I keep running into this sort of situation where for example (in one of my videos) I’m growing squashes of my own variety that I maintain by saving seeds from one year to the next.
I ALWAYS get people saying stuff like 'OMG you shouldn’t do that! if your squash was cross-pollinated, it will be toxic! U will die!!!"
Behind this is a tiny grain of truth: cucurbits are notoriously promiscuous and will cross with other cucurbits - and if you live in a part of the world where wild bitter gourds grow, there’s a possibility that insects might bring pollen from one of those to your plants, and if you save those cross pollinated seeds, you might get squashes that are bitter and toxic.
BUT: it’s only a risk in that specific circumstance, which doesn’t apply everywhere in the world, and it’s not even a massive risk because the toxicity is not generally lethal (it’s the ‘gastrointestinal distress’ sort of toxicity), AND it is accompanied by bitter flavour, which will put most people off eating the things.
But on the internet, ‘pollination equals death’. Even though pollination is absolutely necessary for the things to set fruit. If your squashes don’t get pollinated, they will wither and fall off before they get as big as your thumb. The nuance of pollination with what is just lost.
Other examples: I open a can of beans and use half - I put a lid on the can and put it in the fridge for use the next day. ‘OMG metal in the fridge is TOXIC U will die the can will drip heavy metals into your food!!!11one1!’
Again, a tiny grain of truth: acidic foods in old fashioned tin-plated cans might corrode a bit at the freshly-cut edge if they the contents are left in the can a long time, in the presence of air etc. not even an issue with most modern cans that are steel lined with plastic - if those corrode, you get some iron in your diet.
I could go on, but the pattern is the same every time; some tiny and very nuanced factoid gets blown up into an absolute and deadly truth that must be breathlessly blurted out in any place where it might even be slightly, tangentially relevant. In some cases, even on articles, videos etc debunking the wildly exaggerated version of the thing, you still get people replying ‘Ummmm… actually…’ and repeating the exact myth that is being debunked right there.
Why is the internet like this? Can anything be done?
No. Any and all exposure to the internet is extremely toxic to your mental health. I recommend avoiding the internet altogether (except for the SDMB, of course).
Humanity is like this. The only way to make the internet not like this is to remove all the humans and let all the dogs use it instead.
The vast bulk of people are both ignorant and stupid. Those are conceptually orthogonal ideas, but there’s a lot of correlation between being high in one and being high in the other. But those folks love to think they’re well-informed and perceptive and able to synthesize correct new ideas from what they think they know. And they luuuurve sharing their insights.
When you give 9 billion people who all suffer from Dunning-Kruger in almost every field of human endeavor a big interconnected typewriter, over-the-top Dunning-Krugerism nearly everywhere nearly all the time is the inevitable result.
Is it all of them? Or is it that an intersection of stupid, ignorant and vociferous is at play, making it seem as loud as the whole world, even though its only a part?
The Dope is exactly like this. People will take any comment to the nth extreme and respond accordingly. And then accuse the original poster of saying that.
Part of the problem is that the internet almost requires first thoughts without thinking. People see a post and put down the first thing that pops into heads, which is usually a black/white answer. And people refuse to consider the possibility that anything they say can be wrong, so they double-down on their nonsense. That’s common even with the people who aren’t ignorant and stupid. Those who are both are far worse.
Nothing can be done. Those who are ignorant and stupid can’t be fought. You have to want to learn.
What I meant was that we’re all Dunning-Kruger candidates about most things. I’m pretty good in my own career areas, you are in yours, but we both are pretty clueless of each others’. etc. Humanity now has so many topic areas to be expert in that darn near everybody is darn near clueless about almost all of them. Despite being ordinarily skilled or even a raging expert in the mere handful of topics relevant to their daily life.
One of the things the internet has done is given everyone a keyboard. All keyboards are created equal. Which has the consequence of helping people to think that all typing is created equal too. My (uninformed) opinion on X is as good as any recognized expert’s opinion on X. After all, we’re both just words on the screen to some random 3rd party observer.
It’s really, IMO, no deeper than that. Everybody is an author and a publisher while nobody is an editor.
A lot of people know a little bit about a lot of things, and they want to be part of the discussion. Far too many of them will double down on that tiny bit of information even when they’re corrected by an expert. And very few people bother to read what others have already said, so they rush in to tell everyone the same thing that’s already been debunked. But they’re taking part in the discussion!
Especially, and in my view almost exclusively, if those “insights” are scary and apocalyptic. So many people seem to love being the bearer of bad news.
