Conspiratorial networks? I'm not wasting my time reading research which is probably entirely intentionally incorrect conspiracy theories that people believe. Might was well have done research into whether people believe Gone With The Wind was actual history. Reading the research is not necessary because of the framing. The framing makes the research useless for truth seeking.
The idea here is exactly what you say, belief in authority because science people spend time on it. Essentially this is science as religion. Which was exactly my point.
The dichotomy of conspiracy theory / not conspiracy theory is semantic poison. This entire article is reinforcement. Do you see it?
Are you the kind of person who believes convincing sounding research from an Ivy League school posted on social media and wikipedia articles? Is your epistemology based in socialmediaism?
Dude has a mildly traumatic experience in a high pressure environment at which he pushed through, and you respond with toxicity and name calling? This is not OK behavior for an adult. Do better.
I would love to, but this is the wrong forum. This is going to sound weird if you understand these events purely literally, but me and you are ideologically aligned, but not dialectically aligned. There is a much greater truth to this entire situation.
Been using this in our Workplace account. Most people don't like it because they are luddites, but I absolutely love the summaries for those multi-week 50 email threads. Also the ability to quickly insert an absurdly overly formal response to a simple request as a joke is amusing.
I do wish it had the ability to respond to emails for me though with a prompt.
My statement was intended to alleviate the tension caused by semantic dissonance that was created by the authoritative title and the the authors statement that this is an editorial opinion.
The Economist is a European publication owned by Italian owners of Fiat, Rothschilds, and other British families. This article is attributed to "Leaders" which means it is an editorial position of the publication.
The idea here is exactly what you say, belief in authority because science people spend time on it. Essentially this is science as religion. Which was exactly my point.