conspiracy theories, chairs, friends, or plain money f.e., even when there is an effort.
It would also help to study the difference between immanent and imminent, as I was no way referring to the latter.
And no, my example didn’t concern just Somalia, I exposed the general case for “freedoms” being perceived as being infracted through public health measures, I showed that all of these things have immanent properties similar to those of vaccines. Not every one of those is merely a sociological factor, that would be oversimplifying things dramatically. From the perspective of sociology everything looks like a nail with enough pondering.
Also I think you’re taking my rather lighthearted and obvious thought experiment with the relationship between antivax and phobias too seriously.
I 100% disagree with that. Money especially has been the subject of countless conspiracy theories. There are plenty of people (for example, with schizophrenia) who form conspiracy theories about their friends. I’m not sure there’s ever been a conspiracy theory about chairs, but that’s only because there’s never been a sociological reason for there to be.
You are treating ideas that exist only in particular times and cultures as inherent things that will naturally arise out of the existence of particular physical objects. That’s nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations. In a culture that has the memory of life before vaccines within living memory, conspiracies about them don’t tend to emerge or gain traction, even though the physical object is the same. I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but that should just be the end of the discussion. It’s clear proof that it’s cultural and sociological.
Let me just put it this way: Is there any conceivable evidence that could exist that would falsify this idea that conspiracy theories come from the properties of particular physical objects rather than sociological factors?
I knew you were going to make this point. That doesn’t count! Paranoid delusions stemming from organic factors, like SCZ, are not of interest.
Conspiracy theories can only be of interest when they affect people of sound mind, further it’s clear that one can’t talk of conspiracy theories when they only concern a minority of mentally ill individuals, who are ill in an o r g a n i c, hence materialistically comprehensible way that doesn’t even begin to touch social phenomena in an interesting way.
It’s called materialism/enactivism, look it up. It’s not nonsense, it is hard science.
And where do those come from?!? Not out of thin air! I might as well believe in the power of God almighty! Preposterous.
Yes, fucking yes, and time and time again this is proven 100%. The mental world needs to, absolutely needs to, come out of material existence and it absolutely replenishes itself through material stimuli time and time again. Scientific inquiry can only come to this conclusion. Assuming systems are just disconnected, you might as well go back to the church and PRAY. Learn how to notice when you are thinking in abstract categories! Because you are not noticing it and cluelessly jumping up and down the ladder of abstraction.
Choosing to ignore sociology and social relations is not “hard science” or “materialism.” That’s like saying that if you recognize chemical compounds, you might as well “go back to the church and PRAY” because the only real material thing that exists are atoms (or subatomic particles, if you prefer). Just as chemistry is a field of science that studies the relation of atoms at the molecular level, just as biology is a field of science that studies the interaction of molecules at a cellular level, sociology is a scientific field that studies the interactions of individuals at a societal level. There is nothing “mystical” or “immaterial” about it.
When I say, for example, that cultures that have the memory of first getting vaccines in living memory tend to be more favorable towards vaccines and less prone to conspiracy theories about them, that is materialism! The material fact of whether the vaccine was available or not is what shaped the cultural ideas. Materialism doesn’t end at the quality of an object itself. The historical availablity of an object, which is both a material fact and a social relation, also affect the way people think about it.
What you’re doing is some bizarre, vulgarized form of materialism that disregards entirely material relations and the long term effects of material events on people’s thought processes, and instead attributes everything a person thinks about a particular object to the object’s innate qualities. This is nonsense, it’s a misunderstanding of what materialism is.
There are countless examples that prove this. For example, Spain once found tons of platinum in America and dumped it because they considered it worthless. If the reasons we value platinum have to do with it’s innate qualities, then the Spanish and everyone else at the time would have valued it as much as we do today.
First nowhere did I perform a complete rejection of sociology, in fact I even incorporated the idea of culture into one of my responses to your OBJECTIONS https://lemmy.ml/post/54374193/28498142
And nowhere do I flat out ignore social relations, which you vaguely throw into the discussion. I understand and respect those probably better than you do as evidenced by my not citing them willy nilly. And sociology is absolutely mystical, biologists laugh at most sociology, so do physicists and mathematicians. Durkheim’s book on suicide is absurd shit! The protestant work ethic thesis is an utterly crazed idea, and some people still hold on to it! To appropriate a Marxist term, and in the eyes of a sociologist a sociological term, sociology is mostly a petty bourgeois jerk between professors with very little practical applicability.
The cultural memory stuff is mostly BS and contradicted by your appeals to the temporally changing rate of vaccine denialism in western countries. As if these societies couldn’t be swayed by future social dynamics. This priming idea, that somehow having the right vaccine **first **is deeply meaningful, is charitably put a very rigid conception of the dynamics at hand.
It’s not vulgar, it is very sophisticated in fact. You believe ideas have a special power, as evidenced in your previous message, I am saying they don’t really. That is materialism. Matter over mind.
Also the false equivalence of chemical relations with social ones is nagging me.
Lmao Marx was all about social relationships! And sociology is simply the study of social relationships. You can critique particular ideas within sociology (I did not reference Durkheim or anybody like that in any way, so that’s irrelevant) but if you claim to understand social relationships and see them as worth studying, then you’re saying that you’re doing sociology right there. What is a social relationship if not a sociological factor? It’s like you heard the word “sociology” and completely lost the plot.
“As if?” Nothing I said could even remotely be construed as implying they couldn’t! In fact, it’s quite likely that they will follow the same trend, and that future generations that don’t have the memory of getting vaccines may be more prone to conspiracy theories about them. Where on earth did you possibly get this idea from, that I think otherwise?
By what in my previous message? You believe lizard people control the world, “as evidenced by your previous message,” see, I can make utterly baseless claims about your beliefs too.
More accurately, you’ve chosen to die on this hill of “cultures aren’t real, sociology isn’t real, history doesn’t matter, all ideas come from the inherent properties of individual objects and they’re only different across cultures because of social factors that are somehow totally different from sociological factors.”
What the fuck does this even mean? It’s mystical, but you don’t reject it? What are you even trying to say?
Nope, That is very abstract conception of sociology I am sure most sociologists wouldn’t share. And Marx wasn’t all about social relationships, he was just as much a philosopher of science, and that includes biology and physics and so on, a determinist even! Due to his materialism. As he grew older and more refined he also became more materialist and determinist in his thinking.
Why the hell do you then say this?!
“that cultures that have the memory of first getting vaccines in living memory tend to be more favorable towards vaccines and less prone to conspiracy theories about them,”
“You are treating ideas that exist only in particular times and cultures as inherent things that will naturally arise out of the existence of particular physical objects. That’s nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations”
The last part, “That’s nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations” treats it as a closed loop and that is bullshit. In fact the mind and ideas are constantly regenerated by physical inputs, that is why false memories are so easy to condition. So yes, everything “naturally” (I hate that word) arises out of physical objects and these words here are ephemera if they’re not being tested against concrete physical reality constantly. I can’t purely logic myself into the right thoughts to come to correct views about the world, it has to be connected to the tangible and if anything ideas that exist primarily through the exchange between people are a weak shadows of that tangible reality.
Just because things are mystical, doesn’t mean I have to reject them completely, just because something almost leaves a bad taste in my mouth doesn’t mean I shouldn’t engage with it. Economics is very crucial, I hate it! It is mystified and stupid! But I engage with it and take it seriously non the less because I am an antimoralist.
Also your approach to vaccine denialism just being regulating speech is in fact pure paternalism with a little education thrown in. Thought I might add that before nodding off.