User:IrrationalBeing/sandbox/Denying to the Grave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us is a 2016 psychology and science book by writers Sara and Jack Gorman. The book illustrates themes such as irrational thinking, the psychology of decision making and risk perception. They explain what common elements are to conspiracy theories, the role of charismatic leaders in influencing public perception of an issue (regardless of it having a scientific basis or not) and presents suggestions for both the general public and science communicators in how to communicate with the former. A second edition of the book was published in 2021. This version includes elements from the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic.

Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us
EditorSarah Harrington
AuthorsSara E. Gorman, Jack M. Gorman
Audio read byRosemary Benson
LanguageEnglish
GenreClinical Psychology
PublisherOxford University Press
Publication date
September 1, 2016
Pages328
ISBN978-0199396603
OCLC965119292
362.1
LC Class2020054637

Background[edit]

Dr. Sara E. Gorman (PhD, MPH) is a public health expert. Dr. Gorman is the CEO of Critica, a community described as "committed to making rational decisions about health and safety".[1]

Her father Dr. Jack M. Gorman was Professor and Chair of Psychiatry and Professor of Neuroscience at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and on the faculty of Columbia University's Department of Psychiatry for more than two decades.[2] He is too a member of Critica, serving as the president, chair and co-founder.

Summary[edit]

The book opens with a comparison between the public reaction to the 2014 Ebola virus in the USA and the 2019 COVID-19 pandemic. In the first case, the authors argue, the death of Thomas Eric Duncan (the first patient to be diagnosed with the disease in the United States) and the diagnose of four other people prompted a national overreaction which led some people to engage in irrational behaviors. For instance, many people chose to drive a personal car instead of relying on public transportation, for fear of being infected with Ebola. However, the likelihood of an car accident was presented at 1,500 times greater than the chance of catching the virus (estimated using data presented in a NPR article).[3]

In contrast, the COVID-19 pandemic (with its first US reported case in 2020 and millions more throughout the year)[4][5] caused many people to dismiss the reports as exaggerated,[6] fake[7] or politicized.[8]

The authors comment on the two differences stating that in the first case, the population irrationally perceived something that was not a major threat. By comparison, the COVID-19 was downplayed due in part to conspiratorial thinking, which could have put people at risk.

Refuting non-evidence based hypothesis or beliefs might be possible with more studies, with some people becoming rather creative in dismissing them. In the US theater, political polarization might play a role in the refutation of evidence even when the data is correct.

Conspiracy theories[edit]

Further information: Conspiracy_theory

Common points[edit]

The victim mentality[edit]

One of the perceived characteristics of the antiscience charismatic leaders is displayed in presenting themselves as the victims of conspiracies with a higher degree of morality. The authors present research showing a correlation between people who believe in conspiracy theories and their willingness to conspire if given the opportunity.[9]

Sense of powerlessness[edit]
Fear exploiting mistrust and disillusionment with science[edit]
Preying on the vulnerable[edit]
Emotions manipulation[edit]

Characteristics[edit]

  • Cascade logic: an ever increasing amount of people involved in the conspiracy.[10]
  • Exaggerated claims of the power of the conspirators: a given example is the power of drug companies allegedly involved in the production of vaccines (wrongly) perceived as causing autism, capable of hiding the results from independent scientists and government regulatory bodies.[11]
  • The lone scientific voice in the wilderness:

Charismatic leaders[edit]

The book presents several examples of people leading or which at least had a remarkable impact for the spread of different beliefs.

Peter Duesberg[edit]

Peter H. Duesberg is a molecular biologist, known for being a proponent of the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. Duesberg's scientific accomplishments include a PhD in chemistry and work in cancer research. In 1996 he published the book Inventing the AIDS Virus, which presented several conspiracy theories about why AIDS is not caused by HIV. The authors note that a strategy employed by Duesberg which helps the proliferation of his ideas are due to the sheer volume, and publishing of his work by "fringe journals". Moreover, Duesberg's writing might be perceived as information given to readers as "insider information".

Andrew Wakefield[edit]

Andrew Wakefield

Jenny McCarthy[edit]

Jenny McCarthy

Gilles-​Eric Séralini[edit]

Gilles-​Eric Séralini

Wayne LaPierre[edit]

Wayne LaPierre

Joseph Mercola[edit]

Joseph Mercola

Donald Trump[edit]

Donald Trump

Confirmation bias[edit]

Causality[edit]

Avoidance of complexity[edit]

Risk perception and probabilities[edit]

Style[edit]

Analysis[edit]

Publication[edit]

A revised and updated edition was made available in September 2021.[12]

Reception[edit]

In his review from May 2018, Christopher Boyle of the University of Exeter praised the book calling it "engaging and illuminating".[13]

