One thing that everyone danced around a bit but I think plays a large role here: The degree to which Twitter enables charlatans to bubble up to the top of the conversations, undermining expertise in general. This is a separate issue than the loss of respect for institutions of expertise and prestige, like WHO, CDC, or universities, but I do think the two things interact. How many times have we seen someone with an MD in their profile post some absurd, scary thing? These posts get amplified, and then over time you get the nagging feeling that MDs are a weird bunch of drama queens.
I'm being a little over-the-top. But, over the past few years, I've been sent so many twitter links by friends justifying why they haven't left the house in 5 months. And, it's always someone with an MD with a 15-tweet-long thread with really scary and, frankly, incorrect statements.
In general, I think it's hard to overestimate the negative effect Twitter has had on the public discourse and perceptions (in general) of public opinion.
Very interested to listen to this--before I comprehensively swore off Twitter for my own mental health, Tom Nichols was a must-read, even though in gentler, saner times, I suspect we would rarely agree about any domestic policymaking.
There is part of this conversation (18:36) where Nichols complains about an open letter signed by about 1000 public health officials that said it was ok to protest. The letter is worse than that, it says it is actively good to protest because racial justice is a public health issue. So, I get the frustration, but 1000 signatures is not a big number. It is very easy to get 1000 people to sign a letter. And who were these people exactly? I encourage people to look at the letter. It is insane to lump this diverse group (some impressive sounding, mostly not) together as "experts" on anything. Aren't "general interest commentators" like Nichols supposed to be able to discern how insignificant that number is? Aren't they supposed to be able to understand how unserious this is as an example of what actual "experts" were thinking? He says the letter is signed by a thousand "doctors" when in fact this group includes "community stakeholders", one person signed it "Art Therapist", some people have no titles at all. I obviously agree that letter was very very dumb, and there was a great deal of hypocrisy on this subject by even specific prominent officials. I also agree with the larger point you make, that experts overstepped their roles by making any suggestions on "what to do" at all. But I think the use of that letter has become a bit of a lazy shorthand for pundits, and it demonstrates the media's own failings in terms of what to promote to the public.
This was a very good episode.
One thing that everyone danced around a bit but I think plays a large role here: The degree to which Twitter enables charlatans to bubble up to the top of the conversations, undermining expertise in general. This is a separate issue than the loss of respect for institutions of expertise and prestige, like WHO, CDC, or universities, but I do think the two things interact. How many times have we seen someone with an MD in their profile post some absurd, scary thing? These posts get amplified, and then over time you get the nagging feeling that MDs are a weird bunch of drama queens.
I'm being a little over-the-top. But, over the past few years, I've been sent so many twitter links by friends justifying why they haven't left the house in 5 months. And, it's always someone with an MD with a 15-tweet-long thread with really scary and, frankly, incorrect statements.
In general, I think it's hard to overestimate the negative effect Twitter has had on the public discourse and perceptions (in general) of public opinion.
Very interested to listen to this--before I comprehensively swore off Twitter for my own mental health, Tom Nichols was a must-read, even though in gentler, saner times, I suspect we would rarely agree about any domestic policymaking.
There is part of this conversation (18:36) where Nichols complains about an open letter signed by about 1000 public health officials that said it was ok to protest. The letter is worse than that, it says it is actively good to protest because racial justice is a public health issue. So, I get the frustration, but 1000 signatures is not a big number. It is very easy to get 1000 people to sign a letter. And who were these people exactly? I encourage people to look at the letter. It is insane to lump this diverse group (some impressive sounding, mostly not) together as "experts" on anything. Aren't "general interest commentators" like Nichols supposed to be able to discern how insignificant that number is? Aren't they supposed to be able to understand how unserious this is as an example of what actual "experts" were thinking? He says the letter is signed by a thousand "doctors" when in fact this group includes "community stakeholders", one person signed it "Art Therapist", some people have no titles at all. I obviously agree that letter was very very dumb, and there was a great deal of hypocrisy on this subject by even specific prominent officials. I also agree with the larger point you make, that experts overstepped their roles by making any suggestions on "what to do" at all. But I think the use of that letter has become a bit of a lazy shorthand for pundits, and it demonstrates the media's own failings in terms of what to promote to the public.