Home Blog Page 4

Blue Pill or Red Pill: the effects of “The Pill Cabinet” and the formation of incel worldviews

Eunice Lim
-
0
Blue Pill or Red Pill: the effects of “The Pill Cabinet” and the formation of incel worldviews

[Content note: mention of suicide]

“You take the blue pill… the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill… you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

“I’ll take the red,” the incel said.

Short for “involuntary celibate”, the term “incel” was coined to refer to an individual who bases a portion of their self-identity around their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner, despite their desire to. Initially, this might have been associated with a multitude of reasons, such as social awkwardness, or being a late bloomer. Today, however, the term most often comes accompanied with an abundance of misogyny.

By taking the red pill, the incel believes they’ve woken up to a world where feminism has taken over, and the balance of power is tipped not in favour of men, but of women. Their belief that men do not hold systemic power and privilege, but are actually subject to the whims of women and feminists’ power and desires, is the start of a rabbit hole that leads down to a cesspool of contemporary male supremacist movements.

As they go deeper, the incel gets increasingly dispirited by their perceived reality of a world that is increasingly acquiescent to the demands of what they believe to be a growing modern misandrist agenda disguised as feminism. By contrast, they believe that the acceptance of feminism by a relatively large portion of society in any capacity indicates the mainstream refusal to wake up; that everyone else is choosing the comfort of the blue pill, and societally-determined morality.

To make matters worse, the internet has a nasty “habit” of making the most controversial, inaccurate, and polarising content the most viral. It’s not very discerning. Plastered everywhere, even if for a short period of time — the internet moves on very quickly — the viral content garners attention beyond its intended audience. Unfortunately for us, a good portion of content that goes viral also tends to act as reinforcement for an incel’s false reality.

The world really does hate men. They joke about being anti-men. Everything men do is wrong, oh- unless he’s attractive. And further down the rabbit hole the incel goes.

Near the bottom of the rabbit hole is the black pill. Coined by the antifeminist communities themselves and seen as a last resort after realising that their attempts at making themselves more attractive to women are futile, the black pill represents a resignation towards a women-serving feminist world and the permanence of their incel status as a result of such.

Proposed solutions to this permanent state of being span a short range: death and violence. Suicide is openly discussed, with individuals essentially egged on by others in the same community. And while these are obviously tragic outcomes and very damaging to the incel as an individual, it holds no potential threat to others. The same can’t be said for other “solutions” proposed by members of the community: in my journey down the rabbit hole of the ins and outs of inceldom, the most extreme idea I came across on incel community sites is something referred to as “Going ER”.

An homage to Elliot Rodger, the man responsible for killing six and injuring fourteen before killing himself, “Going ER” suggests eliminating women and men who get what incels can’t (women) through murder. Extremist parts of the incel community deem him a hero, a martyr, and a role model. It is scary to think that Rodger could be lauded by men who have constructed their own worldview to justify their hatred for women. To think that there is a possibility they might follow in his footsteps, to be a martyr themselves, and to think that there might be people around you who actually agree to certain ideas behind inceldom, completely unbeknownst to you. All because they took the red pill.

Inceldom’s red pill definitely shows the individual a truth, but one that relies so heavily on the cherry-picking and warping of feminism is definitely not the truth the individual was so hoping for.

The majority of incels are men, and as much as those incels would tend to argue otherwise, men have been and still are the dominant group in our gendered society. They have shaped history, socio-cultural norms, morals; everything we know today has passed through the lens of a man. Notwithstanding the other factors that might affect the degrees of dominance a person might enjoy – such as racial, class or sexual identity – society for the most part remains structured around and for the experience of men. Women and non-binary people, as the Other, fall below men in that structured social order.

Feminism disrupts this engrained social order, but its aim to empower women to the same degree as men is inaccurately interpreted by incel groups as a desire to see women disempowering men. Alas, we are all mortal beings bound by subjectivity. The lens through which an individual views the world is shaped by the individual’s experiences, opinions, interpretations of reality around them, and their emotions.

Feminism, in terms of value-adding to women’s lives, means close to nothing for most men. Yet women have been acting in accordance with men’s reality for most of the history of society, due to androcentric norms and expectations. Ingrained in them and often acted upon unconsciously, women’s history of living in a double consciousness makes it even harder for men to comprehend the need for feminism.

In justifying the value of feminism and the need for it in a society where women and men alike have been behaving in ways tailored to a man’s worldview, communication is key, according to Professor Isaac Wilhelm, professor of philosophy at the National University of Singapore, who told me that “blaming and shaming contributes to polarisation in an unproductive way”.

Prof. Wilhelm asserts that this does not mean that feminism should be about men, or that the movement should be entirely dependent on women pandering to androcentrism to be understood or accepted. Rather, it means that the desire to be understood cannot be unilateral. Incels, as damaging as their mindsets may be, are still a product of our society. Prof. Wilhelm proposes that some individuals get preyed on by other men selling the masculinity ideal because they are lonely and vulnerable in a society that highly values interpersonal relationships, especially romantic ones. It makes them susceptible to lies and antifeminist propaganda in hopes of finding commonality with others who share their experiences. The main issue is the insularity of these communities, where they act as echo chambers for inceldom and perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy of the undesired singleness, which in turn breeds increasing bitterness towards women.

In my opinion, insularity emerges from a centring of the self: in centring ourselves, we make ourselves, the individual, the “dominant group”. As such, no one is more legitimate by comparison. We judge and arbitrarily assign legitimacy to others’ experiences based on our own, and fail to realise that in doing so, we become naïve to outside perspectives. With every person doing the same thing, it is no wonder that we encounter such friction in attempting to smooth over divides in society, much less one as subversive as feminism.

As such, the decentring of the self seems to be a step towards reconciling the realities of feminism with the realities of those unaffected by the lack of this movement in society. Recognising that emotion and logic are not separate entities, but rather that logic resides within emotion and is contingent on our personal experiences.

Ultimately, feminists and incels share the same pill cabinet. The pills’ effects, however, depend on the worldview one is trying to treat.

References

Could ASMR be a possible explanation for some new age and spiritual experiences?

Mark Horne
-
0
Could ASMR be a possible explanation for some new age and spiritual experiences?

Anyone who uses YouTube will likely have come across clips of hyperattentive whisperers who seem to be attempting to beguile the viewer. Most of us probably know that these are ASMR (“autonomous sensory meridian response”) videos, even if we don’t get the head-tingles that the videos are intended to elicit. 

Around 20% of us – myself included – do get a physical reaction from these videos. ASMR videos first appeared around 2009, and for me they merely confirmed something I’d experienced all my life, but didn’t know how to explain, let alone name. My first recollection of ASMR was at the opticians as a young adolescent, as the optician leaned in, staring into my eyes and shining tiny bright lights to check my ocular health. A description of how it feels seems to vary from person to person, and indeed can feel slightly different from time to time, but generally it involves a warm, enjoyable, tingling sensation which runs from the top of your head down your face, neck and shoulders. 

It is both akin to – and yet also entirely unlike – the more commonly experienced sensation of a shiver going down your back, which people often describe as feeling like someone walked over your grave. By contrast, ASMR can be very pleasurable, to the point that some people will spend a lot of time and money on their favourite YouTube “ASMRtists” (the commonly-used term for people who make ASMR videos), much to the horror of The Spectator.

