One simple thing we pointed out in the what to expect when you're electing report for EIP was really embracing experts talking about "how such things usually turn out". I don't think people understand the difference this makes. https://t.co/mWUVCR4Pbz

We value experts b/c they are careful when commenting on things they don't have the full picture on. And that's good. But one thing I've found in my deep dive into the electoral disinformation flows is that expertise arrives *days* after all the disinfoverse explanations go viral
So the expertise that should be making us smarter socially doesn't really help. As I looked through reporting and thought about my own experience being interviewed it occurred to me that so often we're asked "What is this thing likely to be?" and that makes us skittish.
The true answer to "What is this thing likely to be?" is a mess of really dubious percentages requiring lots of inputs. And the uncertainty we express just makes it look like truth might be unknowable. People are bad at comprehending likelihoods.
On the other hand, ask an expert "How have similar things in the past turned out? and you'll not only get a more helpful answer, you'll get a STORY -- a narrative that can actually compete with other narratives.
To make this clear, there is going to be a bunch of accusations this election that poll workers are "filling in ballots" to manufacture votes. Some video will appear of a worker bubbling in something, or a verbal account of that, etc.
Ask experts "Does this look like fraud to you?" -- well, how the heck would they know? Every locality has different processes. The video is likely edited and ambiguous. The context is lost. They can say "Probably not, but I can't tell." Meanwhile the disinfoverse has a NARRATIVE.
Another thing the expert can say is "Well, statistically fraud is rare" & they should say that, but it's woefully insufficient. First, the public's definition of "rare" is what the expert's definition of "significantly frequent" would be. But even more there's no narrative.
What the expert can do, however, is tell the STORY about how down in Florida someone filed an affidavit that there wa a secret back room in a polling place where all the workers were filling out blank ballots and everyone went crazy over this for days. But...
When it was investigated it turned out that it was the common practice by which some military ballots were faxed in from bases and then ballots were made from that since the fax couldn't be fed through the machine.
The process had bipartisan oversight that ensured the ballots matched. The original faxes were preserved for inspection/audit. The entire process was both mundane and full of checks and balances.
Nothing about it was secret or clandestine. Just to someone who doesn't know, things can look odd. So as far as the outrage of the day, the expert can say, I don't really know. But it's stories like that that come to mind and remind me to be patient.
In short, if you want the best from experts in an evolving uncertain situation, stop pulling them into precise analysis and get them to share stories that stick. Don't bring a sliderule to a narrative fight.
(I'll also say I know enough about @RSButner's recent thinking to know he's also talking about methods of engaging on social media that fall outside the scicomm orthodoxy, but I'll save that for another day.)

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R

You May Also Like

क्या आप जानते हैं कि क्या है, पितृ पक्ष में कौवे को खाना देने के पीछे का वैज्ञानिक कारण!

श्राद्ध पक्ष में कौओं का बड़ा ही महत्व है। कहते है कौआ यम का प्रतीक है, यदि आपके हाथों दिया गया भोजन ग्रहण कर ले, तो ऐसा माना जाता है कि पितरों की कृपा आपके ऊपर है और वे आपसे ख़ुश है।


कुछ लोग कहते हैं की व्यक्ति मरकर सबसे पहले कौवे के रूप में जन्म लेता है और उसे खाना खिलाने से वह भोजन पितरों को मिलता है

शायद हम सबने अपने घर के किसी बड़े बुज़ुर्ग, किसी पंडित या ज्योतिषाचार्य से ये सुना होगा। वे अनगिनत किस्से सुनाएंगे, कहेंगे बड़े बुज़ुर्ग कह गए इसीलिए ऐसा करना

शायद ही हमें कोई इसके पीछे का वैज्ञानिक कारण बता सके।

हमारे ऋषि मुनि और पौराणिक काल में रहने वाले लोग मुर्ख नहीं थे! कभी सोचियेगा कौवों को पितृ पक्ष में खिलाई खीर हमारे पूर्वजों तक कैसे पहुंचेगी?

हमारे ऋषि मुनि विद्वान थे, वे जो बात करते या कहते थे उसके पीछे कोई न कोई वैज्ञानिक कारण छुपा होता था।

एक बहुत रोचक तथ्य है पितृ पक्ष, भादो( भाद्रपद) प्रकृति और काक के बीच।

एक बात जो कह सकते कि हम सब ने स्वतः उग आये पीपल या बरगद का पेड़/ पौधा किसी न किसी दीवार, पुरानी

इमारत, पर्वत या अट्टालिकाओं पर ज़रूर देखा होगा। देखा है न?

ज़रा सोचिये पीपल या बरगद की बीज कैसे पहुंचे होंगे वहाँ तक? इनके बीज इतने हल्के भी नहीं होते के हवा उन्हें उड़ाके ले जा सके।