I was thinking exactly along these lines. There must be millions of possible topics. If anyone were truly expert in ten unrelated subjects I would be in awe. Having sufficient knowledge about a hundred to be able to comment knowledgeably but not expertly about them is a lifelong learning feat that is also awesome. Sounding good in a casual conversation is the most we can aspire to, and nobody is checking and challenging every word while standing there.
The internet feels like a casual conversation, but it’s a different beast.
I disagree that this is due to stupidity or Dunning-Kruger or anything like that. I’m not entirely sure what it is, but I don’t think it’s that. I see the same thing going on with intelligent people on this board.
I frequently find myself in discussions where I’m fighting against the most extreme take on some position. And sometimes I end up being dragged into it–whoever I’m arguing with takes my position to be more extreme than it is, and if I’m not careful that ends up being the position I take, for the sake of that discussion. Even if it was never meant in the first place.
It’s not exactly strawmanning, but perhaps it comes from a similar source. I don’t think it’s quite as intentional as that. It probably develops naturally unless all participants are careful to reject it.
I don’t really have an answer beyond that people are bad at nuance. They feel like taking a clear stance on some position is the same as ignoring gray areas in favor of black-and-white thinking. I guess intermediate positions are more difficult to defend against and so people disfavor them. You end up arguing against people on all sides of the spectrum, for whatever that spectrum happens to be.
Since I, and the rest of my fellow Doper audience members, cannot tell which of those two keyboards you used, then yes, for the purposes of this conversation they are utterly equal.
IMO … Having used both roll-up rubber keyboards and M-style, I’ll take the roll-up every day. And I started on the ASR-33 then graduated to the IBM 029 and 1050. IMO mechanical clunking is vastly overrated.
You raise an excellent point. Some folks are just stuck in extreme mode and deeply struggle to understand anything except absolute white or absolute black. If they’re whitists and your position is less than fully white then you’re clearly an extreme blackist. Or vice versa. It’s a form of deliberate ignorance, but I agree with your larger point that it springs from a different place in their malformed psyche than mere simple ignorance.
Sorta. IMO lots of people seem to read like this:
They have a cookie cutter idea in their head which is their pre-conceived notion of their POV on [whatever]. They are reading your text by looking through their cookie cutter, comparing the shape of your words to their notion. Any discrepancy, where your words are outside their template, are fair game for attack. They aren't reading for learning. They aren't reading for agreement. They're not even really reading for comprehension. They're reading to spot the gotcha mismatch so they can pounce triumphantly.
Here's a slightly different perspective that maybe combines both of the last two quotes. My late father was a quibbler. If you made an assertion, he'd pick a perspective just a little bit away from that and raise the argument that you were (subtly) wrong and he was (more) right. The sky isn't blue today; it's more cerulean. Etc. Sigh.
His behavior was tiresome in the extreme once I recognized, at about age 12, what was really going on. He needed to be right (IOW more right than you), and if there wasn’t an avenue of legitimate disagreement, he’d invent a trivial / specious one. As was common of lower SES folks back when he was a youth before WW-II, he was smarter than he was educated. And that always bugged him, left him feeling under-armed in a battle of knowledge. Even with 1960s middle-school me. So he’d invent ways to “win”.
Sometimes that manifests here as No True Scotsman arguments. At other times, as @Dr.Strangelove referred to, it shows up as taking a crabbed and artificial interpretation of someone’s position seemingly just to have something to disagree with.
But if you’re just growing your own variety of squash, there shouldn’t be a problem unless your neighbors are growing squashes too, and the whole lot of you are risking Toxic Squash Death.*
*didn’t Poirot investigate The Case of The Fatal Vegetable Marrow? Or was that The Case of the Curious Courgette?
**you could tell your Internet critics that you only grow squash in a positive pressure greenhouse where no external pollen can penetrate.
I suspect you are not serious, but lying to accommodate the delusions of the ill-informed is the last thing any of us should do. “Thanks, I know what I’m doing” should suffice.
Right. And I’d say there are active and passive forms of this. The passive version is that you get slotted into some generic anti version of the viewpoint, and you have spend time saying “no, I don’t believe all those other things, I’m just arguing against these particular unsupported statements.” The active version is less common but much more like strawmanning, where it feels like you’re being railroaded into taking positions that other “antis” take, often with a moral element as well (“you’re just defending horrible entity X”, “people who believe Y have these horrible beliefs Z, how can you agree with them?”). It can get very tedious.