Pre-YouTube, it was much harder to intentionally experience ASMR. For me, some people’s voices seem to trigger the sensation, as does a certain kind of personal attention (no, not that kind of personal attention!). Sometimes visits to certain physical locations would have the same effect, and in particular cathedrals and other monuments built to convey majesty and awe in their adherents. I also found that school prayer occasionally did the same, especially when in church for Christmas. 

As I entered my rebellious teens and experimented with more esoteric spirituality, I discovered that meditation and reiki also gave me ASMR tingles. I wondered often as a young man whether this meant that the reiki, the prayer, or the magical or spiritual activity du jour was actually working, as I could certainly feel a very real physical reaction, plus a sense of personal calmness and peace in the aftermath of the ASMR tingles. 

It turns out I’m not the only one. While there are scant few comments online from those for whom locations trigger ASMR, plenty of people report getting ASMR in church and religious services. The possibility that physical sensations felt by those at worship might be ASMR being mistaken for the ‘Holy Spirit’ has been raised by Christians, with one commenter mentioning that experiencing the ‘Holy Spirit’ felt like “getting the chills or the willies and for me, it travels from my head down.” This is how many who experience ASMR would describe the sensation. This does not, of course, prove that what these worshippers are experiencing is anything other than what they believe it to be, but the similarity is remarkable. Is it possible that at least some of the physical sensations described by believers as ‘feeling God’s presence’ might in fact be explained by ASMR? 

Practitioners of new-age spiritual activities that induce the feeling seem to have no such qualms about ASMR. The name itself, autonomous sensory meridian response, was chosen in an attempt to find an objective term to describe it, and it is something of a gift to those who believe that meridians are energy – or chi – channels through the body. 

I’m not the first to suggest that ASMR may function as a physical ‘proof’ of otherwise suspect practices like therapeutic touch and reiki. As Pain Science’s Paul Ingraham notes, ASMR sensations are “inevitably interpreted as ‘feeling the energy’ by eager customers” of such energy medicine practitioners: 

To me, a Reiki session looks like an ASMR-generating ritual with a New Age paint job — satisfaction guaranteed not by spooky healing powers, but by primate neurology. The ASMR is not only inherently pleasing, but artfully reinforces the vitalistic story the practitioner is telling.

The link between reiki and ASMR is so clear and strong that numerous ASMR channels are devoted to the combination, which some of our readers may have encountered on TikTok, where one reiki-ASMR video creator says they have been messaged by an alopecia sufferer who started hair regrowth after they had “begun watching my videos for stress relief.” 

There is indeed some research that suggests ASMR can be useful for easing feelings of anxiety, as well as reducing stress, improving sleep quality, and potentially even providing temporary pain relief and a lifted mood. If ASMR turns out to have some positive real-world effects for those who experience it – and it is still early days for this research – that seems harmless enough. 

But if the modest, temporary, subjective improvement that ASMR can possibly induce is experienced as part of reiki – or another form or new-age healing practice – and it then leads to or validates belief in such alternative practices, which can be both expensive and delay actual medical treatment, then that’s a more serious concern. 

Research will undoubtedly continue into something as widely experienced and poorly understood as ASMR, though a large volume of what’s published at the moment is looking at the online ASMR community, which is a straightforward and accessible study subject. Trying to tease out whether the feeling noted by some people in prayer is distinguishable from ASMR felt by someone in a church who is performing a placebo prayer seems a lot more challenging, and quite difficult to recruit to without seriously offending half of the participants.  

From the archives: media clippings from the death of Doris Stokes

The Skeptic
-
0
From the archives: media clippings from the death of Doris Stokes

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 1, Issue 4, from 1987.

As almost every newspaper reported, Doris Stokes died during the weekend of May 8/9 (coinciding (with no significance, we’re sure) with Mark Plummer’s visit to London. Psychic News caused a stir in a few places by running a large headline on the front page of their issue of May 9, “Doris Is On the Mend”.

Since then , there have been numerous press articles: the Mirror ran a series, “Doris Stokes – Trick or Truth?”; the Lewisham & Catford Mercury reported that her adopted son Terry claimed to have received a message from her after her death; the Sun reported that Doris Collins claimed to have received a message from Stokes as she was dying; the News of the World reported on the journey to the “spirit world” Stokes claimed to have made during a previous illness.

In an interview published in the (Scottish) Sunday Express, 5 January, 1986 , Stokes said she did not expect to act as a guide for other mediums after her death.

Doris Stokes was challenged a number of times to prove her powers were real. In addition to Randi’s standing $10,000 challenge, magician Paul Daniels offered a £10,000 challenge in the Sun, 9 November 1985, and Irish businessman Gerald Fleming, now living in London, offered first $20,000 Australian in 1978 and then later £100,000 if she could demonstrate her powers under properly controlled conditions. She refused the challenges. In an article in the Irish Evening Herald of May 28, 1986, reporter P.J. Cunningham wrote, “Mrs. Stokes has countered Mr. Flemings’ claims by saying he has a vendetta against her and dismissing him as an ‘ignorant Irishman’.” Fleming has made the same offer to Doris Collins, who has also refused to be tested.

Much of what appeared about Doris Stokes in print during her lifetime was uncritical. She published six books of claims with ghostwriter Linda Dearsley, she had a regular letters column in Chat, and there were many newspaper articles about her claims to have received messages from Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy (she even claimed the latter two told her they were “just good friends”).

However, there were dissenters. Magician and former British Committee Chairman David Berglas, in an interview with People, August 24 , 1986, said, “There is absolutely nothing that Doris Stokes can do that I can’t do myself… and I’m not psychic.” Paul Daniels, in discussing his £10,000 challenge, explained Stokes’ methods: “It is a mixture of artful questioning and people hearing what they want to hear.” Daniels also presented the skeptical viewpoint in the Mirror‘s “Trick or Truth” series, where he is quoted as saying, “I condemn those who make money callously from the sad, the lonely and the insecure. “

The Mirror added a brief article about Doris Stokes ‘ involvement in the Lamplugh case: Diana Lamplugh is quoted as saying that she received telephone calls from sixty mediums, all with different stories about what had happened to her daughter. Of Doris Stokes, she is quoted as saying, “Mrs. Stokes sounded like a very nice person , but nothing was found. In the end, I’m very sorry to say, she didn’t help us at all.” The Mirror concluded the series with a selection of readers’ letters, almost all of them in defending Stokes, and a few of them attacking Paul Daniels for taking a strong stand against her.

But the strongest, most detailed articles we’ve seen appeared in the Mail on Sunday on April 20 and 27, 1986, and were the work of journalists John Dale and Richard Holliday, the former of whom was also co-author of a three- part series on Uri Geller for the same newspaper.

Dale and Holliday investigated six of her most widely publicized cases. These were: the Yorkshire Ripper, the case of a boy found dead in the Bronx, two Lancashire murder cases, the New Zealand case of Mona Blades, the Baltimore disappearance of Jamie Griffin, and the Los Angeles investigation of the murder of Joe Weiss. In most of these cases, police officers told the reporters that Stokes gave them either no new information or information that was subsequently proved to be wrong. In the remaining cases, the Lancashire police disclaimed any knowledge of Doris Stokes’ having been involved in any way in the investigation, and the LA police told the reporters that they had never spoken with her.

