But capitalism isn't a problem

The corpo propaganda is working.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Corporations own the media, not scientists.

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.

• people are very stupid and gullible, on average, and groups of people even moreso
• business people have (or are) marketing people, which is effectively the discipline of socially engineering people to buy your shit

Business leaders tell people what they want to hear, scientists typically bring bad news.

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.

What kind of scientists? Natural scientists, or social scientists? Cuz both are horrible, but one's significantly more horrifying than the other.

Edit: I apologise for the misunderstanding. English is not my first language. What I meant was that if people would trust businesspeople over natural scientists in matters of social issues, that is already bad, but if people would trust businesspeopls over social scientists in matters of social issues, that's a significantly worse judgement to make.

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.

this sounds like restating the title rather than supporting it

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.

* study financed by the fascist businessmen

People are emotionally driven. Everyone is, to an extent. Scientists are less likely to use that to support their point, or they'll have emotionally displeasing things to say.

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.

Why are "natural scientists" horrible?

because scientists are autistic and businesss men are sociopaths

Zero surprise for me. Capitalist media constantly promotes rich people as honest sources of information... and these are the same people constantly attacking science.

• https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-228-billionaires-as-insta-experts-how-our-media-conflates-extreme-wealth-with-expertise-c9ebbabc4863
• https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-silicon-valley-patronage-how-to-subtly-drift-right-and-the-new-conservative-media-ecosystem

Rich people own and run the media. That's just one thing that's wrong with them.

Business leaders: "Our product is going to murder humanity."

Where does it say this is limited to capitalist societies?

Where is a society not capitalist?

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.

So it's ALL societies, except fantasy ones?

I'm not going to reply to that. 🤣🤣🤣

I think the people of this country have had enough of experts

Michael Gove

Eh… shitty people exist outside of the United States. We just happen to be very loud about it.

Take, for example, the British. They’re huge assholes, too. Have been for centuries. And everyone hated them the most long before we Americans came along. And, of course, it makes total sense that our country is one of their offspring, so to speak. Funny how the Canadians turned out to be so polite. The jury is still out on the Australians…

People who study how to convince people are more trusted than people trained to talk in technical jargon about specific fields. Shocker there.

Yeah I mean, I don't disagree. I was just taken aback that they mentioned "natural scientists"

You can't even see that everyone is dismissing you from how absurd you sound?

I pity you.

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.

Not really sure what that has to do with my comment.

On a side note Australians are known to be racist cunts. New Zealander's are by accounts the equivalent of Canadians

That one is for investors in the ponzi scheme. Don't forget 'your self driving car will earn taxi fare while you sleep' and 'AI will usher in the 3-day work week'.

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.

Source

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.

I always have my poles reversed on these types of stories.

Canadian politeness is founded on ignoring the genocide at home.

The Australian jury has gone down to the pub.

Absolutely. All the Parkinsons cases from people who've lived next to agricultural land and golf courses, all from 'safe' products.

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.

50% Aspie supremacist nonsense, 50% truth.

Australians are the Gen X of the world, a bunch of cunts, best ignored.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. What I meant was that if people would trust businesspeople over natural scientists in matters of social issues, that is already bad, but if people would trust businesspeopls over social scientists in matters of social issues, that's a significantly worse judgement to make.

I completely agree.

I'm a scientist, can confirm.

they are stupid and don't even believe basic history like palestine for the last 150 years

It's that but not just that.

Notice people paying attention to actors and musicians on social subjects, even though the domain expertise of those people is acting and music respectivelly, not sociology.

(You can even see it here in Lemmy: some actor or other says something on a social subject somebody agrees with and they make a post here about it, under which tons of people write about how they totally agree and it's so good that said person talked about it. If anybody points out "they're an actor, not a domain expert" they're assumed to be of an opposite opinion, even of an opposite political side)

I think there is a broader problem of people's trust on certain subjects being far more highly positivelly correlated with the fame of the advice/opinion giver than with domain expertise.

Your point about rich people does dovetail with this - rich people are often treated as celebrities by the media.

PS: Also there are a bunch of interesting effects around this - for example the more somebody's opinion on something is talked about on the media, even negativelly, the more they are perceived as having a relevant opinion on that subject (the so-called "Halo Effect").

Never let businessmen discuss social issues.

Can we even trust the polls themselves?

My brother has Aspergers.

And I can tell you he is 100% superior to you.

Nobody is making any kind of valid argument that this would be different in a non capitalist society.

Because they cannot.
Else they should admit that what they consider better than capitalism have the exact same problems, if not worse, that simply are shown in a different way. Or just totally hidden.