The mountain of shit theory.
In the last few days, due to a series of coincidences, I found myself delving deeper into the "mountain of shit" theory. This theory, which I wrote in a moment of frustration, was intended to explain why debunking is doomed to fail against fake news. What I have noticed is that, over time, the meaning of my post has been unnecessarily altered and distracted from its central point.
In the original article , albeit in a messy and emotional way, I addressed two main factors. The first concerned the economic aspect and the related costs. What I wanted (and want) to communicate is very simple: anyone who writes nonsense on the Internet only needs a connection and a mobile phone. The costs are relatively low. You might also consider the value of their time, however, if we analyze these people, we will never find the highest paid people in the world. In fact, no one smart enough to earn a fortune would be stupid enough to waste their precious time writing nonsense.
On the contrary, as soon as a controversy breaks out (inevitably?) over the nonsense he says, our charlatan categorically refuses to be contradicted by a simple professional. For example, if the charlatan comments on macroeconomics, an accountant comes along and points out that he doesn't have the slightest understanding of the subject. Even if the accountant has passed an exam on the subject and is more competent than the charlatan, the latter will ALWAYS demand to be proven wrong EXCLUSIVELY by the world's leading expert in that field.
The problem, however, lies in the fact that a single charlatan can talk about fifty different subjects within the same bizarre theory. And one can easily understand that hiring fifty leading experts in such matters would involve a considerable expense. When I say “considerable expense,” I don't simply mean that it will require a lot of effort or that it will be difficult to find them, or that they will have other priorities. No, I choose my words carefully. When I say “considerable expense,” I mean exactly that: costs are the problem.
I repeat this concept because, for example, a well-known YouTuber reinterpreted my thoughts, underlining not the costs, but the time factor. However, this is wrong, dimensionally. Euros and seconds are completely different units of measurement. If the problem was time, considering that the charlatan has 24 hours a day while ten people total 240, the solution would be simple: just have more debunkers than charlatans. However, my point wasn't about time, but about cost. To disprove the charlatan, he and his followers always demand the MOST EXPENSIVE expert in the world (expensive because he is the top expert, of course, but his rate does not change). I repeat: EXPENSIVE.
The youtuber is this:
https://www.facebook.com/barbascurax/photos/a.659684320805117/4061694273937421/?type=3&locale=it_IT
This is a concept I want to explore further, as I have observed similar situations where individuals discussed chemtrails. Opposing them were physicists and aeronautical engineers. However, even if these experts had a solid academic background, the guy in question (and his followers), despite having a modest education, responded to the experts as if they were their equals and always requested further explanations, going so far as to invalidate any opinion that did not come from at least by a Nobel Prize winner. The same dynamic is also found in the case of those who maintain that the Earth is flat. You just need to have a good high school education to challenge them, but if you're not at least Neil Turok, they won't take you into consideration. And Neil Turok has other work priorities.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANYMORE: THE PROBLEM IS ECONOMIC. THE PROBLEM IS COSTS.
Below is a map of the most popular conspiracy theory in the USA. The one that risks bringing to power a president who believes Jews are aliens.
Don't ruin your eyes, the map is so complicated that if you print it in legible characters it becomes the size of a person's torso.
This map involves, to a certain extent, all fields of human knowledge. To completely debunk this theory, as conspiracy theorists demand, you would have to imagine gathering all the top-level experts in every discipline at every university in the world, putting them all together in one room, and confronting them with the charlatan. In addition to the fact that the charlatan would refuse to deal anyway, the main problem with this operation is COSTS. Finding, gathering and remunerating all these experts would involve an enormous expense.
THE CONSPIRACY WINS IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE DUE TO A COSTS PROBLEM. CHEAP.
In the second part of the original post I described the motivations of the charlatan and his sycophants, which I now wish to examine in a more analytical way, with a hint of a Marxist approach. In an economically developed society, well-being is based on the principle of remuneration for competence. Competence. Competence. It is important to remember this expression: remuneration for competence. The methods and levels of remuneration are determined by the labor market, in a specific situation. Nations that have a mercantile, industrial or military vocation will favor different skills. The most competent, and therefore most highly paid, in turn compensate those who have a less remunerated skill: for example, the banker who pays the pizza chef.
When society enjoys economic prosperity, people tend to receive fair compensation for their skills. In this context, trust in competence prevails since it represents a means of social mobility, and there is little dissatisfaction since people have the necessary resources to live. However, what happens when an economic decline begins, as is happening in the contemporary West? Two phenomena manifest themselves.
- trust in competence vanishes because value is no longer recognized, and competent people do not have enough income to share.
- a fierce anger is spreading among those who do not have paid skills towards those who, even if minimally, continue to be paid for their skills.
These two factors are the explosive mixture that fuels the spread of conspiracy theories: distrust in the expertise of scholars and the unexpressed accumulation of anger. However, it is important to emphasize that both of these factors are consequences of economic decline. Mentioning information, education, counterinformation and all the other things I have seen being added to my theory is ineffective. The main fuel is economic decline. The economic factor is not only a force multiplier that allows these theories to spread, but it is also the driving force that pushes charlatans to propagate them and their followers to believe them. These individuals are angry because of their poor conditions and have distrust towards competent people because they do not see competence as a factor of progress for themselves. From this mixture a highly explosive political dynamic is born.
In both cases, the dominant factor is the economic one.
I would like to make this clarification to reorient the debate towards the correct direction: the economic one. Misinformation is a consequence of economic decline and a lack of opportunities for those with skills. If we don't address the issue of economic decline, then these are some of the cultural consequences that come with it. If we continue to consider economic decline acceptable and rename it “degrowth,” it is important to ask ourselves whether we have evaluated the effects it has on culture and politics . Because here's the current situation: The next president of the United States believes that Jews are aliens.
Is this "degrowth" really acceptable?