Reporters Dale and Holiday concluded the first of the articles: “This year her books will once again top the non-fiction lists. After examining the evidence, we have found many reasons why some stories, at least, should be reclassified as fiction.”

Thanks to all who sent in clippings and information, from which this brief composite was compiled.

“It’s in our DNA”: the clichés that confuse the public about genetics and essentialism

Carlos Orsi
-
0
“It’s in our DNA”: the clichés that confuse the public about genetics and essentialism

Linguistic prejudice is an ugly thing, but I have to confess that every time I hear someone (whether it’s a person or a legal entity) use the cliché “<such and such a quality> is in our DNA“, I go into the overdraft on my benefit-of-the-doubt account. I’ll explain. 

As we are in the season of celebrating the work of Charles Darwin (February 12th was Darwin Day!), it seems appropriate to take a brief look at the misappropriation of deoxyribonucleic acid – the molecule represented in the acronym DNA – to depict essentialism, and what’s wrong with that, beyond the tired (and tiring) cliché.

“Essentialism” is the idea that things have a core of characteristics that determines what they are at a fundamental level – their so-called essence. To these fundamental characteristics are added others, called accidents, which define how they are what they are, and how they express their essence. A chair, for example, has the essential characteristics of being a piece of furniture formed by a seat and back (without a back it becomes stool), and then, as accidents, whether it has legs or wheels, whether or not it has arms, whether it is made of wood, plastic or metal, whether or not it has cushions, etc.

There is a strong connection between the concept of essence and the idea of ​​definition. The list of essential characteristics of something very easily gets taken for the definition of that thing: in essence, “chair” is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat and back, and “a piece of furniture consisting of a seat and back” is a reasonable definition of chair, found in dictionaries. You can say (and many people do) that the essence of something is what defines it.

Intuition

Thinking in terms of essences, accidents and definitions is very useful and enlightening in different contexts, helping to put certain ideas in order. But it also has the potential to generate confusions of epic proportions. Distinguishing situations in which essentialist thinking helps or hinders is a fun pastime, as well as being something that professional philosophers sometimes worry about.

But, at least in Western culture, even those who have never looked at the issue from a philosophical perspective, or have never even heard the word “essentialism” in their lives, probably have essentialist intuitions, beliefs and opinions about many things. It is something that is ingrained in language and in the collective mentality, appearing behind concepts such as soul and spirit (nuclei that concentrate the essence of an identity, whether individual, collective or even a situation: “the soul of the party”), and authenticity or sincerity (which are manifestations of fidelity to the essence: “an authentic hack”).

Distinctions between reality and appearance are often treated as if they were distinctions between essence and accidents; when we talk about someone who “behaves badly, but deep down is a good person”, we are presupposing a certain hidden essence to counterbalance the palpable characteristic. In fiction, narratives of overcoming and redemption are commonly constructed as stories in which an essence struggles to assert itself, to express itself in a heroic or, at least, constructive way.

The modern world, perhaps even more than at any other time, lives immersed in a kind of cult of the revealed essence of things: we experience an “ethic of authenticity”, where presenting oneself as sincere (or, in some cases, “sincere”) may be more valuable (or believable) than declaring yourself a good or well-intentioned person. Populist politicians work the magic of transforming their supposed defects, prejudices, ignorance and limitations into positive qualities and advantages, by exposing them “sincerely” – even more so if these defects and prejudices are shared by their base, who end up assimilating these defects into the idea they have of the group’s collective “essence”.

The DNA of the business

Co-opted by the marketing universe – which is already very well aware that language choices that sound “scientific” tend to convey an image of precision and sophistication – the contemporary passion for the ethics of authenticity gives birth to the cliché of “business DNA” in a variety of ways: “DNA of the firm”, “DNA of the team”, “It’s in our DNA”, “We have the DNA of innovation” and other permutations, ad nauseam. 

In all variations, the acronym “DNA” is used to mean that a certain desirable quality, attitude or characteristic is part of the essence of the company, business, or organisation. It’s an authentic facet, something that makes up the very definition of what you want to sell.

The problem is that, by treating “DNA” as a synonym for “essence”, these slogans end up imprinting (or reinforcing) in common sense a connection between genetics and essentialism which, in addition to being wrong, distorts the public understanding of science. One area in which essentialist thinking collapses (or leads to collapse, if it is persisted in) is precisely that of genetics and evolutionary biology.

Creationists, of course, have long used an essentialist version of the concept of “species” to attack, in logical-semantic terms, the theory of evolution. If each species represents an essence created separately by God, how could some evolve into others? Hence the radical-essentialist reading of Genesis 1:24 – “God said: ‘Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals, creeping animals and wild animals, according to their kinds’”.

Even many people who have already overcome the mythological stage of intellectual development still have this intuitive equivalence between “species” and “essence” deep in their heads, just replacing the celestial design with some kind of “wisdom of nature”, and the magic word of Divinity by… DNA. This pervasive image of DNA as a kind of biochemical “soul” is what inspires much of the emotional resistance to genetic modification: who are we to interfere with the essential spirit of the species? But it’s an image that doesn’t make any sense.

Darwinian evolution ties all living beings on the planet into a vast network of common ancestry. We have genes that we share with viruses, bacteria, fish and plants. More than ninety percent of what is “in the DNA” of a human being is also in that of a chimpanzee.

Every time I read or hear that such and such a beautiful and wonderful characteristic “is in our company’s DNA” I remember the gene for producing vitamin C – which is in the DNA of Homo sapiens, but deactivated (this is why we need vitamin C in our diet and are vulnerable to scurvy). DNA is not essence, it is flow: it is a river whose source is somewhere in the cloudy mountain range of the origin of life, and which soon opens into an immense delta. What is essential, if anything, is something we share with the rest of the biosphere.

The cliché of what is “in the DNA” is therefore not only a worn-out cliché, but also an inept metaphor that miseducates by reinforcing the spurious link between genetics and essentialism. 

Critical thinking is essential, especially around emotionally-charged subjects like Gaza

Sophia Schultz
-
0
Critical thinking is essential, especially around emotionally-charged subjects like Gaza

“You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them,” said Islamist ruler Fathi Hamad. “I would encourage the other side to not so lightly throw around the idea of innocent Palestinian civilians as frequently said. I don’t think we would so lightly throw around the term innocent Nazi civilians during World War II. There’s not this far stretch to say there are very few innocent Palestinian civilians,” said US Representative Brian Jefferey Mast. People who do not question the information they encounter or are victims of misinformation genuinely believe this.

These quotes underscore the significance of addressing misinformation and stereotypes in our quest for understanding and resolution. The journey toward becoming a better critical thinker is about personal growth and promoting a more informed and empathetic society.

Such unchecked assumptions and stereotypes, like the harmful beliefs that we should kill all Jewish people or that all Palestinians are not innocent, thrive in environments where misinformation is rampant and critical thinking is scarce. These stereotypes not only oversimplify complex situations but also fuel animosity and misunderstanding. This danger becomes especially clear when we consider how we consume and interpret news about highly charged topics, such as conflicts in the Middle East.

When I woke up one morning, I scrolled through social media as I usually do, and came across a ton of stories on an apparent bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City. My first reaction was to be sad, but then I started asking myself questions about the situation. I wanted to know what had happened and who did this. Some sources blamed the Israeli government and their airstrike, and others blamed it on a rocket malfunction from the Hamas terrorist group. More and more questions came to me, and I kept searching for answers, but no source seemed reasonable.