In September 2020, Farah Tabaja and John Bonetti published an online article for the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law praising the book for being easy and enjoyable to read, as well as for offering strategies and compelling rhetoric for experts.[14]

Heather Ganshorn wrote a review for the University of Alberta Library calling the book "an excellent guide to the landscape of irrational health beliefs and decisions", criticizing however some topics as either too complicated for the reader (regarding a movement opposed to electroconvulsive therapy) or perceiving them as "one-sided" (citing the controversies of genetically modified organisms and anti-nuclear positions, making the points that there are legitimate concerns about the ethics of GMO and safety of nuclear power plants, not acknowledged in the book).[15]

In March 2022, Udayan K. Shah, writing in the Journal of Medical Regulation, suggests that the book offers a "clarion call" to medical professionals to engage with the public, the media, and the government with informed approaches that present data and do not ignore human emotions.[16]

See also

Further reading[edit]

  • Robson, David, The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes, W. W. Norton & Company, 2019. Extends an important point made in the introduction: how intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with immunity to conspiracy theories or non-scientific thought.

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "About". Critica. Retrieved 2023-08-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD | Psychology Today". www.psychologytoday.com. Archived from the original on 2023-08-04. Retrieved 2023-08-04.
  3. ^ Doucleff, Michaeleen (2014-10-23). "What's My Risk Of Catching Ebola?". npr. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2023-08-04.
  4. ^ Johndrow, James; Ball, Patrick; Gargiulo, Maria; Lum, Kristian (2020-11-23). "Estimating the Number of SARS-CoV-2 Infections and the Impact of Mitigation Policies in the United States". Harvard Data Science Review (Special Issue 1). doi:10.1162/99608f92.7679a1ed. ISSN 2644-2353.
  5. ^ Holshue, Michelle L.; DeBolt, Chas; Lindquist, Scott; Lofy, Kathy H.; Wiesman, John; Bruce, Hollianne; Spitters, Christopher; Ericson, Keith; Wilkerson, Sara; Tural, Ahmet; Diaz, George; Cohn, Amanda; Fox, LeAnne; Patel, Anita; Gerber, Susan I. (2020-03-05). "First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States". New England Journal of Medicine. 382 (10): 929–936. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001191. ISSN 0028-4793. PMC 7092802. PMID 32004427.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  6. ^ Romer, Daniel; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2020-10-01). "Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S." Social Science & Medicine. 263: 113356. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356. ISSN 0277-9536. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14.
  7. ^ Carrion-Alvarez, Diego; Tijerina-Salina, Perla X. (2020-11-07). "Fake news in COVID-19: A perspective". Health Promotion Perspectives. 10 (4): 290–291. doi:10.34172/hpp.2020.44. ISSN 2228-6497. PMC 7722992. PMID 33312921. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  8. ^ Calvillo, Dustin P.; Ross, Bryan J.; Garcia, Ryan J. B.; Smelter, Thomas J.; Rutchick, Abraham M. (2020-07-22). "Political Ideology Predicts Perceptions of the Threat of COVID-19 (and Susceptibility to Fake News About It)". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 11 (8): 1119–1128. doi:10.1177/1948550620940539. ISSN 1948-5506. Archived from the original on 2023-05-12.
  9. ^ Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (2011). "Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire: Conspiracy theories". British Journal of Social Psychology. 50 (3): 544–552. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x.
  10. ^ Gorman, Sara E.; Gorman, Jack M. (2016). Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Science that Will Save Us (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0199396603.
  11. ^ Gorman, Sara E.; Gorman, Jack M. (2016). Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Science that Will Save Us (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 59–60. ISBN 978-0199396603.
  12. ^ "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Science That Will Save Us, Revised and Updated Edition". Oxford University Press. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2023-08-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  13. ^ Boyle, Christopher (2018-05-01). "Book review: Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us". Psychologist. 31. British Psychological Society: 79. ISSN 0952-8229. Archived from the original on 2021-04-16.
  14. ^ Tabaja, Farah; Bonetti, John (2020-09-01). "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 48 (3): 416–418. doi:10.29158/JAAPL.200055-20. ISSN 1093-6793. Archived from the original on 2023-02-06.
  15. ^ Ganshorn, Heather (2017-08-01). "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts that Will Save Us". Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l'Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. 38 (2): 51–52. doi:10.5596/c17-011. ISSN 1708-6892. Archived from the original on 2022-03-12.
  16. ^ Shan, Udayan K. (2022-05-10). "Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us". Journal of Medical Regulation. 108 (1): 45–47. doi:10.30770/2572-1852-108.1.45. eISSN 2572-1852. ISSN 2572-1801. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2023-08-04. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-06-01 suggested (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:IrrationalBeing/sandbox/Denying_to_the_Grave&oldid=1174147885"