Interesting ‘fact-checker’ the AP pulled … yup.
If you want to see how people respond to a fact check over something that is seemingly trivial (eg about the pseudoscientific term "mass formation psychosis") read the thousands of comments on this AP Fact Check.
There is a massive collective effort to bolster false beliefs. https://t.co/CckU2pufow
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 9, 2022
Ok, so there’s more to his original thread but it’s so boring because he really thinks people are just too stupid to know they’re buying into conspiracy theories because people with large accounts on social media say something and they’re too dumb not to buy it or something.
Hey, he’s the ‘expert’.
We won’t bore you.
But it did get interesitng here:
I woke up to a prominent conspiracy theorists criticizing my fact check on the grounds that I have published research on covid.
To a conspiracy theorist, this is the smoking gun.
Posobiac is known for promoting pizzagate, fake news, and white supremacy https://t.co/X0fOW2i7Zy pic.twitter.com/1CSyn4DMRa
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Because only a conspiracy theorist would think there’s a conflict of interest here.
K.
There’s also this from the AP’s expert:
This is the guy AP used to Fact Check Dr Malone on Mass Formation Psychosis pic.twitter.com/RmotohiTGo
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 10, 2022
What can we do to nudge and encourage and cajole and motivate people to do the right thing?
That sounds sorta mass formation psychosis-y.
Just sayin’.
Hey, even if you don’t always agree with Jack Posobiec this feels like a conflict. That doesn’t make us conspiracy theorists.
Sorry, Jay.
To a conspiracy theorist, denying covid or the efficacy of vaccines is easier to do it you believe that everyone who is following public health guidelines is a "sheep" or part of "mass formation psychosis".
So you can just add this belief on top of your existing conspiracy.
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Recommended
*yawn*
If you get fact checked by experts or non-partisan sources (like the AP or Reuters) you can add them into the conspiracy too!
Eventually you have a complete hot mess of a conspiracy theory and you add my name somewhere between Fauci and the Illuminati https://t.co/O5OAlTeCLU
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Trying to make us think he finds us all laughable for questioning him.
There has to be some sort of psychological term for this, right?
Heh.
These theories are attractive to a certain type of person, people who score higher on the following traits are more attracted to conspiracies:
-Entitlement
-Self-centered impulsivity
-Cold-heartedness
-Depressive moods
-Anxiousness
-Psychoticismhttps://t.co/lgEOF9y8gb— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
So if you doubt this guy you’re basically mental?
K.
But during the pandemic we have found that national narcissism is one of the biggest predictors of the belief and dissemination of covid-related conspiracy theorieshttps://t.co/3TweudjFcd
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
NYU.
Social Identity and Moarlity Lab?
Huh.
He says as he writes an entire thread about the nerve of someone to doubt him.
Funny stuff.
It's important to understand that conspiracy theories are also deeply connected to identities and ideologies.
People operate in social networks to share and foster communities of misinformation. https://t.co/uabLNX9FhB
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
IT’S ALL A PLOT.
In that sense, the spread of conspiracy theories can be understood as a form of political propaganda linked to broader sets of political commitments.
These are actively engaged communities and information is warfare to some of these members.https://t.co/aU6GbrMlHR
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Good gravy, this guy is referencing himself.
Although fact checks work well for certain types of misinformation (and I support them), they don't seem to work as well for conspiracy theorists.
And our recent meta-analysis find that accuracy nudges don't work as well for right-wing participants. https://t.co/H0OM13PGUk
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Unless, of course, he’s the one being fact-checked.
Then it’s all CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
I want to clarify that didn't mean "backfire" in the sense of "the backfire effect".
Fact checks do tend to work for *most* people (see @EthanVPorter's work!)
I meant backfiring in terms of (a) spreading misinformation to more people and (b) eliciting backlash and harassment.
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
Uh huh.
Likewise, when I shared research reporting that conspiracy theories can backfire–this does not imply that fact checks are unhelpful in general.
Rather, it means that conspiracy theory beliefs seem to create a self-fulfilling cycle of negative emotions https://t.co/LfA6SdtLMZ
— Jay Van Bavel (@jayvanbavel) January 10, 2022
We’re not entirely sure how he thinks this somehow negates the conflict of interest we’re seeing here but … ok?
You literally write on contagion. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the fact that books and peer-reviewed articles do, in fact, note the ability for the media to generate mass hysteria, or are you invalidating your own research claims here?
— Scott баба-яга истребительница (@ScottC20012) January 10, 2022
No idea what the Hell he’s doing.
People aren’t buying it. Time to move on. You did your best.
— IrritatedWoman (@irritatedwoman) January 10, 2022
"Fact checkers" are largely to blame for this phenomenon though.
— You Should Have Voted For Jo (@colorblindk1d) January 10, 2022
— Simple man making his way through the galaxy (@ArmyJeepGuy) January 10, 2022
“I only like manipulating people when I do it for my cause” is a bad take. We see you.
— Rain (@Sunshin21176498) January 10, 2022
For example:
— Rain (@Sunshin21176498) January 10, 2022
He wrote the book on it.
You literally wrote about it 🤣 pic.twitter.com/DFPiMdjSHo
— Sebastien Meunier (@sbmeunier) January 10, 2022
But you know, this is all just a conspiracy.
Or something.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member