Reaching an evidence-based conclusion was difficult, considering the explosion of misinformation on social media and news outlets. It seems to be inevitable to fall victim to it. I realised the importance of discovering the truth, especially for sensitive matters, where your opinion or thoughts can have an incredibly impactful effect on others.

I remember feeling afraid the first time I ever visited my great aunt in Palestine, who works and lives as a humanitarian there. After all the American news I was exposed to, I genuinely thought it would be an extremely dangerous place to go. However, after meeting the people and gaining a better understanding of what has been going on in Palestine, I was shocked at how little I had known and, looking back, how my view was clouded by misinformation. Today, I can acknowledge that as a consequence of my personal experience and family ties in Palestine, I have a bias on the conflict going on today, but just because I have a bias does not mean I should only follow pieces of information that satisfy my sentiment. There are always two sides to a story, whether we like it or not, and it is essential to acknowledge that and act accordingly.

I was keen to show how anybody can improve their critical thinking skills, regardless of their prior biases and personal feelings, so I spoke to Matthew John Hammerton, a philosopher with an interest in critical thinking. He highlighted three key aspects: first, the critical role of accurate reasoning, enabling me to differentiate valid arguments from fallacies amid complex narratives; second, the need to cultivate intellectual virtues like humility, skepticism, and curiosity, to help me approach this profoundly divisive issue with an open mind; and finally, the awareness of strategies to address cognitive biases, ensuring that I can navigate the complexities of this conflict with a discerning perspective. These principles have been invaluable as I strive to understand this enduring and multifaceted issue better.

After reading what felt like thousands of news reports, I wondered whether the specific arguments I was reading were valid. Eventually, I became aware that the arguments I was reading could be classified into what Hammerton describes as “deductive reasoning” and “inductive reasoning.”

In simple terms, deductive reasoning boils down to two essential things: valid inferences and invalid inferences. A valid inference is when the argument is like a lock with a perfectly-fitting key: if the argument is valid, the premises (the information you start with) guarantee that the conclusion (the final point you are making) is accurate. It is like a foolproof plan – if the premises are true, the conclusion must be proper, too.

On the other hand, an invalid inference means that the guarantee is not there. Even if the premises strongly suggest the conclusion or make it likely, they do not guarantee it. In essence, it is an all-or-nothing game when dealing with deductive reasoning – an argument either 100% guarantees the conclusion, or it does not.

Deductive reasoning can uncover inconsistencies and contradictions within news stories. If an argument or claim does not follow logically from its premises, it may indicate a potential problem with the information presented.

Using deductive reasoning to analyse the bombing at Hospital Al-Ahli, we can start with the premise that any act of violence that results in the loss of innocent lives is a tragedy. Then, we have the fact that the bombing at Hospital Al-Ahli caused the loss of innocent lives. Therefore, the bombing at Hospital Al-Ahli is unquestionably a tragedy.

On the other hand, inductive reasoning operates differently, as it involves drawing likely, but not necessarily guaranteed, conclusions based on available evidence, which introduces an element of uncertainty in the context of this complex conflict. An inductive inference may not offer a 100% guarantee, but its conclusion is very likely. Even if an inference seems incredibly likely based on recorded data, there remains a slight chance, however minuscule, that the conclusion may not hold.

So, when applying inductive reasoning to the complexity of conflicts like the Israel-Palestine issue, it is vital to understand that the strength of arguments varies. Some may provide robust reasons that strongly support a particular viewpoint, while others, despite being quite convincing, retain a hint of uncertainty. Embracing this understanding can lead to more nuanced and informed discussions as we assess the strength of evidence and the probability of various conclusions.

We can see the intricacies of inductive reasoning in the following example: Pro-Israel news outlets argue that the hospital blast resulted from a malfunctioning Hamas rocket. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) conducted a thorough analysis, examining more than a dozen videos from the moments before, during, and after the hospital explosion, in addition to satellite imagery and photos. The CBS’s analysis concluded that the rocket, which broke up in the air, was fired from within Palestinian territory. The balance of evidence, according to CBS’s analysis, points toward a malfunctioning of a Palestinian militant’s rocket as the probable cause.

In contrast, the pro-Palestine perspective asserts that the hospital’s destruction was the result of an Israeli airstrike. Al Jazeera’s investigation supported this viewpoint by identifying the exact moment of the attack through video analysis. The aftermath paints a picture of a tragic event, labelling it a massacre, with the hospital engulfed in flames and numerous lives lost. This perspective emphasises the humanitarian crisis faced by Palestinians in Gaza amid continued bombardment and restrictions on aid.

Inductive reasoning, as highlighted by these two differing viewpoints, allows the formation of either conclusion, based on the aspects of the available evidence. However, inductive reasoning cannot conclude with 100% certainty what happened in this case. These examples demonstrate the importance of being logical and critical, as well as considering the weight of evidence before jumping to definitive conclusions in situations of complex conflict.

The conscious effort to try to discern between valid and invalid arguments and to avoid logical fallacies is a cornerstone of being a skilled critical thinker. In the context of the examples provided, we can identify patterns of reasoning that constitute solid and valid arguments. Conversely, we can recognise patterns of reasoning that exemplify flawed reasoning, commonly called fallacies.

Another of the fundamental aspects of critical thinking lies in how we formally reason. Do we employ solid and valid inferences in our arguments, or do we succumb to common fallacies? This element of critical thinking, where we actively assess the soundness of our reasoning, enables us to engage in more robust and well-founded discussions, particularly when navigating contentious issues such as the complex Israel-Palestine conflict.

In trying to be consciously aware of the role of inductive and deductive reasoning amid the intricate web of news and information, I began to see a shift in how I approached the information I encountered, and began to appreciate the value of intellectual humility. I realised there were limitations to what I knew, and that the world was far more complex than I had initially assumed, leading me to try to be more open-minded and willing to entertain diverse viewpoints and ideas.

I initially believed the Israeli government was responsible for the bombing of the Al-Ahli Hospital, but I reflected on the limitations of my knowledge. After extensive research from both points of view, I find myself in a position of uncertainty regarding what really happened to Al-Ahli Hospital. Rather than hastily adopting a definitive stance, I embrace the humility, and acknowledge that there is much I still do not know and may never know. I prioritise the pursuit of truth over unwarranted certainty, recognising that the situation’s complexities demand an ongoing commitment to understanding.

Slowly but steadily, I have come to embrace the power of positive skepticism, of asking questions and not accepting things at face value. I understood that doubting claims was essential, not out of contrariness, but in a genuine pursuit of truth. I became eager to explore, to dig deeper into issues, and to look for underlying truths. It was not sufficient to accept things as they appeared; I yearned to uncover the bigger picture.

When encountering divergent news stories, I actively engage with my Israeli and Palestinian contacts, seeking their perspectives to complement my understanding. Through these conversations, I gain nuanced insights and additional details, recognising that the more information I gather, the better equipped I am to form my evidence-based conclusions, with minimal interference from my own biases. While these perspectives may not offer a complete picture, they contribute valuable facets to my evolving comprehension of the complex Israel-Palestine conflict.

Diligence became an essential companion on this journey. I recognised the value of putting in effort, being attentive to detail, and avoiding shortcuts. I realised that taking the time to think critically paid off in the long run.

