The shit mountain theory.
In recent days, due to a series of coincidences, I have found myself delving into the theory of the "mountain of shit". This theory, which I wrote in a moment of frustration, was meant 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 subtly altered and taken away 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. One could 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 make 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 talks about 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 claim to be denied EXCLUSIVELY by the world's leading expert in that field.
The problem, however, lies in the fact that a single charlatan can talk, within the same bizarre theory, about fifty different subjects. And it can easily be understood that hiring fifty top experts in these matters would involve a considerable expense. When I say “considerable expense,” I don't just mean that it will require a lot of effort or be difficult to find, or that they will have other priorities. No, I choose my words carefully. When I say “substantial expense,” I mean just that: cost is the problem.
I repeat this concept because, for example, a well-known youtuber has reinterpreted my thinking, emphasizing not the costs, but the time factor. However, that is wrong, dimensionally. Euros and seconds are completely different units of measure. If the problem were 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, it was about cost. To prove the quack wrong, he and his followers always request the MOST EXPENSIVE expert in the world (expensive because he's the top expert, of course, but his fee doesn't 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 aeronautical physicists and 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 demanded further explanations, going so far as to invalidate any opinion that did not come from at least one Nobel laureate. The same dynamic is also found in the case of those who argue that the Earth is flat. You just need a good high school education to contest them, but if you're not at least Neil Turok, they won't consider you. And Neil Turok has other business priorities.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT: THE PROBLEM IS ECONOMIC. THE PROBLEM IS THE COSTS.
Below is a map of the hottest conspiracy theory in the US. The one that risks bringing to power a president who believes Jews are aliens.
Don't hurt your eyes, the map is so complicated that if you print it in legible type it becomes the size of a person's torso.
This map involves, to some extent, all fields of human knowledge. To completely debunk this theory, as requested by conspiracy theorists, 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 the charlatan. Besides the fact that the charlatan would refuse to confront anyway, the main problem with this operation is COSTS. Finding, assembling and remunerating all these experts would be an enormous expense.
THE PLOT WINS THE PUBLIC DEBATE ON A COST ISSUE. 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 expertise. 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 the highest paid, in turn compensate those who have a less remunerated competence: for example, the banker who pays the pizza maker.
When society enjoys economic prosperity, people tend to receive fair remuneration for their skills. In this context, trust in competence prevails as it represents a means of social mobility, and there is little dissatisfaction as people have the resources to live. However, what happens when an economic decline sets in, as is happening in the contemporary West? Two phenomena manifest themselves.
- confidence in competence fades as they are no longer valued, and competent do not have enough income to share.
- 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: mistrust in the skills of scholars and the accumulation of unexpressed anger. However, it is important to underline that both of these factors are consequences of the economic decline. Mentioning information, education, counterinformation, and all the other things I've seen added to my theory is ineffective. The main fuel is economic decline. The economic factor is not only a multiplier of forces that allows these theories to spread, but it is also the driving force that pushes the charlatans to propagate them and their followers to believe them. These individuals are angry because of their poverty and distrust competent people because they do not see competence as a factor of progress for themselves. From this mixture arises a highly explosive political dynamic.
In both cases, the dominant factor is the economic one.
I would like to make this clarification to redirect the debate in the correct direction: the economic one. Disinformation is a consequence of economic decline and 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 follow. If we continue to consider economic decline acceptable and rebrand 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 US president believes Jews are aliens.
Is this “degrowth” really acceptable?