I always have my poles reversed on these types of stories.
post
People who study how to convince people are more trusted than people trained to talk in technical jargon about specific fields. Shocker there.
What the fuck is wrong with people?
because scientists are autistic and businesss men are sociopaths
Business leaders tell people what they want to hear, scientists typically bring bad news.
Unless they're paid off by big corporations to do studies favorable to a company's products, in which case they bring nice sounding lies. Like how Monsanto wrote entire passages of the paper supposedly proving the safety of their glyphosate.
This shit killed my grandma in her late 60s along with millions of others worldwide.
But I think this is due to a broader incentive problem in science. There's incentive to find new and interesting things to publish or die. There's no incentive (in fact strong incentives against) replicating other studies to see if their results hold up to external verification.
Business leaders: "Our product is going to murder humanity."
But capitalism isn't a problem
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
Edit:
Insane how this is downvoted when you look at the responses. 🤡🤥
Nobody is making any kind of valid argument that this would be different in a non capitalist society.
I'm not even going to reply to that, because it is so absurdly nonsensical. But congratulations to you, you managed to sound more crazy than the "AI" cult that has been infesting lemmy lately.
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
Where is a society not capitalist?
Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?
We only have evidence of it in capitalist countries.
do you really imagine that in a non capitalist society cooperate leaders would be trusted less?
Seeing as China's government is run by scientists and doctors, yes.
So in what society is this NOT the case?
Seeing as China’s government is run by scientists and doctors, yes.
What? How does that make any sense? So what are they saying about their business people? Are they too trusted more? Or are you just making shit up as you go?
No, I misread and thought you said corporate no cooperate. Now I have no idea what you're saying.
I removed that part, because apparently people don't get it.
But I would wager that cooperate managers would be more trusted than corporate ones. Without them being any different in all practical matters.
Also Science is not entirely capitalist, business managers are. So saying that science would be trusted more in a on capitalist society doesn't make the least bit of sense.
people in general hate feeling dumb, and are taught by sick society early that ignorance and stupidity are the same.
Being reminded they aren't the smart one leads to anger often.
This is difficult for me to believe, honestly.
At least here in the US, there is outright hostility to Big Business, and in particular, Big Tech. We are collectively very sick of the price gouging that's been rampant for the last five years and also the egregious treatment of local communities by companies trying to build data centers. We're reaching a point where they can't even gaslight us into supporting it by promising tax breaks to homeowners anymore.
Also, we're increasingly learning that the engagement of people who are anti-science is astroturfed, and that was put on display in a big way last week when Russian bots were silenced temporarily. There's still a chunk of people who are anti-science, and they happen to be very loud, but their opinions are amplified artificially, not representative of the whole.
Maybe it's different in the UK and Sweden, but I'm skeptical.
It's a simple matter if incentives. Businessmen need to understand enough of social reality to leverage it for profit. Scientists only need to understand the smallest most myopic slice of social reality to publish a paper on it to maintain their tenure track. While businesses have been successfully making money repeatedly from society for a few centuries, researchers have produced a reproducibility crisis where their findings are obviously specious and meet the much lower standard of convincing some gatekeepers to publish them.
Businessmen also have every incentive to lie to you and everyone else.
Yup, they do, but even their lies are useful signal. Social researchers incentivized by the tenure system and publish-or-perish have no reason to lie to you because they have no idea whether the lies are even inaccuracies. The only people they care about informing are the gate keepers. Academica have been totally kneecapped by the for-profit system and very little of what they do is related to the real world anymore.
What kind of scientists? Natural scientists, or social scientists? Cuz both are horrible, but one's significantly more horrifying than the other.
Nah, I'm less inclined to trust a businessman even in economics than a scientist. We've been inundated for years about how college just brainwashes kids, but the only ones I see consistently producing samethink are business and law schools. I say that's where the brainwashing is, wiping out their empathy and humanity for the love of a dollar.
Why are "natural scientists" horrible?
Why are "social scientists" horrible? What's the difference? jfc.
TBH the attack on "social science" is a longstanding fascist project to impose social oppression.
all 45 comments