Through this journey, I evolved from readily accepting information from various sources, to someone who continually sought to improve and refine their understanding. These intellectual virtues were not innate, but had to be cultivated and nurtured over time. Amidst this transformation in my approach to information and critical thinking, one more facet often hovers in the background – cognitive biases. Some might relate these biases to virtues and vices, but they are distinct. Intellectual virtues are cultivated dispositions consciously developed over time. I control them, and they guide my thinking and decision-making. Cognitive biases, on the other hand, tend to be hidden in the depths of our subconscious. They operate instinctively, influencing how I perceive and process information without realising it. These biases can lead me to interpret facts, data, and arguments in a skewed way, all without my conscious awareness.

As I continue navigating the vast sea of information, I understand that identifying and mitigating these cognitive biases is challenging. It requires self-awareness and a commitment to critically examining my thought processes, something I am continuously working on. I overcame my cognitive biases by refraining from hastily assigning blame to one side or another based on a single source. Instead, I tried for a more comprehensive approach – exploring actions from both perspectives, reading diverse articles, talking to experts, and then formulating a tentative conclusion. To mitigate cognitive bias, I prioritise gaining a reasonable, objective understanding of a situation before being exposed to emotionally charged content, preventing undue influence on my judgement.

Becoming a more critical thinker is demanding and challenging, as you must constantly question all information you encounter, scrutinising it with diligence. This journey, which I am still on, was mentally draining, because I had to go against my personal beliefs and understandings of situations I was sure were true. The only way to thoroughly understand the truth is by trying to evaluate how strong or weak specific arguments are, valuing curiosity and skepticism, and – importantly – being aware of our own biases.

It’s important to note that for many aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, we may never be able to make firm and objective conclusions due to the lack of information, and that is something we must accept. However, we can use what information we do have, to draw reasonable conclusions, which may be the closest to the truth. To this day, I do not know who bombed the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, because there is a lack of evidence on which to make a thorough conclusion. However, I know that I will continue searching for an answer, and we should continue to do so for all that matters, striving for a deeper understanding of our complex world.

If there is one takeaway from my experience, it is the importance of questioning everything, including our deepest convictions. Ultimately, our commitment to uncovering truth, no matter how challenging, defines our ability to navigate the complexities of our world.

How cholesterol denialism went from reasonable skepticism to pseudoscience

Christopher Labos
-
0
How cholesterol denialism went from reasonable skepticism to pseudoscience

You wouldn’t normally think there was much overlap between cholesterol denialism and anti-vaccination rhetoric. But there is. People who doubt the benefits of cholesterol-lowering medications, like statins, infamously tend to believe the Covid-19 vaccines killed thousands of people and will hijack BBC interviews in order to make that point. Both positions are unsupported by the science. But the interesting thing is, when it comes to cholesterol, that wasn’t always the case.

Cholesterol holds a special place in the popular imagination that sets it apart from the many other cardiac risk factors we talk about. Nobody thinks diabetes is good for you, and nobody dismisses the dangers of high blood pressure. Nobody today is under the delusion that smoking is harmless, or that our increasingly sedentary lifestyle is serving us well. But cholesterol remains a source of doubt for many in the media, the general public and, sadly, amongst physicians too.

While it is easy to pour scorn on this position, not that long ago it was actually somewhat justifiable. In September 1989, The Atlantic’s cover proclaimed: “The Cholesterol Myth: lowering your cholesterol is next to impossible with diet, and often dangerous with drugs – and it won’t make you live longer.” And they weren’t actually wrong.

It is possible to write a definitive history of cholesterol research because it only spans roughly the past 100 years. For those interested, Daniel Steinberg wrote a comprehensive 5-part series on the history of the cholesterol controversy for the Journal of Lipid Research, which was then adapted into a book: “The Cholesterol Wars: the Skeptics vs. the Preponderance of Evidence.” As unsettling as that title may be for the readership of this august publication, the point Steinberg makes in the series is that the initial skepticism was not only appropriate but also fundamental to the scientific process. But eventually the weight of the evidence became impossible to ignore, and what was once valid caution crossed over into denialism and pseudoscience.

Book by Daniel Steinberg, "The Cholesterol Wars, The Skeptics vs. the Preponderance of Evidence" - 2007 edition.
“The Cholesterol Wars” by Daniel Steinberg – 2007 edition. Via Amazon

Since I was told a 10,000 word article would not be appreciated by the readership, the history of the cholesterol controversy can be summarised in a few broad strokes. If there is a beginning to this story, that beginning was in 1913 when Nikolai Anitschkow fed rabbits purified cholesterol and demonstrated that they developed atherosclerosis in their arteries. In theory, this should have been definitive evidence, but Anitschkow faced a number of criticisms. The main problem was that his findings could not be replicated in other laboratory animals, like rats and dogs. We now understand that this happens because different animals handle cholesterol differently, but at the time it was felt that this must be some quirk specific to rabbits and was therefore irrelevant to human health. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same. What’s true in animals is not necessarily true in humans.

Fast forward to the 1940s and 1950s and researchers were trying to determine what could be done about the skyrocketing rates of heart disease in the early 20th century. This was the time of the Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys, which has become a lightning rod for arguments in recent years, largely because of books like “The Big Fat Surprise” and others. Others have pointed out issues with the many criticisms levelled at Keys’ work. Broadly, we can make two points. First, the Seven Countries study was not the only study published on the subject. The Framingham Heart Study also drew associations between cholesterol and heart disease, so focusing solely on Keys essentially ignores all the other large contemporary studies of the time. Secondly, these large studies were about identifying risk factors for heart disease.

An important caveat, though, is that these weren’t diet studies or randomised trials. If you want to see whether lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease, you have to design a trial that lowered cholesterol and measured hard clinical endpoints. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same.

In the 1960’s researchers did exactly that. In the absence of any effective medications, they tested a series of dietary interventions in studies like the Oslo Diet-Heart study and the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, which did show a reduction in coronary heart disease. But three large trials in Britain tested corn oil, a low-fat diet, and soya-bean oil as potential therapies. While they lowered cholesterol, they didn’t affect the risk of heart disease. This prompted many like Sir John McMichael to argue against cholesterol as a cardiac risk factor and to doubt the validity of the lipid hypothesis. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same. If lowering cholesterol didn’t reduce cardiovascular events, then cholesterol wasn’t the thing to focus on.

In retrospect, the dietary studies were not failures per se. Many did lower cholesterol, and some did reduce cardiovascular events. But the benefits were small enough to be inconsistent and the skepticism of many was not unjustified. The hope was going to be that the new cholesterol medications would do a better job. The 1970s and 1980s saw the publication of studies on clofibrate and cholestyramine. The biggest of these, the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, was in some ways definitive. There was a significant reduction in cholesterol which translated into a significant reduction in cardiovascular events.

The story could have ended there. But there were caveats. Cholestyramine as a medication was poorly tolerated because of its many side effects. Also, there was a reduction in cardiovascular events, but no significant drop in mortality. Some argued that there was no point treating people for a problem if they didn’t live longer.  Reducing mortality is what really matters. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same.

