Post

when people say "do your own research" they generally mean "do not trust anyone with any relevant training or experience"

This post is unavailable.

559 reposts3.1K likes

I love the veneer of rational skepticism used to dismiss credentialed experts and endorse uncritical faith in the most obvious hucksters on Earth. The CDC was wrong about something once, so we have to be ride or die for vaccine truth dot wordpress.

Imagine being such a dumbass you think the CDC has never made a mistake before, or that a mistake could invalidate the whole agency. How about we apply those standards to the cranks, they make one accident and your not allowed to cite them anymore. But no, they say one truth and it validates them.

None of them do their own research. They just go to different sources to hear about what research those people claimed to do. “I did my own research” usually means “I saw a video the algorithm served to me of someone else saying they read a thing that I didn’t read.”

The “do your own research” people were cutting classes and partying when research skills were being taught. Evaluating sources is beyond them. People who know how to do basic research trust the consensus of experts because there is no way to replicate that knowledge in ten minutes using Google.

I find a good counter to this argument — which I first learned from a veteran journalist/radio-host friend of mine, now no longer with us — goes like this: "Don't make me do your research for you." He used to say that whenever anyone called in with an ignorant argument... 🤔 @marymcnamara.bsky.social

READ THE PUBLIC PURPOSE DOCTRINE IF YOU DONT YOU ARE A LAZY INCOMPETENT MORON WITH RESPECT @brad_polumbo @RepJasonCrow @joekent16jan19 @HunterBiden @KyleSeraphin @GenFlynn @ScottJenningsKY @JonFlan @AlanDersh @LauraLoomer @KatieMiller @DemocracyFwd @StephenKing @DOGE @TYT

And for so many of them, "free thinking" is nothing more than rejecting the basic consensus. Earth round? "No, it's flat." Vaccines work? "No, they kill." It's the penguin running for the mountain. He doesn't know what he's doing; he's too busy rejecting everything to possibly understand

Really means: Do your own research using the dogmatically approved of resources I mean, you don’t need experts to tell you Trump is appointed by God. You just need a dogma

right—the conspiracies fall apart because of the avarice of the pharma industry, not in spite of it. if Eli Lily had the cure for cancer they wouldn’t suppress it, they’d sell it at extortionate rates. we know this bc they did exactly that with the cure for obesity

all the worst incentives of Big Pharma without any of the scientific peer review apparatus to constrain them. that's how people end up gobbling horse paste, fish tank cleaner, colloidal silver etc

yeah. Fauci fucks up with masks (admittedly a bad fuck up) and somehow that discredits all science, but the cranks pay no penalty for being provably 180 degrees wrong about hydroxychlorquine, ivermectin, every vaccine, etc etc bsky.app/profile/idon...

Tubular Yakubian@idontknowmanmaybe.bsky.social

I love the veneer of rational skepticism used to dismiss credentialed experts and endorse uncritical faith in the most obvious hucksters on Earth. The CDC was wrong about something once, so we have to be ride or die for vaccine truth dot wordpress.

Is it the case that ppl who came of age or went through early adulthood in an urban environment should be inoculated against this pablum, as cranks with signs of this sort used to be pretty common?

It feels like an angle we should be able to use *against* the right, tbh. There is literally a conspiracy of rich, powerful people using lies, scapegoats and propaganda to control the rubes, after all.

The Trump admin thinks that a supermajority of Americans are untrustworthy, that's just great though and we're supposed to love this opinion they have of us Americans.

“Scouring the internet until you find a disgraced academic who has turned to grifting and treating them as the most reliable authority” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

if you're actually smart you can, if you care enough, learn the science yourself! if you're just an irritable low-trust dipshit, alas,

I bristle at “do your own research.” which means “find something that agrees with my opinion.” Research is not collecting links. It requires subject knowledge, methodological literacy, source evaluation, and a willingness to be wrong. Otherwise, it is just confirmation bias with citations.

whether it’s creationism or climate change or “race science” or vaccines, it’s always this

society if we understood the difference between “no one is allowed to ask these forbidden questions” and “people keep asking these stupid questions and getting answers they don’t like”

We live in a society ruled by the Zombie King and his minions, and we need to figure out how to defeat them. It won't be by appealing to their morality or logic, because those characteristics are not part of who they are.

The “doing my own research” thing has a whiff of those dudes who think they could win a game against WNBA players. As if researchers don’t train for years and get hired and paid to do research?

There are times when it actually makes sense to do your own research. I had to research possible causes of my chronic fatigue because if I didn’t have my own ideas the doctor would just see I’d already gotten bloodwork done and shrug. But that’s never what these anti-science freaks mean.

everyone smart with a chronic medical condition is probably doing some reading on it. It doesn't mean they doubt vaccines. Especially if it's a condition that is less studied because it's in a more neglected group (ie doesn't primarily affect cis white males).

That's researching your own health. Rather than disputing public medical facts based on your own research. I also have OCD tbh, which makes researching my own health a minefield. I can convince myself of fake illnesses if I let things run away.

The first question people should get asked when they recommend this is, "Were you ever good at research?"

Nick Garcia @nwgarcia.bsky.social

My favorite response has always been, "Hey do you remember one of those big research papers you'd have to write in high school? Where you'd have to write the outline? Build a bibliography and notes? Each sentence needed citations? What grade did you get on that?"

My niece told me the vaccine "hadn't been tested enough". I asked her 1) how had it been tested already, and 2) how, in her opinion, SHOULD it be tested? She unfriended me.

Ask the dummies to explain summaries of This Week in Virology, for example: TWiV explains research showing that Per os infectivity factors are essential for bracovirus infection and wasp parasitism, and that periodic shifts in viral load increase risk of Hendra virus spillover from Pteropus bats.

This guy made his money on spam emails and became one of the first wellness guru weirdos. A bunch of influential people showed who they really were when they reposted his decree that GMO scientists should be hunted and executed like Nazis.

My anecdotal observations of random MAGA indicate they are not the healthiest people to begin with. I guess they have not done the research on healthy diets and lifestyles.

The thing that continues to confound me is the insistence on some sort of grand conspiracy by experts who usually aren’t selling anything, but then influencers who tell you not to trust experts almost always ARE selling something. The actual snake oil!!

It’s because the actual thing the influencers are selling is a simplified worldview free of complication, confusing nuance, and frightening unknowns; the supplements/ivermectin/ball tanning apparatuses are just physical accessories.