And so we come to the inflection point and the Atlantic cover of 1989. “Lowering your cholesterol is next to impossible with diet, and often dangerous with drugs – and it won’t make you live longer.” It was technically correct. But for the first time you had a divergence in the debate. You could argue that the current medications were not effective at changing outcomes, and in retrospect they weren’t. They were terrible by modern standards. But if you look back objectively at the history of the research, it was pretty clear that cholesterol was involved in the process of atherosclerosis. Every time you lowered it significantly, people had fewer heart attacks. We just lacked the tools to make a major dent in people’s serum lipid profile.

In the 1990s, everything changed. Statins entered the market and the 4S study with simvastatin showed that the medication lowered cholesterol, reduced heart attacks, and also reduced cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Twenty-six randomised studies later, it became clear that statins did what they promised. They reduced cholesterol and prevented cardiovascular disease. But the deniers still had one last redoubt. Maybe it wasn’t about cholesterol. After all, previous cholesterol trials had been disappointing. Maybe there was something special about statins and they prevented heart disease via a mechanism independent of cholesterol. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same. I was, and I did.

Five varieties of simvastatin tablets laid out on a grey-brown paper towel. Each box is branded differently. Three are 10mg per tablet, one is 20mg and one 40mg.
UK simvastatin varieties. Whispyhistory, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

As long as statins were the only useful cholesterol medications available, you could maybe convince yourself the benefits were unique to that drug class. But they aren’t the only medication out there anymore. The development of ezetimibe (which blocks cholesterol absorption in the intestine) and PCSK9 inhibitors (which act on the cholesterol receptor in cells) have made that argument unsustainable.

The amazing thing about cholesterol medication is that their benefit is very linear. If you plot out all the studies of cholesterol medications (both statin and non-statin treatments), they fall along a very straight line. The point is a medication’s cardiovascular benefit is proportional to how much it lowers cholesterol. Dietary interventions have a small impact whereas the newer injectable cholesterol medications called PCSK9s have a huge cardiovascular risk reduction. In the end, there’s nothing special about statins. It’s the degree of cholesterol lowering that matters.

You will hear people argue that statins are too expensive, that the benefits are too marginal in a general low risk population, or that they don’t want to endure the side effects. It’s worth pointing out that statins are now off-patent, and no pharmaceutical company is lobbying for their use. The benefits of statins are inherently higher in high-risk populations and lower in low-risk ones. All medications work this way. But even in patients without cardiovascular disease, there is a cardiovascular benefit. It just isn’t as marked as what you see in patients who have a history of heart attack or stroke.

As for the side-effects, they are over-represented in the media, and many of the subjective symptoms people suffer are due to the nocebo response. What’s more, anyone who doesn’t want to use statins to lower cholesterol is free to use any of the newer (albeit more expensive) cholesterol medications on the market now. Just don’t think you can get away with natural therapies like fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, or red yeast. These have been tested head-to-head against rosuvastatin, and the statin came out on top.

You can argue that there are better ways to measure cholesterol beyond the simple characterization of good (HDL) cholesterol versus bad (LDL) cholesterol. You can argue that, in low-risk populations, the cost of therapy outweighs the benefit. You can argue that we should be doing more to encourage lifestyle change and healthy eating habits, especially among children. All of these are interesting arguments, but they are questions of policy, not science.

Steven Nissen from the Cleveland Clinic called statin denial an “Internet-driven cult with deadly consequences.” That’s because negative news stories about statins lead to medication discontinuation and, ultimately, more heart attacks.

Not that long ago, many people had good arguments against the “lipid hypothesis.” Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same. But, at some point, you would have had to do the thing that is oh so hard to do. You would have had to change your mind. Not everyone can pull it off.

A lot of the anti-cholesterol talking points were valid arguments decades ago. It was once valid to argue that Betamax was better than VHS. Had you been alive at the time, you might have said the same. But if you bring that up now, you would no longer be relevant.

Cover image: "Does Coffee Cause Cancer? And 8 more MYTHS about the FOOD WE EAT" by Dr Christopher Labos

The “lipid hypothesis” is not really a hypothesis anymore, in the same way that the Theory of Evolution is not really a theory (in the common use of the word). It’s pretty clear to everyone that cholesterol is involved in the pathogenesis of heart disease. The only way you can deny it is by denying the evidence and recycling arguments from the past. And that’s how cholesterol denialism became a pseudoscience.

Does Coffee Cause Cancer, And 8 More Myths About The Food We Eat by Dr Christopher Labos is out now, published by ECW Press.

Europa: The Last Battle – the antisemitic documentary going viral among the far right

Thiago Vahia Malliagros
-
0
Europa: The Last Battle – the antisemitic documentary going viral among the far right

I have repeatedly watched the “documentary” Europa: The Last Battle. I don’t recommend you do the same. It is, in its own words, a pro-Nazi – or, as they prefer to be called, a “pro-national socialist” – production. Running to 12 hours long, it touches on every topic, antisemitic trope and conspiracy theory possible, all of which have been debunked multiple times by dozens of authors. Why, then, have I decided to cover it?

Pieces of this “documentary” keep popping up on Twitter and TikTok, each time used as a piece of propaganda by the far-right. Therefore, it is essential to discuss it not all at once but as a “series” of one-shots, each more or less self-contained, just as it appears on social media. So, where do you start with something as big, horrible, and influential as this?

I want to start with the concept of race, as it is key for the key assertions and narratives within Europa. This “documentary” proposes that Judaism is a race, not just a religion, and a monolithic group to boot. Therefore, any person associated with a Jewish person or with Jewish ancestry should be immediately suspected of wrongdoing. This is clear in the way that Europa discusses the figure of Karl Marx – specifically, the fact that he had Jewish ancestry. According to a graphic that appears in the “documentary”, Marx didn’t just have parents who belonged to the religion; he was a “super Jew”: descended from dozens of top-tier Rabbi ancestries.

The supposed lineage of Karl Marx, as depicted in Europa: The Last Battle

In putting this forth, the “documentary” argues that Marx resulted from centuries of planning to create the perfect being to spread the message of communism. The implication is clear: that both communism and Zionism were a creation of the Jews to take over the world. The accusation that Communism is a Jewish ploy to control the world is as old as it is ridiculous – to the point that it is actively self-defeating. After all, if this were at all true, why would they have allowed the Soviet Union to fall?

In reality, Marx’s father was a convert to Christianity and, according to our information, raised his family in a non-religious environment. None of his upbringing, writings or speeches show an “inclination” for “Jewry” (in the words of Europa) – nor do those of Trotsky, who was viciously attacked because of his Jewish heritage even though he, according to his biographer and life, dissociated more and more from religion.

The movie’s entire logic is that even if a person has ever had one encounter or one parent or relation to a Jewish person, that must have corrupted them forever. For example, it argues that Stalin had Jewish wives, which is therefore proof that the Jews were controlling him. In reality, none of Stalin’s wives were Jewish; there is a rumour that Stalin supposedly had a third wife, but there is no documented evidence of her existence (and therefore no documented evidence of her race or religion), and even if she did exist, their marriage couldn’t have been for long, or it would have been far more well known.

Europa also looks at Moses Hess, taking his work out of context and even outright lying to claim that Hess foresaw a conflict between the Aryans and the Semites in his book “Rome and Jerusalem”. Hess’s book argues that the Germans and Jews are separate races, and as such, the Jews could never truly assimilate into the country, so the solution would be immigration to Palestine, the actual land of the Jews. This was in the 19th century, a period of intense nationalism and considerable debate within the Jewish community about whether the Jews could assimilate, and whether they should. Hess argues at the time that they couldn’t and shouldn’t. At no moment does he call for any violence against the any race, as Europa claims; his belief was in the incompatibility of assimilation, because he believed the Jews would always be considered strangers in Germany. This is just an example of one of the lies of the “documentary”.

The way in which the lies are presented in Europa also adds to their misleading quality. Constantly, throughout the film, text appears quickly on screen to cite what they claim is the supposed source, but the fleeting nature of the reference makes it hard for the viewer to verify. The film repeatedly quotes the maxim “Jewry is the Mother of Marxism”, which they cite as originating from Le Droit de Vivre on May 12, 1936. Le Droit de Vivre is a French newspaper – I checked it, but there was no May 12 edition of the paper in 1936 because Le Droit de Vivre is not a daily newspaper; it’s a weekly one. The paper does have editions on May 9 and May 16, but neither includes this supposed quote about Karl Marx – but even if they did, it would hardly be surprising, given that the journal in question was an explicitly antisemitic newspaper!

Elsewhere, Europa quotes Karl Marx himself:

“THE CLASSES AND THE RACES, TOO WEAK TO MASTER THE NEW CONDITIONS OF LIFE, MUST GIVE WAY… THEY MUST GIVE PERISH IN THE REVOLUTIONARY HOLOCAUST.”

Researching the origin of this quote, writer Otavio Pinto tracked it down to discover it is the combination of two quotes, which have been deliberately taken out of context and mistranslated. This butchering of history is the work by historian George G. Watson, who makes an appearance in Europa to tell viewers that Marx considered certain races to be Racial Trash.

The objective of each of these lies and associations is to introduce and cement for the viewer the notion that Jewish people, and the Jews as a race, are responsible for the evils of the world and that they have planned everything. For Europa, race is a firm, immutable fact, so much so that even those who claim otherwise are lying because they, too, must secretly really think about everything in terms of race.

The further objective is to argue that, if all this is true, then the oppressed Jews have an excellent reason to be oppressed and that the viewer is justified in feeling the antisemitic sentiments this “documentary” and its makers are trying so hard to entrench.

As an always-online Gen Z, it’s impossible to avoid conspiracy theories on social media

Katharina Anita Szigeti
-
0
As an always-online Gen Z, it’s impossible to avoid conspiracy theories on social media

It all started with a curious mind and an innocent scroll through social media. Little did I know that within 15 minutes and two YouTube videos later, I’d be plunged into a world where ordinary people, indistinguishable from those we pass daily in supermarkets or at flower shops, were fervently texting until beyond midnight in Telegram groups. Their mission? Crowdfunding for a camera to capture celestial evidence to support their flat earth theory.

This was just the beginning. My TikTok For You page soon overflowed with conspiracy theories about body healing, while Instagram politics unfurled a new layer of hidden, dangerous ideologies.

In the digital age, marked by rapid technological advancement and unprecedented access to information, Generation Z stands at the forefront of a digital revolution. Growing up in a world immersed in social media, instantaneous communication, and a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips, this generation faces a unique challenge as they navigate the intricate terrain of the internet. While this era of digitisation has ushered in incredible opportunities and connectivity, it has also witnessed the alarming proliferation of conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation across social media platforms.

The dangerous spread of conspiracy theories online is powerful, quietly moulding the thoughts and actions of a generation that’s always online. These theories, often lacking any factual basis, can have serious consequences, leading to the spread of fear, and even violence.

Conspiracy theories have almost certainly existed for as long as society has been around. During the Middle Ages, there were conspiracy theories claiming that Jews were causing plagues by poisoning well water. The upheavals and uncertainties in Europe after the Middle Ages led to further conspiracy theories, including the belief in a widespread network of witches and Satanic forces – put forth in the “Malleus Maleficarum”. The invention of the printing press and church sermons contributed to their dissemination, resulting in witch hunts that claimed thousands of lives.

In the 18th century, the target of conspiracy theories shifted in the United States from Jews to groups like the Freemasons, who were accused of plotting for power. In the 19th century, American Protestants feared being overrun by Catholics. Today, in modern Germany, the idea of being taken over by Muslims is promoted, with prominent figures like Eva Herman and right-wing politicians spreading such conspiracy theories. In the past, the Illuminati and Jews were accused of secretly controlling the world; today, the blame might equally fall on reptilian humanoids (though many would argue these are simply antisemitic notions in modern packaging).

Conspiracy theories on social media platforms can have real-world consequences, from stoking fear and anxiety to inciting violence and hatred. On TikTok, I’m bombarded with claims that the world is secretly ruled by a powerful, shadowy group. In a daily Instagram story, I was recommended to do a full moon ritual and load crystals, even though I don’t own any. Even in my day-to-day life, a friend excitedly shares an article about how horoscopes predict significant global events with spooky accuracy, and on the bus I overhear that all politicians are part of a grand scheme to mislead the public. It’s a bewildering collage of theories and claims, infiltrating seemingly every corner of my digital and social landscape.

I decided to delve deeper, by finding conspiracy groups to follow on Telegram. I knew that Telegram was popular with misinformation and conspiracy theory groups. I thought since this world was so hidden from me, it would be difficult to access, since generally, I believe if something is so off the wall, you would think it needs a lot to find and enter it. I was completely unaware of the extent of these groups, but I quickly realised, that once you know what you´re looking for, it is incredibly easy to join a group. You simply enter it. No need for requests or assumptions; with one click you become part of the community, and witness to their deep beliefs.

What I saw left me shocked: a world parallel to ours, with people convinced of the most absurd notions. I scrolled the chats, looking at pictures that tried to convince me that the earth is flat, and messages with three exclamation marks to send to friends and family to educate them and show them the truth about the leading news media of America hiding the truth about Joe Biden. But what I quickly realised too, it was a world of community and shared beliefs. Frustration quickly became apparent in every group, regardless of belief, they all had one thing in common: the conviction of knowing the truth and the frustration that people do not believe you. People who seem totally rational, except in this one area, are completely invested.

The spread of conspiracy theories is not a random occurrence; it relies on the human need for belonging and acceptance and is accelerated by the power of social media algorithms. With headlines such as “Biden Unveiled – Boris Johnson Whispers “You are not Joe Biden – Who the bloody hell are you” or “With Article 23, the private illegal German Bundestag was stripped of all economic areas on July 17, 1990. On October 3, 1990, Germany was officially changed to a fiction within the UN. Germany does not exist; it is a part of the USA”, the QAnon group tries to convince people on Telegram about the truth they believe in.

For example, consider how the “QAnon” conspiracy theory gained momentum by using cryptic messages. Misleading information, similar to how the false claim of 5G causing COVID-19, spread like wildfire. QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory that surfaced in the U.S. in 2017, alleges a global plot against former President Trump by a cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles in high-ranking positions. Originating on internet forums, it gained traction through cryptic posts from an insider called “Q,” hinting at a battle led by Trump against this ‘deep state.’ Followers interpret these “Q-drops” to reveal supposed truths.

Despite its popularity, QAnon is widely discredited and criticised for promoting baseless, dangerous beliefs and has been linked to real-world violence. It has been debunked and faced bans on social media for inciting violence and spreading misinformation.

“QAnon is a phenomenon worthy of serious analysis, global tracking, and large-scale intervention,” according to Cynthia Miller-Idriss, professor at the School of Public Affairs and director of PERIL. “It is vital to draw attention to QAnon’s truly frightening potential for destabilization and permanent damage to our democratic system.”

Proponents offer simple explanations for complex problems, or appeal to people’s emotions, like the way anti-vaccine activists prey on parents’ fears about their children’s health. They promise to reveal the “truth” that the mainstream media won’t tell you, much like how climate change deniers suggest that scientific consensus is part of a global conspiracy. People do not choose what they believe based on a careful, rational evaluation of evidence; they often gravitate towards ideas that align with their preexisting worldview or respond to personal traumas and vulnerabilities. And with every like, share, and comment, these theories gain more traction, creating a snowball effect, as seen in how the false claims about COVID-19 vaccines went viral on social media. It’s a dangerous game, and we must all be aware of the tactics used by conspiracy theorists and do our part to stop them in their tracks.

The global COVID-19 pandemic created a perfect storm for the proliferation of conspiracy theories, with lockdowns and uncertainty pushing many to seek explanations for the unexplainable. Conspiracy theories often emerge out of societal crises. People question why the pandemic happened, which results in anxiety and insecurity. Fears start to build, and it’s easier to seek out explanations for events that provide a sense of control or understanding. Conspiracy theories can offer a simple explanation for complex events, which can be appealing to individuals who are struggling to make sense of the world around them.

The hidden world of conspiracy theories on social media thrives, lurking beneath the surface, much like an iceberg with only a fraction visible. For many people, Google, YouTube, and Facebook represent the extent of their online universe, but beneath the surface lies a sprawling network of Telegram groups, message boards, and encrypted chat rooms where the wildest theories are cultivated and shared. Many people are unaware of these groups’ existence and the extent of their impact. These online communities serve as echo chambers, where like-minded individuals reinforce each other’s beliefs.

For individuals deeply invested in their beliefs, every event, no matter how small or coincidental, is often seen as a confirmation of their worldview. Take, for instance, the case of a nurse who experiences adverse effects from a Covid vaccine. To those already skeptical of vaccines, this becomes not just an unfortunate medical incident, but proof of their wider conspiracy theories.

This mindset, where everything is interpreted as happening for a reason aligned with one’s beliefs, is dangerous. It transforms normal life events into a conspiracy narrative. People start with wellness trends like yoga or crystals and gradually progress to more extreme beliefs, often propagated through YouTube and other platforms. Each step may seem insignificant, but over time, these small shifts accumulate, leading them far from their original standpoint without them realising the gradual change in their beliefs.

One of the key drivers behind the prevalence of conspiracy theories on social media is the algorithmic nature of these platforms. The goal of social media algorithms is to maximise user engagement and length of stay on the network. To achieve this, they often show content that aligns with a user’s existing beliefs and interests, creating a filter bubble that shields users from dissenting opinions.

But why should we care about this hidden world? Why should it matter to Gen Z and to society at large? The answer lies in the fact that this world, while hidden, is very real and poses significant dangers. The casual indifference with which many dismiss conspiracy theories can have grave consequences, as those we care about may fall victim to these ideologies. It’s not about dismissing people; it’s about understanding how misinformation spreads.

For instance, I spoke to Lisa, 24, who explained, “I came across Telegram groups which presented their ideas in such a compelling way that it was easy to get caught up in them. They used persuasive techniques, visuals, and confident narrators, which made their arguments seem convincing. When you’re alone in your room, watching these videos or scrolling through these groups, it’s easy to feel like you’re part of a community that knows something everyone else doesn’t.

“It wasn’t that I thought everyone around me was entirely wrong; it was more about feeling like I was uncovering hidden truths that others were oblivious to. The conspiracy theories presented an alternative narrative, often challenging the mainstream view, and it made me question whether I should trust traditional sources of information like parents, friends, or the media. It was the idea of being an independent thinker that pulled me in, but looking back, I see that it created a divide between me and those I cared about.”

The infiltration of conspiracy theories in Generation Z’s digital realm is not just an issue of misinformation; it’s a startling transformation of their reality, often leading them down a rabbit hole of shocking and potentially dangerous beliefs. This generation, constantly connected to a world of unfiltered information, encounters theories that aren’t just fringe ideas but are sometimes outlandish and extreme, yet presented in a way that’s alarmingly persuasive to young, impressionable minds.

Take, for example, the bizarre and alarming instance of the ‘Birds Aren’t Real’ movement, an initially humorous parody of a conspiracy theory, which claimed that birds are government surveillance drones. While absurd on the surface, its widespread discussion on platforms like TikTok and Instagram reflects how easily Gen Z can be swayed into entertaining and potentially even believing in such far-fetched ideas.

The realm of politics isn’t immune either. Conspiracy theories like QAnon do not just warp political views; they have led to alarming incidents and real-world violent actions, including the storming of the Capitol in Washington. People who once might have been passive observers are now being radicalised into taking extreme and sometimes unlawful actions based on these unfounded theories.

In terms of environmental impact, the conspiracy-driven denial of climate change among Gen Z can have long-lasting repercussions. This isn’t just skepticism; it’s a disturbing dismissal of scientific evidence, leading to apathy and resistance towards environmental conservation efforts, further exacerbating the climate crisis.

This unchecked spread of misinformation comes with stark consequences. Young minds, still forming their worldviews, are bombarded with claims that challenge and often contradict established facts. The shock factor here is not just in the content of these theories but also in the ease with which they spread and the depth of their impact. These aren’t just background noise; they are actively shaping Gen Z’s perceptions and decisions, often in ways that are counterintuitive and potentially harmful. It distorts their understanding of science, history, and current events, leading to a generation that may be increasingly skeptical of facts and more susceptible to fringe beliefs.

This susceptibility is not merely a matter of being misinformed; it’s a gateway to deeper societal issues, including polarisation and the erosion of trust in institutions. The shadowy side of the internet, largely unknown to many, poses a silent but significant threat to the fabric of our society.

In today’s world, where information is a constant barrage, media literacy and critical thinking aren’t just good skills to have; they’re essential survival tools. These skills teach you not just to question the authenticity of what you read or watch, but also to understand the intentions behind the information. It’s about becoming a savvy navigator in the sea of digital content, where you’re as much a detective uncovering truths as you are a consumer of information. By honing these skills, you’re equipping yourself to stand firm in an era where facts and fiction often blur, ensuring you remain grounded in a world that’s constantly trying to sway you.

If you’re concerned about what information you might be consuming, start by tuning into your emotional GPS. Are conspiracy theories making you feel anxious or overly suspicious? Acknowledging these feelings is the first step in building a mental firewall against manipulation. When you encounter a conspiracy believer, it’s like stepping into a hall of mirrors. Will you find your way through with calm reasoning, or will confrontation only lead you deeper into the maze? Remember, every interaction is an opportunity to practice empathy and maybe, just maybe, gently guide someone back to reality.

This digital realm, often unseen but actively shaping the perceptions and decisions of Generation Z, poses a silent yet significant threat to the fabric of our society. From misinformation about public health to the erosion of trust in institutions, the impact of these theories is profound and far-reaching.

1...345...131Page 4 of 131

Expert skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

[email protected]

About

Categories

Shop